The question that was put to Mike (I’ve slightly rephrased it) was:
This implies that, despite the the teams’ agreement after the first two boules were played, Team B’s boule had the point and Team A, not Team B, should have played next.
Mike’s ruling was that Team A may declare Team B’s second boule to be dead.
This is quite different from Petanque Libre
Playing by the rules of Petanque Libre, Team B did not play out of turn and Team B’s second boule is not dead.
I think that there are two points worth making here.
The first is that Mike has said, quite clearly, that teams must ALWAYS measure after every boule is thrown.  This is of course ridiculous. It shows the absurd lengths to which an umpire will go when trying to interpret rules written by and for umpires.
The second is that measurement, in and of itself, means nothing. All that you have in a game is agreement between the teams. Consider a slightly different scenario.
What are we to make of this situation? Clearly something has gone wrong, but we don’t know what. Whatever it was, measuring didn’t prevent it. Perhaps the measurement was wrong. Perhaps the jack or one of the boules was moved without either team noticing. Who knows? And what should the teams do?
My point is that measuring isn’t a magic wand that you can wave and solve all your problems. Measuring, in and of itself, means nothing. ALL that you have in a game is agreement between the teams. Measuring is nothing more than a tool that the teams can use to help them in coming to an agreement. What’s important is the agreement; not the measuring. Hence the position of Petanque Libre.
 Mike reaffirms his position in a related post [underlining is mine]— “The friendly agreement of which boule is holding has no value – the teams must measure because only then can you be sure.”