I just saw this
 

A1 has the ball for a throw-in. Team B is applying real good full court pressure. A2 starts running parallel and real close to the endline. A1 extends the ball past the vertical plane of the boundary line and pushes the ball against A2 and quickly pulls the ball back. It looked like A1 wanted to hand the ball to A2, but A2 did not want to grab the ball. It was like a fake hand off with the ball coming in contact with A2's belly. Violation?
What would it be if A2 is replaced with B1?

Without my book

pretty sure violation in the first case.

pretty positive nothing in the second case. B1 can even grab the ball if it's on the inbounds side of the boundary plane.

It's a violation to hand the ball to A2. IT's not a violation to fake a handoff.

Nothing in either case.
There is no rule prohibiting a teammate from touching the ball while it remains in the thrower's hands.
As Bob says the thrower just can't hand it to an inbounds teammate.
Remember "always listen to Bob."

Why is this not the same as A1 stepping inbounds or touching an opponent inbounds?

Because he's not stepping inbounds or touching an opponent.

Where's the rule that says it's a violation on the thrower to touch an opponent inbounds?

9.2.5 b

That's supposed to be an application of 9-2-5: "The thrower shall not carry the ball onto the court." This is funny already.

Here's the key claim of case 9.2.5 b:
"A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass.
When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she has inbound status."

Hahahahaha! Good one, NFHS! Now go read 4-35 "Player Location" and try again.

Interesting. I would have never called it that way. Seems like a stupid interp to me, but ok. BTW, they need to update that case play in light of 9-2-10 penalty 4.

Also note "other than a player/person" in 7-1-1, which determines when a player is out of bounds.

7-1-1 is consistent with 4-35, as you'd expect.

I have no problem with making it a violation for the thrower to touch an opponent during a throw-in. But please let's not say it's a violation because that gives the thrower inbounds status and thus constitutes carrying the ball into the court!

Right. The incongruency is similar to the new backcourt issues.

But it's a question of who did the touching, I think. If the defender reaches out and touches the thrower, intentional foul. It is specified in the case play, that the thrower lost his balance and leaned over to touch the defender. Basically, the touch kept him from accidentally touching the floor, which is also a violation. (9.2.5A)

So, if this touch, for the purpose of this rule, gives the thrower "inbounds status"
I don't see why the thrower contacting a teammate, with the ball, or directly, would not be a violation as well.

Then call it that way. I'm not going to apply the case to that play because it goes against the written rule and does not specifically apply to the play in the OP. The principals of 4-35 and 7-1-1 should apply here, and as far as I'm concerned, they do except for the case where the player tries to maintain his balance by touching an opponent.

My guess is the wording of the case play has been in place since before they changed 7-1-1 to not include touching a person; but that's only a guess. They need to update this case play in light of recent rule changes.

Many case plays break new ground which would NEVER have been reached by reading the related rule.

Let me think of an example. I know! 4.19.8C

Better example. The dribble rule does not tell us it is a violation to touch the ball twice before it hits the floor, but 4.15.4D says it is.