Yet the point that remains unanswered is that the dribble began, the dribble hasn't ended, thus is it actually still "during" the dribble making the 3 points rule relevant.

I think that the spirit of the 3 points rule would make it not applicable. It is designed to allow a dribbler to cleanly cross the line without worrying about exactly where the line is they cross while actively dribbling the ball. I do not believe it is meant to apply to a player who is not currently dribbling.

I disagree. This is one time you do read the book literally. interrupted dribble
That's what it means. There is a dribble which is before this and continues after this but the interrupted dribble is not a part of the dribble.

Some rule-backing for this philosophy:

4-4-6:
During an interrupted dribble:
d. Out-of-bounds violation does not apply on the player involved in the interrupted dribble.

If the note in 9-3-1 doesn't apply during an interrupted dribble...

Well, that is basically where I went with it after that statement.

Yeah, I guess I would (unless someone has a reference to convince me otherwise).

If the ball rolls to the front court and sits for more than a second (and the dribbler isn't chasing it), then I have to reconsider whether this is an interupted dribble or a bad pass. I think part of the judgement as to whether or not it is an interupted dribble is that the dribbler is chasing after it to resume the dribble.

Am I understanding the train of thought in this discussion? . . .
that an interrupted dribble exists if the dribbler loses control of the ball - dribbling- and then after the ball gets away from the dribbler, it is again controlled by dribbling . . .
but, if the dribbler loses control of the ball, and then picks up the ball, thus regaining player control, the time between losing the dribble and picking up the ball, can't be considered an interrupted dribble, but rather must be called a fumble.

I'm looking at a rule book from a couple years back, but both violations 9-9-1 and 9-9-2 note "player and team control". This isn't the case in the OP due to the interupted dribble.

9-9-2: "while in player and team control in the backcourt, a player shall not cause the ball to go from backcourt to frontcourt and return to backcourt ..."

So I still do not think this violation applies.

That is obviously not accurately written. If A1 has already used his dribble, then fumbles the ball into the FC, he no longer has PC. And it would be a BC violation for him to reach across the division line and pick the ball up.

We know that the language above can't be correct. If would eliminate a pass from BC hitting A2 in the FC and then rebounding to the BC where it's touched by A1.

That language was one of the several attempts by FED to fix the issues created by TC.

Oh -- on the OP, I have a violation. But, I do see the conundrum on the wording "during a dribble" and when a dribble ends.

You (Bob, BadNewsRef) are right. Sorry that just futher confused the situation. I see the intent with that rule was that player and team control must be established first -- Not maintained.

So I'm seeing two opinions:

1) Violation. An interupted dribble is not a dribble and therefore 2 feet and the ball are not required to gain front court status. Based on the location of the ball gaining front court status, the OP would be a violation when touched in the backcourt per 9-9-2.

2) No violation. An interupted dribble is still a dribble (dribble hasn't ended as in 4-15-4), so 2 feet and the ball is needed to obtain front court status. The 10 second count continues as front court status has not yet been obtained in the OP.

I don't even see this as a debate. The key is that there is no player control during an interrupted dribble. The location of a ball not in player control is wherever it last touched the court.

Where does it say that?

Just because you see it one way doesn't mean it's the correct way: this is a gap in the rules, even if the intent may be clear to you (I'm not so willing to divine the intent of the committee anymore).

Also 4-15-1
A dribble IS-- ball movement caused by a PLAYER IN CONTROL who bats (intentionally strikes ball)…

the ball location rule 4-4-6 says "during a DRIBBLE" from front BC to FC...

Therefore, for the ball and two feet stuff to apply a player must be must be in control and intentionally batting etc. as noted above there is no player control during interrupted dribble. also, interrupted dribble definition says ball deflects off leg or slips away...

interrupted (to stop) dribble is the nearly exact opposite of a dribble. the phrase contains the word DRIBBLE which leads to the confusion but it is not a dribble. clear as mud I'm sure...