Agree...but some say you can't go by intent but have to go by what actually happens. If that were the case, they never intended to throw it in if it returns to them. ;)

Please note that the front face of the backboard is four feet from the endline on a standard court, so this player threw the ball nearly four feet forward (actually a greater distance when the upward angle is factored in). That most certainly qualifies as a throw-in pass.
Fwiw, I agree that a player may bounce the ball on a rear wall without penalty if it is obvious that there is no intent for this to be the throw-in pass and the ball does not carom into the playing court.

Bounce Pass ???
 

So an inbounder can't make a "bounce pass" throwin, even if he's ten feet back from the boundary, and the ball bounces once out of bounds (within the designated spot), and then is caught by a player inbounds? I'm not sure that I'm calling that a violation in my game.

You would be incorrect, Billy. That is indeed a throw-in violation.

Some just know that determining intent is called judgment. ;)

The intent in the OP is a throw in that came back to A1. On the very next trip down the floor B1 INTENTIONALLY bounces ball off the back board and the ball rebounds directly to him. Someone's got a lot of explaining to do if you call one a violation and the other nothing.

Real world application, you throw the ball four feet into the court, it will be judged you released the ball for the throw-in. As such, this is going to be called a violation every time (save for the time this play may surprise the calling official).

You should call that a violation - this is exactly what is described in the rule quoted above.

I've called it plenty of times. If you're not going to call it if it bounces within the designated spot, why would you call it if it bounces OOB outside of the DS? There's no rule-based distinction there? The ball is not required to stay within the spot, only the player. In fact, if the thrower wants to "dribble", the "dribble" is not required to stay within the DS either.

I don't see why we would judge intent, even in 1% of the cases. We place the ball at the disposal of the thrower, suggesting the player's role at that point. But what else is he to do with the ball? Why else would the player release the ball except to inbound it? Setting aside the issue of intent, which I'd consider irrelevant here, I agree with the second part of this analysis: the ball touched OOB before being touched by another player.

Why is there even a discussion about intent? The rule and case books pretty blatantly support that throwing the ball off an object out of bounds before it touches an inbounds player (not including dribbling on the floor) is a violation—there's no basis in the rule for judging intent. If it happens, it's a violation. Am I oversimplifying this?

It's not unusual, I think, for a player to grab the ball, step OOB and throw the ball against the back wall in frustration. I never even considered that a violation. "Intent" just seems superfluous, reading a term into a rule that isn't there. Some rules talk about intent, others don't, so why import it?

Once you release the ball and it crosses the endline, if it touches anybody or anything other than yourself, you have released the ball for a throw-in. So when it hits the back of the backboard you have committed a throw-in violation.

What about this
 

At the end of a game the inbounder, in adherence to that old bromide of "Roll it", releases the ball behind the endline and it ultimately makes its way onto the court. Do you have a whistle in this case?

If released onto the floor OOB, yes. If released directly in-bounds, no. I have no problem calling the violation in the first situation.