Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF
Being in the path only applies to the definition of guarding..
Rule 4-23-1:
Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent. There is no minimum distance required between the guard and opponent, but the maximum is 6 feet when closely guarded. Every player is entitled to a spot on the playing court provided such player gets there first without *illegally contacting an opponent. A player who extends an arm, shoulder, hip or leg into the path of an opponent is not considered to have a legal position if contact occurs.
Legal guarding position is a different definition....
Rule 4-23-2
To obtain an initial legal guarding position:
a. The guard must have both feet touching the playing court.
b. The front of the guard's torso must be facing the opponent.
To obtain a legal guarding position you do not have to be in the path of the offensive player. To be guarding an offensive player you must be in his path.
|
Incorrect.
LGP is a special case of guarding. You can not have legal GUARDING position of you are not GUARDING.
If it were as you suggest, a defender could be chasing an opponent from behind (2 feet down and facing), pass them, then step across into their path with their back to them just as contact occurs and it would be a charge. We never call it that way....ever. I have never seen anyone at any level call it that way.
Furthermore, if your interpretation were true, everyone would have LGP the entire game once they faced each opponent with their feet down just once somewhere on the floor.
Even more so, your interpretation would permit a defender to move under an airborne opponent since your definition of legal position only involves stance and not position and the rule on airborne opponents only requires "legal position" and that could be satisfied even outside the path and moving under after the opponent was airborne.
Simply put, the definitions of LGP just don't work at all unless it includes the path.