Is this the one?

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.