[crosscountry55]

I think you were close. To appease the coaches who are educated by TV color commentators who usually use the term "set" over "legal guarding position" (which I believe is the root of the problem), I would just say:

"Yes, her feet were set initially and then she maintained legal guarding position."

When I was first-year official and didn't understand this rule, I called a block that should have been a charge because the defender had LGP but was moving backward. I said to the incredulous coach, "he wasn't set." The coach very patiently challenged me to take a closer look at the rule. I did, and I've been educated ever since. My point? It's too bad we can't say the same thing in reverse to a coach, but invariably asking them to take a closer look at a rule comes across as insulting. So I'd use the more indirect approach of using a phrase like "maintained legal guarding position" in the hopes that it at least causes the coach to pause long enough to think, "hmmmmm" while I go back to officiating.