POI - Situation
 

The play: A1 is fouled by B1 in the act of shooting. The shot misses. A1 and B1 start talking to each other and get in each other's face. A double technical foul is given to A1 and B1.

Under NFHS Rules, how do you administer play? I believe you assess technical fouls to A1 and B1, but award no free throws for the techs. Play resumes from POI which should be: two free throws for A1 who was fouled in the act of shooting with players lined up along the lane lines.

I have a bet going on with a partner who says play resumes as follows: A1 shoots two free throws with no one lined up along the lane. Ball is given to team A for inbounding after the free throws because they had "team control" of the ball when the technicals were called.

Thoughts and comments would be appreciated.

You are correct.
Your partner is incorrect because the POI is the point at which the ball became dead. In this case that is not the same as the exact moment of the foul. Since there was a try for goal in progress, continuous motion applies and the ball only becomes dead after the try has ended. If A1 had not started the shooting motion and a foul occurred, then your partner would be correct.

1) Correct, Double technical foul as per rule 4-19-8(b). No FT's as per rule 10-6PENALTY1(c).
2) Correct as per rules 7-5-9 and 4-36-1&2(b).

You win.

I can't begin to tell you how upset I am with Nevada for not supplying you with the proper rules references.

:) :) :) :) :D LOL!

;) <i></i>

I hope the answer you got here is enough to convince your partner that you are right. I've tried that before to no avail. I say that I know the answer because I read it on an internet forum. Yea that holds a lot of water with them. Don't get me wrong; I take most of what I get from this forum as gospel, but I get the old, "You have to be careful what you read on the internet" speech. If I could just remember the rules references that are supplied here, that might help. But sometimes, even amongst you veterens, whose opinions I trust, you agree to disagree. Just my thought.

In this case that's not good enough. There are specific rules that cover this scenario and they are not ambiguous. In fact, the rules are not even very difficult to interpret for this situation.