The distance travelled paragraph is a definition of the term "charging" as used in the initial description of a charging penalty.
The actual key point is that the charging penalty is described as someone who skates, jumps into, or charges an opponent in any manner. "Or," being the key word there. They then go on to clarify what "charge" means in that context.
Again, it's a horrible call because we all know what a charging penalty is supposed to look like, but the rule itself - as written - is an absolutely vague pile of shit that technically covers what happened on that play. My guess would be that they expanded the wording at some point to include leaving your feet, and did a really bad job of it but nobody cared because everyone knows what charging is. This is a huge pet peeve of mine going back forever.
It's ludicrous that the rule is called "charging" and to get a charging penalty you can do these things, which include but are not limited to charging. Who the f*** wrote this? It's like if the penalty called "high sticking" was actually for high sticking or kicking.
