Closely Guarded

[Dan_ref]

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?