Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
According to Dan_ref's interpretation, a defender must be in the PATH of the opponent to have a closely guarded count. Let's assume that is true.
Does a stationary player have a path? Since path, as Dan is defining it, is the direction a player is actually moving, the answer must be no.
This precludes a player that is holding the ball from ever violating the closely guarded rule.
It is quite clear that the intent is for a player holding the ball to be liable for being closely guarded.
Therefore, PATH can not strictly mean the direction a player is actually moving.
Another way to look at it. If I go hiking and come to the point in the woods where 3 paths intersect. No matter which one I actually take, they are all still paths. The unchosen paths don't disappear just because they are not taken.
PATH is any direction that the play may wish to take.
|
Two very good arguments. However:
- I agree a strict reading of the rule might preclude closely held while holding the ball. But I don't believe that fact alone allows us to alter the rule to make it consistent. It's just a poorly worded rule. I'm not saying there's not a common undertanding of the intent, I'm just saying to the unitiated it is clear as mud.
- If you look up the definition fr PATH you'll see that there is more than 1 definition for the word. Obviously there are an infinite number of "paths" a player MIGHT take in the sense you use it. However, when a player moves he establishes THE "path" upon which he travels.
(As usual Mick said this much better than I.)
Make sense?