A quick forum search will reveal
 

that this has been discussed multiple times before, and I don't remember there being a clear consensus.

Pleas look at the signal chart, which is in the rules book, Number 22. The caption under the picture.....

"Over and Back"

You mean being in the frontcourt is not over the line but is behind the line?????

You're going to have to explain that one.

It is "being" over the line, not "going" over the line.

Same thing. I have no idea how the ball can gain FC status (which is necessary to have a violation) without it ever being "over" the line by nature of contact with the floor or in contact with a player who is in the FC (noting the definition of ball location).

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

I suppose that's another way of looking at it, but again, not wholly accurate in some situations, such as the violation immediately following a jump ball.

An airborne player can give the ball status.

So what? Nothing said it had to cross the line. The problem isn't going over and back. It's being over and then going back.

How it got over is the part that's irrelevant.

That's fine, jar, but there are still ways there can be a backcourt violation without the ball ever "being" over the division line on jump balls and throw-ins. I've alluded to one of them above.

1. Traveling
2. Double Dribble
3. Carrying
4. Stepping out of bounds
5. Excessive swinging of the arms and elbow (without contact)

I found a whole bunch of them...:D

The ball's location in space with regard to the division line is never relevant.

I agree. I believe that semantically/technically, others are suggesting otherwise.

Backcourt violation for me.

I have always said "backcourt". And while I have an intense dislike for an official referring to a PCF or TCF in NFHS and NCAA Rules as an "offensive" foul, I do not get to hung when an official uses the term "over and back" to describe a "backcourt violation".

That said I encourage officials both young and old (like me) to use correct (rules book terminology) terminology when talking with other officials and especially with players and coaches (and fans and "talking heads") because it is a way of educating them about the rules of the game.

MTD, Sr.

NCAA-W Manual
 

And I just noticed that in my favorite of manuals, it's listed in the signal chart as "over and back," too. Huh.

And, by rule, where is that player? They're in the FC having jumped from the FC so when the ball touches that player, the ball also has FC status and has made it over to FC. "Over" is not a physical position relative to the plane of the division line but a status. Try again.

Wow. Okay. No, it hasn't made it "over to the FC;" it has obtained FC status. Those are not mutually inclusive. One is a physical location, one is a status applied without regard to the ball's physical location. I don't really know that this is worth debating anymore, but now you're suggesting that "over" = not physically over the division line, but instead that "over" = having obtained FC status, which is not quite what you were stating earlier in the thread:
But again, I think we've about exhausted this one.

I don't think it matters.

Colloquially, when the ball gains FC status, it has gone "over."
When it regains BC status, it has gone "back." Works for me (I call it "backcourt", but find the discussion about it amusing).