You could argue, I guess, that daring Rondo to shoot isn't guarding him, but I'm not sure that's a definition many people would agree with.
Me among them. There is more to defense than that and you still defend players who can't shoot further out than their shooting range for the most part. Especially one as quick as Rondo.
It's like saying the Celtics didn't guard LeBron when he was on the Cavs during the Big Three era. We were daring him to shoot. We were also guarding him.
OK, we are down to arguing some pretty inconsequential semantics here. The whole thing started when someone posted something along the lines of "yeah, Rondo was 4 for 7 but he wasn't being covered so they were essentially open shots".
I replied something along the line of, "Yeah, but teams never guard him so most of his 3 Pt shots are essentially open shots"
Then a debate ensued as to whether or sagging off a player and daring him to shoot constituted him being guarded or not. I don't know the official definition of "guard" as relates to basketball but I guess leaving a player open enough so that he can take an uncontested shot if he wants to is still guarding him BUT THAT SO IS NOT THE POINT!
Rondo could take 7 or more uncontested 3 point shots every game if he wanted to based on the way that teams currently choose to defend him. That is the point. If he starts to hit them at a rate of 4 for 7, teams will not continue to dare him to take those shots. It really doesn't matter if you call that guarding him or not. To me, saying that a team didn't guard Rondo on 3 pt shots is a colloquial or folksy way of saying, "sagged off and dared him to shoot".
I guess in the future I will need to try and be more literal and less figurative.