Backcourt or not
 

A1 throw in from front court, ball deflected by B1 in A's front court, bounces in front court and is caught by A2 who is standing in A's back court. Ball never bounced in backcourt. Is this a violation?

Assuming you're asking under NF rules, then no, it's not. Any other questions?

This question is not as simplistic as it first appears.
Most of us would say that this play is not a violation, and the reason is that Team A never established control in the frontcourt.

However, if one follows Situation 10 from the NFHS Interps a couple of years ago (2007-08), then an argument can be made that the ball was controlled while it had frontcourt status. I believe that is wrong and that Situation 10 is a bogus ruling, but it was an official NFHS ruling.

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 10: A1, in the team's frontcourt, passes to A2, also in the team's frontcourt. B1 deflects the ball toward Team A's backcourt. The ball bounces only in Team A's frontcourt before crossing the division line. While the ball is still in the air over Team A's backcourt, but never having touched in Team A's backcourt, A2 gains possession of the ball while standing in Team A's backcourt. RULING: Backcourt violation on Team A. Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status. Had A2 permitted the ball to bounce in the backcourt after having been deflected by B1, there would have been no backcourt violation. (4-4-1; 4-4-3; 9-9-1)

Simple Simon ...
 

It is simple, in this particular case, because it occurs after a throwin. The "infamous" Situation 10 that you have cited refers to a ball being passed between teammates in the frontcourt, which, as you have described, is not as simple as it first appears.

Hey. You're interfering with Nevada's capacity to identify a cloud in every silver lining. :D

There is no such thing in the rules as "after a throwin." It's either during a throwin, or it's not. In the OP, the throwin is over, so it's not during a throwin.

Nevada is right, the same logic used by the FED in the interp would lead one to call this a violation.

Stupid, but true.

While I understand yours and Nevada's reasoning, I still am missing the one point that Billy brings up: when is team control established?

When it is caught.

Now shut up.

:D

So, you agree there's no violation, right? I understand though, you're probably recovering from having to be in Wisconsin over the weekend...

Good point, and I keep seeing Penny Marshall in my head singing a Disney song.

And I agree there's no violation, but I also question whether the establishment of team control would constitute the last touch in the FC or the first touch in the BC based on the dreaded interp; or persuant to the interp, if it would constitute both.

Too bad, sounds serious. Take 2 bratwurst and call me in the morning.

The difference between this sitch and the interp is in this sitch, team control is only first established in the back court. The interp has team control already established in the front court before the ball goes to the back court. The wording in the interp even mentions, "Team A was still in team control and caused the ball to have backcourt status."

Good point. But the rest of the interp renders that little portion meaningless, I think. I'm fairly certian the committee would issue an interp or case play confirming it as not a violation; but the confusion inspired by their ill-considered interp gives cause to wonder. None of us would have predicted that interp, either.

I'm not a big fan of the interp either, but I don't think it has any bearing on the OP's sitch. In the interp, I think what they're trying to say is A2's touch in the back court satisfies two requirements for the violation - it gives the ball both back court status and makes A2 the "first to touch in the back court" at the same time. It also specifically mentions team control has already been established. In the case of the throw-in, team control is only established once the ball is caught in the back court. Even using the interp, the ball has front court status from the bounce, A is also the first to touch in the back court, but team control is never established until A caught it, in the back court.

I'm going off of memory here, but I recall that based on the rule, in order for the interp to work, the player catching the ball in the backcourt has to be both the first to touch the ball in the backcourt (obvious) and the last to touch it in the FC, thus causing it to go into the BC. If the 2 are not mutually exclusive, then the group who wrote the interp are capable of determining the OP to be a violation.

I would hate to explain to a coach that if A2 had only let the ball bounce it would not be a violation.

Would this change anything? Same but B1 knocks the ball off A3 who is in the frontcourt. A1 in backcourt catches the ball in air, after the ball bounces in the back/ or in the front then bouce again in the back.

ugh. maybe too much craziness. Honestly, official rule or not I just might let it slide.