Criteria for backcourt violation:

1. Team control (and player control established at some point if coming from a throw-in)
2. Ball achieves frontcourt status
3. Team in control is the last to touch the ball when it has a frontcourt status
4. Team in control is the first to touch after the ball gains a backcourt status

In your first situation, all four criteria are met. In your second, the ball doesn't achieve a frontcourt status per the 3 points rule for a dribbler.

It's incredibly poorly written.

When they added team control during a throw-in they told us that the backcourt violation hadn't changed at all. But the rules for it changed. Our association continues to call the backcourt rule as it was, which is what the casebook play reflects.

It will be a problem with a coach who knows the rule and tries to press the issue. The only recourse you have is to point him to the casebook.

Seems to me that it would be easier if they applied the rule the same for all plays throw-ins or not.

Backcourt throw in by A1 goes the past half court and hits A2 in hands and returns to A3 in backcourt then no violaton as there had not been player control. However same play but A1 throws the ball from inbounds in the backcourt now we have a violation bc A1 had player control although it was in the backcourt. Correct?

Good thing is either way you call it you can either say look in the rule book or look in the casebook. I'm covered either way! :D

How About 9-9-2
 

9-9-2 is more to the OP. It states that a team with control in the backcourt can not cause the ball to get front court status (doesn't have to be in player control) and then cause it to go into the back court and be the first to touch it.

I paraphrased the rule, but that is the gist of it.

Except of course that it's not at all. 9-9-2 deals with a ball that goes frontcourt to backcourt "without the ball touching a player in the frontcourt." Since in the OP has the ball touching A2, 9-9-2 has not been violated. The violation has to come from 9-9-1 and that rule has been screwed up by the committee.

How is the 2nd criteria met in the 1st situation? Both situations are identical... A1 is backcourt, ball leaves A1's hands, hits the ground in the frontcourt, and then returns to A1's hands.

4- ball location.

You have a few options for that rare occasion when a coach actually knows the wording of the rule.

1. Silence.
2. "Coach, I'm using the 2010-2011 rule book for BC calls."
3. "Coach, the rule committee admitted they screwed this up, but they didn't fix it. They issued statements saying all BC situations were to be ruled as they were before they added TC to the throw-in."
4. "Because I said so."

Honestly, it's the same explanation I normally give them when they start complaining that B touched the ball once (prior to A2 touching it in the FC) before it went into the BC (you know the play). Nothing.

Confession time....


Boys Varsity a few weeks ago...A1 near division line fires pass to A2 a few feet in frontcourt, pass hits A2 in back of head, ricochets back to A1 in backcourt (about 6 feet away). A1 passes to A3 who hits jumper. Whole scenario happened in 3-4 seconds. I'm trail and it froze me as seeing ball bounce off head was a first. By the time I digested it, called nothing. C was was right there and also froze. No reaction from crowd, B coach casually asks C as he's running by,"wasn't that backcourt"? "Yes" and we play on.

Expect the unexpected.

Added to list of that won't happen again on my part.

Back court

9.9.1 case book, is this exact play.

A1 is dribbling in the backcourt and throws a pass to the frontcourt. While standing in A's frontcourt: (a) A2 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 the frontcourt and a player of A was the first to touch it after it returned to the backcourt

OP already recognized and brought up case book play 9.9.1 Situation C