Where did you get this player control definition? I agree with the holding or dribbling a live ball, but where did you get the "Inbounds" portion of the definition?

The player throwing the ball isn't considered in the frontcourt...the frontcourt is the inbound portion of the court.

Rule 4
SECTION 13 Court Areas
ART. 1 . . . A team’s frontcourt consists of that part of the court between its end line and the nearer edge of the division line, including its basket and the inbounds part of the backboard.

There must be player and team control in the frontcourt...meaning inbounds. When the player touches the ball inbounds in the frontcourt, there's team control in the frontcourt, but there's no player control in the frontcourt with the tip.

ahhh.....thank you!

I'm sorry. I was taught that at Billy Packer's camp. :o

The problem is, the addition of the PC in the FC requirement is a significant change from the rule last year.

I see what you're saying APG...here it comes, but, look at the following case book play:
9.9.1 Situation C
A1 is dribbling in his/her backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourts: (a) A2 or (b) B3 touches the ball and deflects it back to A's backcourt. A2 recovers in the backcourt. Ruling: in (a) it is a violation. The ball was in control of A1 and Team A, and a player from A was the last to touch the ball in frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the backcourt.

Isn't this Ruling in this play completely opposite of the wording for the definition of a backcourt violation? The definition says we need player and team control in the frontcourt, and then this ruling we don't have that, we only have the last to touch first to touch ruling.

If last to touch, first to touch ruling is enforced in this play, it appears it can be extended to the OP as well.

The key is to rule the play based on the old rules until the committee figures out the wording.

This is why we have to pardon the rule writers for botching the wording in this rule. I said earlier that team control is not established in the FC so it isn't a BC violation. I think a better way to think of it is that PC can't be obtained OOB.
But of course the only reason why we know that the OP is not a BC is because the NFHS said the rule change only affects foul shooting in bonus.

APG already posted the interp that applies directly to the OP. It trumphs "last to touch/first to touch". We discussed all last summer how the FED botched re-writing the TC rule in regards to throw-ins. Prior to last season the OP would not have been a BC violation. The FED put out correspondence stating BC violation rules were not affected by the new TC throw-in rules. Throw-in's and jump ball's have backcourt exceptions so you cannot extend 9.9.1 Sit C to them.

Yes I'm aware of that discussion. What I have yet to see is why people are giving A3 the throw in exception. By rule it applies to only A2.

9.9.1 Situation D and E

The exception granted during a throw-in ends when the throw-in ends and is only for the player making the initial touch on the ball.

So you're saying in the OP that when A2 jumps & tips the throw-in pass, if he fell down A3 couldn't go get it in the b/c?
If so, what would be your call?

I'll play the coach, "Toren we never established player control after the throw-in ended. Why is this a violation?"

The exception doesn't apply here. It was never necessary to make the play legal, and it isn't now.

No one is applying the throw-in exception here. The interpretation I gave you specifically told us that there must be player and team control in the front court, coming from a throw-in, before one can have a backcourt violation.

The case book play you posted is a completely different situation.

After giving it some thought, here's how I would adjudicate the original OP.

The throw-in started so we had team control for the sake of not shooting free throws if the offensive team happens to foul and the defensive team is in the bonus.

The throw-in ended when A2 legally deflects the pass.

We do not have team control for the sake of backcourt violations, that isn't established until A3 catches the ball.

So we have a legal play in the OP.

But I wanted to make sure that we aren't saying it's the throw-in exception that gives A3 the ability to catch the ball. Because that is not accurate.

I agree that you weren't saying that, I don't agree that "No one" is applying it.