I was just giving the simplest possible answer I could think of for the question "What's the difference between a Gari and a Gake'. Of course they blend together, just wanted to clarify. And the 'blocking action' I cited is the most common application of a Gake, though the uproot is more correct and is what I would be doing in a belt test.
I usually try to apply the majority principle to Judo throws. Continuous reap > Uproot with the leg / blocking action = Gari and vice-versa. Instant adaptability is a hallmark of all great grapplers and any good Judoka will feel a change and adapt, which is why so many of the scoring throws are not what they started out as.
I don't think the terminology is useless either. Each term is a concept that works in a certain circumstance and many of them are separated by factors that you feel and can't see unless they are exaggerated. I couldn't teach a combo with "I start with an Ashi Waza, but if he drops his weight I switch to Ashi Waza. Of course if he lifts the rear leg to avoid I would instead use Ashi Waza." Using the correct terms lets you effectively communicate how you change your attack as circumstances change. It's a teaching and communication tool for what you want(ed) to do and why, and carries with it an explanation or implication of what changed about the weight transfer/angle/motion to make shifting to the next attack concept a better idea.
That's also why it's also such a generally crappy tool for breaking down "what the throw really was" from a video. The amount of weight on Uke's front foot might be invisible to us, as well as where the pushes and pulls are going on the grips, etc. As these invisible factors change, what works changes and so you end up with a throw that starts out Gake, transitions to Gari, and ends in Otoshi. "It was a leg-hooking takedown and it worked" is perfectly fine for the review of a fight, but if I asked the fighter what exactly they did with their body and why you would either use the correct terminology and make it clear in 30 seconds or do a 10 minute explanation without it.
I usually try to apply the majority principle to Judo throws. Continuous reap > Uproot with the leg / blocking action = Gari and vice-versa. Instant adaptability is a hallmark of all great grapplers and any good Judoka will feel a change and adapt, which is why so many of the scoring throws are not what they started out as.
I don't think the terminology is useless either. Each term is a concept that works in a certain circumstance and many of them are separated by factors that you feel and can't see unless they are exaggerated. I couldn't teach a combo with "I start with an Ashi Waza, but if he drops his weight I switch to Ashi Waza. Of course if he lifts the rear leg to avoid I would instead use Ashi Waza." Using the correct terms lets you effectively communicate how you change your attack as circumstances change. It's a teaching and communication tool for what you want(ed) to do and why, and carries with it an explanation or implication of what changed about the weight transfer/angle/motion to make shifting to the next attack concept a better idea.
That's also why it's also such a generally crappy tool for breaking down "what the throw really was" from a video. The amount of weight on Uke's front foot might be invisible to us, as well as where the pushes and pulls are going on the grips, etc. As these invisible factors change, what works changes and so you end up with a throw that starts out Gake, transitions to Gari, and ends in Otoshi. "It was a leg-hooking takedown and it worked" is perfectly fine for the review of a fight, but if I asked the fighter what exactly they did with their body and why you would either use the correct terminology and make it clear in 30 seconds or do a 10 minute explanation without it.
