Possession after a double tech?
 

Team A was about inbound on the baseline when the horn sounds. Our scorekeeper informs me that one player from each team hasn't signed in (ie not listed in scorebook) and both players had entered the game. I called my partner over and we quickly agreed that a double administrative tech should be issued. I called the captains over and explained what was happening. We shot two free throws for each side, and then we were about to give the ball to Team A at POI, but my supervisor came over and was very adamant that after a double tech, we use the AP arrow.

What's correct and/or incorrect about this situation?

EDIT: Sorry, NFHS rules.

Zero free throws (Double Technical).

Continue from POI which would have been Team A throw-in.


Your supervisor interjecting himself into your game. And then being wrong to boot.

Tell your supervisor to read a copy of the rules. 4-36-1 is the definition of Point of Interruption, which is the method of putting the ball in play after a double technical.

Case Book
Double Foul
4:19.8 Situation A: A1 and B1 foul one another at approximately the same time. The contact occurs during (a) a live ball situation; or (b) a dead-ball situation.

Ruling: In (a), it is a double personal foul and in (b), it is a double technical foul. No free throws are awarded in (a) or (b) and play resumes at the point of interruption. (4-36)

Hate to say it, but everybody was wrong in this sitch. No free throws for the double technical foul. And you resume with the point of interruption, not the arrow.

(Lots of people beat me to this one. I just want to add that your supervisor is a dope.)

To be fair, in my intramural league, our supervisors generally have the same amount of rules knowledge as I do, so I guess they can't be entirely at fault here.

I'll remember this for next time. The rest of that game went off without a hitch, so if that's the worst thing that happened, I can live with it.

They most definitely can be faulted for interjecting themselves into your game.

To be fair, I would say your supervisor should have more knowledge than you! ;)

Going POI is a relatively recent change. I think you went to the arrow as recently as 2 years ago.

If the supervisor is lacking in some rules knowledge, perhaps he is also lacking in some supervisoral knowledge as well. ;)

Astounding how many people believe that POI = AP arrow. :(

These are the people that can't figure out if POI always meant using the arrow, why the need for another term?

POI = Possession Offense Indicator

To be fair...
 

Have them re-read 2-2 Officials' Jurisdiction

Obviously there are a lot of potential issues with a supervisor, but if the relationship is such that you feel confident you could say something along the lines of, "I hear what you are saying, but I'm going to go with my understanding of the rules." You could add something like, "If I'm wrong, I'll take a $5 cut to all my game fees going forward..... oh, and if you're wrong..."

To be fair, sometimes the POI really is the arrow.