"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 didn't. But they would occurr at the same instance in the OP and the sitch below.

If no team control exists for team A, the first player on team A to establish player control also establishes team control.

(Not trying to lecture, but putting my understanding out there to be corrected if needed)

The reason I questioned your phrase-ology is b/c you're discussing granting a time-out. When the ball is live but the clock is not running then merely having team control is sufficient to be granted a time-out. But when the ball is live and the clock in running then player control is needed.

BBR, Please see Camron's post, #38. It can't be a bcv when the ball hits the bc, from a bat, or a perceived "start of a dribble", because the bat occurs before the ball touches the backcourt, and a violation occurs for being the first to touch the ball, after the ball gains backcourt status. IOW, the bat that causes the ball to touch the backcourt, is only that. It's the touch, when the ball bounces up, and again, touches the hand of the player, which occurs after the ball gains backcourt status, that constitutes a bcv.

That, and in the OP, team control had already been established in the BC.

Huh? The only examples of "live ball, clock not running" I can think of are on a throw-in (no TC), FT (TC, but also PC), or jump ball (no TC).

A TO can be granted when there's PC or the ball is "at the disposal" of the team. TC does not enter into it (other than PC also causes TC).

Maybe I'm missing something.

Disposal now equals TC as well. Maybe that's what he meant.

No there is nothing magical about sliding, or dribbling either for that matter. My point is I don't think PC can be determined by looking at a still snap shot that encompases only that exact moment in time. PC is determined by a sequence of events that when put together give you a full picture. In the situation I had it was not possible to determin control until after the second and subsequent dribbles occured, however once they did it was easy to say she gained control with the first dribble.

The same is true if she would have caugth the ball with two hands. A player can momentarily secure or stop the momentum of the ball with two hands on either side it. What follows will determin if the player has control. The player can either continue to demonstrate control over the ball by raising it above thier heads and holding it away from the defense, or the player can have the ball immediately squirt out of their hands.

In the former you have PC, in the latter you dont, but both would look identical if you froze action when they first placed two hands on the opposit sides of the ball. It's the action prior to, and after the instant of that first touch that determins PC.

Snaqs, you are wise beyond your years. :D That's what I meant. No PC when the ball is at the disposal of the thrower-in but there is TC.

Even though I forgot to include there is one exception to "TC, live ball, clock not running" for which we can't grant a time-out, which is after the throw-in has been released but before it has been legally touched.

Which is why your method of trying to discern between when to use PC and when to use TC is confusing (to me).

Just go by the PC or disposal, all the time.

You take that back; I'm no Yankee fan regardless of what you've been told.

Or that.

But my original statement had context in that I responding to someone who was talking about TC in regards to granting a time-out.

Sorry but I don't agree with that interpretation. Player control exists so when a player in his FC steps on the line, it's a violation whether he's touching the ball or not. If he dribbles the ball on the line, it's no different. I have a BC violation.

You're welcome to another interpretation if you like.

I disagree.

Based on your description, one dribble would never be a dribble.

Further, just because a player controls the ball and then loses control doesn't mean they never controlled it.

Perhaps the same concept is intended to apply at the division line. However, the only rule close to that is one regarding OOB. It doesn't mention the division line or imply that it should be used elsewhere.

So if A1 is in the front court and throws the ball into the backcourt you would call a BC violation as soon as it hits the backcourt? If the ball hits the line but the player never touches it again it can't be a BC violation.

Not true. I have on many occasions called a player for a double dribble after they have gained control of a lose ball using a dribble, caught it with two hands, and attempted to dribble again. It's all about judgement, and I feel in some cases a play needs to develop before you can ascertain player control.