|
[QUOTE=JRutledge;1020108]You can disagree, but you quoted the rule as only one of the things to establish LGP.
I did not read anything else after this statement because it is irrelevant.
Peace[/QUOTE
Whatever the semantics, I don't agree at all that if you have legal guarding position and a flyer takes off at an angle to the path he was on, you can then slide to the new path and take a charge. That's simply not right. And as seen in A.R 239, there is a distinction between 'guarding' and 'guarding conform(ing) to legal guarding principles'.
I only quoted the 'facing the opponent' language because that was all that was in the initial LGP wording that was relevant to the discussion. This isn't rocket science.
Again, think of a point guard moving east/west covered by someone that is to his north towards the rim, but guarding him at a 90 degree angle to his path because his primary concern is staying between the dribbler and the basket. Are you taking the position that that isn't LGP? Of course it is. "guarding' in the rule book says nothing about whether that guarded player has the ball as well.
Unfortunately, these rule books aren't written by attorneys, they are written by basketball guys, so there is inconsistent wording from time to time. Yes , 'guarding' says in the path, but initial LGP says nothing about that, and that is the key language for defining 'legally' guarding
|