I'm no english major either...I prefer words less than four syllables.

PC in the FC is not required for a violation. The committee made it clear that the change is only intended to affect whether FTs are shot on fouls.

The new team control rule itself does not specifically affect the backcourt violation, because the throw-in does not originate in frontcourt or backcourt. It originates out of bounds.

9-9-1: A player shall not be the first to touch the ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt.....

That's a sloppy way of trying to make the BC rule stay the same in light of the TC rule change.

As Nevada pointed out, this change in wording affects plays that were violations under the old wording, and the committee made it clear their intent was not to change the BC rule.

Confused ???
 

Team A has team control in their backcourt. A1, dribbling, has player control in the backcourt. A1 throws a pass ahead to A2, who is in the frontcourt, and who is not expecting the pass. The passed ball hits A2 in the back of the head (thus, he is neither holding, nor, is he dribbling the ball, so no player control), the ball bounces off of A2's head, bounces into the backcourt, and the ball is picked up by A3, who is now holding the ball.

According to just another ref's definition above, this is not a backcourt violation.

Man, I'm confused, and I haven't even started my weekend "bender".

While that IS what the rule says, they NFHS has also stated that the only effect of the new rule is to be whether you shoot FTs or not when a foul occurs during a throwin. They have, once again, create a rule change that, as written, means something entirely different than what they say it is suppose to do.

Okay, I should have written "the new wording of the rule (9-9-1) requires both PLAYER and TEAM control" as there is no "new" rule, the NFHS simply changed existing ones.

The exact text of the NFHS in the front of the new case book is "The change primarily affects how foul penalties will be administered." Clearly "primarily" is not "exclusively" so the NFHS does allow for other implications of these changes. One of those is the impact upon backcourt violations.
Please see 4.12.2 Situation part (b) ruling for this sentence, "There is no backcourt violation in (b) since player and team control had not yet been established in Team A's frontcourt before the ball went into Team A's backcourt."

Let's hope for an internet interpretation to clarify this newly created mess which Mary left us before departing. :(

I'm Leaving, You Guys Take Care Of This ...
 

Maybe that's why she left?

I forgot to do this sooner, but this is just wrong.

What is wrong?

The fact that the throw originates from OOB, and thus neither FC nor BC, is not sufficient to say the rule change does not affect BC violations. Especially in light of the fact that the rule does in fact affect BC violations.