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

[CMHCoachNRef]

I was unaware how old some of the people on this board actually are when I posed the initial question.

The answer I was actually shooting for was pointed out by eg-italy. Per the site in eg's post, back in 1933, "The ten-second center or midcourt line was introduced to cut down on stalling. That meant the team with the ball had to advance it over the center line within ten seconds of taking possession."

Dating back over 75 years now, the intent of the division line was to cut down on stalling. Not only did a team have a limited amount of time to advance the ball past mid-court, they could only use half of the court after advancing the ball past mid-court.

Now, fast forward 75 years. We have a number of situations that result in violations that actually have nothing to do with this original intent of the rule. Nearly every single one of these situations creates an uproar from the offending team's coach accompanied by, in many cases, a sheepish grin (thinking that their team just received a gift) from the opposing team.

The situations include:
1. the "last touch-first-touch" violation,
2. the "defensive tip ends the exception" on the throw-in near the division line violation discussed in another thread,
3. the player jumps from the front court and lands in the back court.

The last one is better understood than the first two, but once again, none of these situations relate to the secondary intent of the "division line" back in 1933.

Whenever our crew makes a "last-touch-first-touch" call, we ALWAYS end up with a coach screaming "the ball was tipped." Of course, we merely indicate that the tip was irrelevant (and refer the coach to 9-9-1 of the rules book).

We then have the exceptions when the player is from the team not in team control:
1. Defensive player on a steal,
2. on the tip,
3. on a throw-in (exception ends on the tip by the defense or offense*).

So, is this a problem worthy of a change in rules? I am not sure. But, just for fun, if a rule change would be made, what would the change be to make the rule easier to enforce, easier to understand and easier to explain?

If the 1933 intent of the rule is used, perhaps a change to indicate that player control with both feet and the ball in the front court must be established for the ball to obtain front court status (this would eliminate the need for the exceptions in 9-9-3). Then, anytime the ball is touched by the defense, the ball would not be considered to have front court status again until player control with both feet and the ball in the front court would be attained (this would eliminate the "last-touch-first-touch").

Simple description that is easy to understand and explain.

I am sure that many of you will feel that the current rules, while not easy to explain, are just fine.

Thoughts?