You sir, are a model of consistency. :D

Interps are not rules, yet are rules. Discuss. :D

If B intercepts the ball in A's frontcourt and throws a bullet towards B's frontcourt for a break-away, but A-1 leaps high into the air a step in front of the division line (in A's frontcourt), and then falls or lands in A's backcourt from the momentum of the leap, isn't that a backcourt violation on A? Exactly same as the interp--the exception being a deflected touch by B, instead of a pass. Either way, A-1, regardless of where he catches the ball, is the last to touch it in A's frontcourt and when he touches down in A's backcourt, it is a violation. I think the interp is 100% correct.....IMHO....

Anybody Got Any Aspirin ???
 

How many times do we have to go through this? Don't you all have a turkey to defrost, or some yams to candy, or some berries to cran?

You don't make it clear when the A player gains possession of the ball, but if it is when he is airborne, then no, it is not a violation. An airborne player of the team not in possession is allowed to jump from the front court, catch the ball in the air and land in the backcourt. 9-9-3 is your reference.

Is he though? I don't think he is as he is located in the backcourt. The touch occurs in the backcourt.

Um, no, it's not a violation because there's a clear exemption for a defensive player to be able to catch the ball in the air and land in the BC. Otherwise it would be a violation, but not for the reason you cite. It would be a violation because he held the ball with FC status and landed in the BC. The scenario you're looking for is for a player holding the ball with both feet in the FC, who then pivots into the BC.

The applicable rule for the play in the interp says the team must be the last to touch the ball "before" it went into the BC. The ball gained BC status at the moment it touched A2, and the last person to touch it before that was B. No violation.

I feel the same way about a certain case play.

No. B1 intercepted, threw a pass...who now has team control?
A1 cannot commit a BC violation without team control.

Please analyze the following play with consideration to the interp:

A1 is holding the ball and standing on the 3pt line in his backcourt. He throws a pass towards A2 who has a similar position in Team A's frontcourt. However, B1 jumps from the center restraining circle just inside Team A's frontcourt and bats the pass back towards A1 who catches the ball. The ball never touches the floor and neither A1 nor A2 move during the play.

No BC violation. A never had TC in the frontcourt. Since B1's tap does not end TC, continue the 10-second count. ;)

Actually, A had team control, and the ball did have front court status when B1 tapped it.

Oh c'mon.

Wait -- I just noticed the smiley.

Nevermind.

Excellent point. This scenario is fundamentally the same as the controversial OP stitch. There is no way I would ever call Nevada’s scenario a back court violation (Not unless I get hazard pay). However, it adheres to the same principals as the OP sitch, which by interpretation is a BC violation according to the feds. I have been in the camp of not calling that particular BC violation because the reasoning in the interp didn’t seem strong enough. Now, after looking at it from the point of view presented by Nevada, I feel even stronger that the OP sitch is an improper interpretation of back court.

When Irish Eyes Are Smiley ...
 

I missed the smiley the first time. I had to read it several times because mbyron is usually pretty reliable with his interpretations, citations, and opinions. I was going to reply with a corection, but M&M Guy beat me to the punch.

What do you call here?