Duffman,
Your confusion could be from the 2011-12 rule 9-9-1. Ive attached the below that was posted by Nevadaref in August 2011. The case book play DOES NOT match the new wording.


NEW NFHS backcourt violation rule The NFHS has changed the definition of a backcourt violation in the 2011-12 rules book. Unfortunately, this change has NOT been announced as either a rule change or an editorial change! Previous wording (2010-11 season):Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.Art. 2... While in team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.Art. 3... A player from the team not in control (defensive player or during a jump ball or throw-in) may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.

NEW 2011-12 text:Art. 1... A player shall not be the first to touch a ball after it has been in player and team control in the frontcourt, if he/she or a teammate last touched or was touched by the ball in the frontcourt before it went to the backcourt.Art. 2... While in player and team control in its backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt, without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt, such that he/she or a teammate is the first to touch it in the backcourt.Art. 3... During a jump ball, throw-in or while on defense, a player may legally jump from his/her frontcourt, secure control of the ball with both feet off the floor and return to the floor with one or both feet in the backcourt. The player may make a normal landing and it makes no difference whether the first foot down is in the frontcourt or backcourt.Obviously the change is an attempt to mesh the backcourt rule with the new rule for team control during a throw-in. However, I believe that the NFHS didn't do this properly and actually made a significant change in way the backcourt rule works. This is more than just a wording change for editorial purposes in my opinion. Here is the play which I believe has been altered. A1 is dribbling in his backcourt. He throws a pass to A2 who is standing in Team A's frontcourt. The ball caroms off A2's knee and returns to the backcourt where A1 retrieves it. According to article 1 from 2010-11 this would be a backcourt violation. However, since there was no player control in the frontcourt by A2, only team control by team A, according to the new wording for article 1 of 2011-12 there would not be a violation.Note that this play is not covered by article 2 either as a player does touch the ball in the frontcourt. The problem is that the player in the frontcourt never gains control and the new wording clearly requires both player and team control in the frontcourt.
I have put the changes to the text from the previous season in red.

Are you sure about that?

I debated this when I typed it, and figured someone would question it. I'm not positive, but under the principal that a dribbler is OOB when he steps on the OOB line even if it's not at the same moment he's in contact with the ball, I think so. I see it as continuous control, just like the OOB play.

That said, you really don't know it's a dribble until he touches it again, so in practice, it won't be called until he touches it after that bounce.

One huge difference in the out of bounds play and the backcourt play.

"control immediately based on the nature of the initial contact and the actions proceeding it"

When would you have allowed A1 or a teammate/coach to request a time-out and honor that request? That is when team-control existed.

I think you mean player control.

And back to square one. This reads as if you must have player control in the front court before you can have a BCV.

You're now going the same direction as I'm thinking.

The backcourt rule has no dependence on player control. It is not a violation to cause the ball to be in the backcourt at any time (with or without player control). It only depends on being the first to touch the ball after it has gone to the backcourt (assuming the other criteria have already been met). That would be when the dribble returned to the hand.

On a related situation....what if a PLAYER stepped on the division line between dribbles, then, resumes contact only with the FC before dribbling again. Does the ball ever gain backcourt status?

Refer to the definition of ball location (Rule 4-4). Rule 9-3-1 NOTE makes it a violation for a dribbler to step OOB but I don't see anywhere that says the concept applies to the division line. Does it? By the letter of the rules, it seems that the ball is only in the backcourt when it is actually in contact the backcourt directly or with a player who currently has backcourt status by either being in contact with the backcourt or being airborne having jumped from the backcourt).

By practice and common sense, I feel the OOB NOTE probably should apply to the division line as well, but I don't think the rules, as written, necessarily support that.

This is an interesting thought. I guess IMO there is a difference between when control begins, and when it can be first ascertained. For example...

A loose ball that A1 dives for, puts two hands on it, and as he’s sliding he calls time out. I'm reluctant to grant the request until he stops sliding, and I can determine that he's maintained control throughout. Just because he has two hands on the ball doesn't mean he has control of it. That said once the time out has been granted where did he gain control, when he first put two hands on it, halfway through, not until the end?
In my judgment, based on the entire sequence of events leading up to and after initial contact with ball (in reality only a second) the player established control with the first dribble and maintained it the entire time, thus player control began with the first touch.

Don't over this think. The NFHS has done a poor job of writing the rule but has told us (through official PowerPoint presentations) that we are to handle throw-ins the exact same way as before with regards to backcourt violations, 10 second counts and three second counts. And we judge regular backcourt violation, 3 second and 10 second violation plays the exact same.

All you need to concern yourself with a backcourt violation is:

1. Team control (and initial player control when coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves a front court status
3. Team in control is last to touch the ball before the ball achieves a backcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch the ball after the ball achieves a backcourt status.

Or an official or the backboard/rim.

There's nothing magical about sliding and ending the slide. If he has both hands on it and the ball isn't rolling, then he is holding the ball.

In your OP, A1 had player control and team A had team control when A1 had the ball in the BC.

The ball gained FC status.

A2 bats the ball and it gains BC status.

If you deemed the bat a dribble, it's a BC violation.

If you judged the first touch was not a dribble (no player control), then it's a BC violation if A2 next touches the ball again.

Hmmmm so you are saying that the only debate is when the BCV occurred... on the first dribble when the ball hit the half court stripe or when the players foot made contact with the BC. I agree... now.

Which are already considered part of the floor :P

Unless he is holding the ball, when/if his feet hit the backcourt is of no consequence. It's a violation when he touches the ball (first) after it went into the bc.