That's the intent, but it's not what a lieteral reading of the rules seems to say (according to some).

Agreed, this was the intent. The rule, however, doesn't actually make this distinction anywhere that I can find.

No, "control" is not required for a violation.

Hey You Kids, Get Off Of My Front Court ...
 

Agree.

Read the rules? Then you've got a better veterans in your association than in mine. In Connecticut, we've just about decided to make the new sleeve rule tougher by saying that both bands (head, and wrist) and sleeves (arm, and leg) must be the same color for all players on the team, in direct opposition to the latest NFHS interpretations. Why? To make it easier for our members, especially our veteran members, to understand.

No. The intent for the rule is to have team control for the purposes of fouls during the throw in. The throw in ends when it was touched, however neither team was in possession of the ball. Team control is established after either team gains control of the ball. The way it is written, is what is causing the confusion. It is a very poorly written rule.

Close but not quite. The TC rule also allows for TC fouls immediately after the throw-in, and before A gains PC inbounds.

You are correct that the first year this was in place, if A fouled before the throw-in ended it was a TC foul, but if they fouled after the ball had been tipped it was NOT a TC foul, and if they fouled after A gained posession inbounds it was again a TC foul. That has been cleared up so that all three are TC fouls now.

The problem is with the wording of the BC rule.

Correct. I wrote team control earlier, but meant player control.

I think they just dropped "player control" from the part in blue (but I don't have last year's books handy to check the exact wording)

That's my recollection, previously they had added "after player control has been established in the front court" in order to try to make up for the earlier start for team control. Instead, that wording removed a few plays from being violations. A few here had advocated returning the BC rule to the original wording and simply adding a throw in situation to the definition of a team control foul. It wouldn't be any different, really, than adding the airborne shooter to the definition of a player control foul (even though there's no longer player control).

I don't believe the bolded part was in the rule b/c that isn't necessary for a backcourt violation. PC could be established in the backcourt followed by any number of events that could lead to a BC violation without there ever being PC in the FC.

I think it was, and yes, that led to some of the confusion. Even the current wording could cause some of the same confusion because you need TC, and you need the ball in the FC but you don't need "TC-in-the-FC" (as some would interpret it)

They had added it to the book because without it, that throw in play we keep bringing up would have been a violation. To "fix" that effect, they added the requirement. It inadvertently changed the rule even more, eliminating some violations (by rule) that didn't require FC PC.

The Rules Committee could eliminate ALL this confusion by simply removing team control from the throw-in. They've screwed this up seven ways to Sunday, from the very first attempt they made to eliminate free throws for fouls committed during a throw-in by the throw-in team.

Last year, they finally got the Team Control Foul definition correct. This year, they finally got 9-9-1 correct. Now, if they will just revert the definition of team control to what it was 4 years ago. . .

offensive fouls
 

I agree. IMO it would be less confusing if the rule read "all fouls by the team on offense (-INT and FLAG) will result in no free throws." A team would be considered "on offense" when a player gains control of the jump ball, when the ball is at disposal on a FT and TI or on a change in possession. A team is no longer on offense when there is a change in possession, the ball is dead or on the release of a try.