debate between me and another

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by representing

This was a block/charge play, couldn't have been double foul.

I couldn't agree more. See how logical this sounds?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

Not really my situation explained though, since the shooter never got airborne. This was not a shooting situation, but an on-the-floor situation.

What does contact with the floor or being airborne have to do with the act of shooting?

That case play definitely covers your situation. If there is no try for goal on the play, then you apply the POI rule and resume accordingly as detailed in the following interp.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 8: A1 has control of the ball in Team A's frontcourt. Post players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball; (b) the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for goal by A1. An official calls a double personal foul on A5 and B5. RULING: In (a) and (b), Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated spot throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with an alternating possession throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. Had the try been successful, the point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)

Originally Posted by just another ref

I couldn't agree more. See how logical this sounds?

Sounds inexperienced with a great deal to learn to me.