OK, the second reason for the "division line" is....

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

SamIAm,
To clarify, IF the offense touches the ball in the back court after the ball has been tipped into the back court, it would be a back court violation. This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket. If the offense touches the ball first, it is a violation. No need for your second scenario to occur as the situation can already occur today when the ball is simply sent into the back court by the offense without a defensive tip. Now, any other "why nots?" (damn punctuations)....

The rule you proposed included "why not say if the defense can cause the ball to go into the back court it is a violation?". I understand the limitations we have here to communicate, but that is what you wrote.

This is NO DIFFERENT than the play in which the ball is passed directly to the back court by the offense. If the defense gets the ball, they can attack the basket. No they can't, the official judged the ball to be in the BC, it is a violation per your suggestion.

You didn't address rougher defense. No other why not's needed until you address that. However, I will provide two anyway. 1) Ball inbounded near the division line would put IB team at a new dis-advantage (Post T inbounds play for example). 2) Passes from A1 with a question of BC/FC status is batted into A's backcourt. Where was A1 FC or BC? Important as batted pass into backcourt = violation. Same problems with different judgement.