(Old) college PC rule

[Danvrapp]

Disclaimer: Gene Collier - from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - is known to embellish his articles for the purposes of entertaining readers...

With that being said, he has an article in today's paper (Gene Collier: Rule changes in college basketball require a trip to the classroom | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) where he's discussing college rules changes. One of the ones he reviews is the PC rule. He makes the following claim:

"The better new rule is that an offensive player can no longer score on a charge, which eliminates the caveat that he darn well could if he released the shot before knocking a previously stationary defender deep into the nachos."

To me, this implies that in previous years, a collegiate player could have left the floor, released a shot, then plowed into a defender, been whistled for a PC, have the ball go in the basket, and still have been credited with two points!

Any truth to this one?

[Rich]

Yes.

[JetMetFan]

In NCAAM, yes. The NCAAW rule has mirrored the NFHS rule for as long as I can remember.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

... a collegiate player could have left the floor, released a shot, then plowed into a defender,been whistled for a PC, have the ball go in the basket, and still have been credited with two points!

This would also have been true under NFHS (high school) rules about thirty years ago.

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm this very old interpretation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

Disclaimer: Gene Collier - from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - is known to embellish his articles for the purposes of entertaining readers...

With that being said, he has an article in today's paper (Gene Collier: Rule changes in college basketball require a trip to the classroom | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) where he's discussing college rules changes. One of the ones he reviews is the PC rule. He makes the following claim:

"The better new rule is that an offensive player can no longer score on a charge, which eliminates the caveat that he darn well could if he released the shot before knocking a previously stationary defender deep into the nachos."

To me, this implies that in previous years, a collegiate player could have left the floor, released a shot, then plowed into a defender, been whistled for a PC, have the ball go in the basket, and still have been credited with two points!

Any truth to this one?

You must not have paid much attention to college basketball in the past.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This would also have been true under NFHS (high school) rules about thirty years ago.

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm this very old interpretation.

Why?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

Disclaimer: Gene Collier - from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - is known to embellish his articles for the purposes of entertaining readers...

With that being said, he has an article in today's paper (Gene Collier: Rule changes in college basketball require a trip to the classroom | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) where he's discussing college rules changes. One of the ones he reviews is the PC rule. He makes the following claim:

"The better new rule is that an offensive player can no longer score on a charge, which eliminates the caveat that he darn well could if he released the shot before knocking a previously stationary defender deep into the nachos."

To me, this implies that in previous years, a collegiate player could have left the floor, released a shot, then plowed into a defender, been whistled for a PC, have the ball go in the basket, and still have been credited with two points!

Any truth to this one?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This would also have been true under NFHS (high school) rules about thirty years ago.

I'm sure that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. will be moseying along shortly to confirm this very old interpretation.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why?

Why? Because A1 (the Shooter) would not have been charged with a PCF against B1 (the Defender) but would have been charged with a Common Foul (CF) and had A1's attempt been successful A1's attempt would have been scored, and if Team B had been in the bonus, B1 would have been awarded FTs.

That is the correct ruling.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Why? Because A1 (the Shooter) would not have been charged with a PCF against B1 (the Defender) but would have been charged with a Common Foul (CF) and had A1's attempt been successful A1's attempt would have been scored, and if Team B had been in the bonus, B1 would have been awarded FTs.

That is the correct ruling.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, Sr.

I know what the rule was.

My "why" was for the need for anybody to dig up the HS rule from 30 years ago.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I know what the rule was.

My "why" was for the need for anybody to dig up the HS rule from 30 years ago.

Because until about thirty years ago the NFHS Rule and the NCAA Men's/Women's Rule were the same. Then about thirty years ago the NFHS and NCAA Women's Rules Committees adopted the rule that we have know and which the NCAA Men's Committee finally adopted for this school year.

I could go into the history of why the rule change was adopted thirty years ago but I am past due for my post-breakfast nap and the time for my pre-lunch nap is fast approaching. Ain't being retired great, .

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

[QUOTE=
To me, this implies that in previous years, a collegiate player could have left the floor, released a shot, then plowed into a defender, been whistled for a PC, have the ball go in the basket, and still have been credited with two points!

Any truth to this one?[/QUOTE]

The player was "whistled" for a push. Not a PC.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The player was "whistled" for a push. Not a PC.

Read my post (#7).

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Read my post (#7).

MTD, Sr.

That works too. I'm sorry i didn't read it all earlier. I was laughing because I knew what BNR was asking in post 6. I went straight to post 8 when I saw you start discussing the play take care.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

My "why" was for the need for anybody to dig up the HS rule from 30 years ago.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

As a retired middle school science teacher, with over thirty years of classroom experience, I know that concepts are easier to understand, learn, and remember, when one knows the background information regarding what went into the discovery of that concept.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”

Those who keep referencing older rules have trouble keeping up with the new ones

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Those who keep referencing older rules have trouble keeping up with the new ones

Actually, I have an easier time understanding new rules (or anything) when I understand the evolution, and context, of that rule. Some people are good memorizers, I'm not, as were many of my students. I learn best, and most of my students learned best, by understanding something, not just memorizing something. Maybe this is peculiar to teaching, and studying, science, but I believe that it covers a lot of learning situations in life.

Again, some are good memorizers. I'm not. I envy them.