What is the POI?
 

A1, in the act of shooting, is fouled by B1, and both players fall to the floor. The shot is unsuccessful. Then, actions by both players are considered to merit a Dbl Technical foul, which is reported to the scorekeeper and coaches.
How does play continue from that point?

Some officials, involved in the discussion, say that the POI is the start of the administration of the 2 free throws, with players along the lane, and the game continues with the normal consequence of the 2nd free throw.

Other officials, and those involved in this particular game, decided to shoot the free throws with the lane cleared, and award a midcourt throw-in to the team with the AP arrow.

4-36-1,2b

Well, he did say it was a Double T -- so that should tell you the status of the ball (assuming the officials got that part correct).

Yeah, never mind, I misread the post. :o

OK, now that I'm reading the post correctly, pretty easy answer.

I'm willing to go with the group that was actually using the rule book to answer this question. :D

And I would never listen to a group of officials who say they are using the AP arrow then arbitrarily having the throw-in from the division line.

This is what I would consider an unacceptable misapplication of the rules–at any level. This is not a difficult rule to understand and apply.

The AP arrow is used for double fouls if and only if the point of interruption cannot be determined.

Technically, that is not true. The point of interruption is the process for resuming the game following an interruption. How it gets resumed depends upon what was taking place when play was halted. So it is always possible to determine the POI.

It would be better if you thought of and spoke of POI from a rules standpoint instead of a layman's perspective. The POI is NOT the stoppage! It is the adminstrative process used to resume the game. Look at the definition in rule 4.

Thanks, for the input, guys. I was made aware of the situation a couple of nights after it occurred, in a HS league, in which some less experienced officials are receiving training and evaluations.
The really disappointing aspect is that some of the leaders and higher ranked officials supported the incorrect application, and then they refused to consider that in was incorrect.
I didn't have access to a Rule Book, and stated the logic and substance of the Rule, but without a citation, they became defensive. So, I promised that I'd present the issue to the Forum.

Before you imply that I don't know the rules and call me a "layman," you ought to read 6-4-3-f.

Did you read the rule they referenced in 4-36-2c?

Just for clarification purposes, that rules reference says:

Rule 6-4-3 is about when you have an AP throw-in. If you have an inadvertent whistle, interrupted game, correctable error, double foul (personal, technical) or simultaneous foul you can have a AP throw-in if you cannot determine where the ball was located on like a shoot that is missed. You cannot put the ball where it was in the air after a shot just because.

Peace

I didn't imply anything. I directly stated that you are speaking of the POI process (NFHS rule 4-36) in layman's terms instead of the jargon of a basketball official. If you read the text of 4-36, you will see that one of the three methods of resuming play can always be used and that it is not possible to have the POI be unable to be determined.

Sadly, the line in rule 6 which you cite was the result of a fairly recent editorial rewrite of the section on AP throw-ins and that language was used by someone with a poor understanding of the NFHS rules.

I'll say this once again: The POI is NOT the stoppage. It is the method used to resume the game.

I understand, but to say I was using layman's terms is false because I quoted a rule straight out of the book. It may be poorly written or inconsistent with the intricacies of the POI rule, but it is in the book and therefore would qualify as "jargon of a basketball official."

You guys sound like an old married couple.

So what is the answer? Don't have book on me.

He didn't imply that, and he didn't call you anything.

He was commenting on the perspective from which you were explaining this... and I agree with him. Simplifying into layman's terms is important when you're talking to a coach, or friends who don't officiate. But speaking that way often generalizes and causes misunderstandings... when discussing with officials (i.e. here), speak with rules terminology.