Bob beat me to it but yes, it's funny how on a throwin - an airborne A2 can or cannot trigger a violation based on tipping or "catch and pass" to a backcourt A3 player.

Too bad the rules cannot be written that show the backcourt/frontcourt line does not even exist until there is TC "on the floor".

Yes, that is a key principle...but that doesn't mean we need to have FC/BC line in effect until the player lands.

Should the IB/OOB line also not be in effect until the player lands as well?

I wouldn't be opposed to that. It will never happen, though.

Or, one could ask, should the lane lines be in effect on a throw-in as well?

There are different areas on the court and they don't all need to be treated the same.

I'd say no. OOB lines are part of every play. All other lines are situational.

Bob...your thinking on this is? During throw ins? Example?

Irrelevant.

Why?

Because a player jumping from OOB will have committed a violation as soon as they touch the ball no matter if it was tipped or not and without regard to where they land.

A player, A1, jumping from thier FC to catch a throwin and landing in their backcourt may or may not be guilty of a violation depending on whether another player first touched the ball or not....as in a defender getting a fingertip on the ball just before A1 catches the ball.

The rule SHOULD be that the exception would apply until a team gains control of the ball (not just until the throwin ends)....and if such control is gained by an airborne player, that player is allowed a normal landing. I'm less inclined to make any argument that the exception should apply through a catch/pass to a teammate in the backcourt.

The only reason I asked this question was to respond to your comment about the principle of player location not applying to a backcourt violation until a player lands. To me that's just another exception we would need to remember.

Fwiw, I don't particularly like the throw-in exception; I would prefer all throw-ins be handled with all the normal player location and team control/player control rules in effect. But the committee decided to add the TI exception and the "good defense" exception to the backcourt violation. Ok. At least they kept other aspects in place - the TI exception ends when the TI ends. That's what makes this play easy enough for me - there's no additional "exceptions" to remember.

And I would prefer the exception apply to all situations in which team control is established by an airborne player, regardless of wether it's during a throwin, jump ball, or defensive play.

Perhaps a better way to write such a rule, rather than exceptions to the backcourt violation, would be to say that a the existance of a FC and BC for a team do not exist until there is player control by a player in contact with the floor inbounds. That would take care of all of the exceptions at the same time.

On initial review, that sounds good to me. I'd have to think about it some more though, to see if there are any other unintended consequences.

In the meantime, just use your influence over various members of the committee to get this under consideration.

Clarification on rule
 

It would best if the rules would say that during a throw in there is no backcourt nor front court until team control is established. When the player jumped, he was not in the front court because there was no front court nor backcourt since there was no team control when he left the floor.. So, while in the air, he can land anyplace and pass anyplace. The same would apply to a defender. He could jump in the air, catch the ball, while in the air and pass to a teammate that was defending in what would be their backcourt.

This would not apply to someone jumping in from out of bounds. OOB is always OOB.

The only problem with wording it this way is you still have the issue of player location. Ok, so there was no FC/BC when the player jumped, before they caught the inbounds pass. But once they caught the pass, there is now team control, therefore there is now a FC and BC. Since the player location, while in the air, is the same as where they last touched, there is team control, their last location was the FC, and they will be the first to touch in the BC when they land.

That's why Camron added the caveat of no FC or BC existing until there is team control <B>on the floor</B>.

His idea could also work if you if you go with the thinking that since FC/BC didn't exist at the time of the jump, the placed jumped from was not FC or BC....but just inbounds.

True, but how would you specifically word that in the rules? How would you change the wording of player location to accomodate that? A player's location would be changing in midair, so you would have to include another exception of some sort. "A player's location in the air is the same as where they last touched the floor. An exception would be in the case of a throw-in, where a player who catches the ball in the air would only be considered to have inbounds status, with no front court or backcourt, whereas a player who catches the ball on the ground would have immediate front court or backcourt status, except on the second Tuesday of each week... (Ok, see why they don't have me writing rules?)

It just seems as though your idea of FC/BC not existing until there is team control on the floor seem a little cleaner to word, and wouldn't involve exceptions.

Wait a minute, am I arguing for your point, and you're arguing against your point? :D