Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
My ruling is that Gold retaliated (to Red's kick) with the face push. Gold's act of the fist punch is a seperate act, and not instigated by the kick. Gold 10 took the time to pause and then had time to prepare and launch her fist to Red's face.
The [wimpy] kick was not to start a fight. It was likely because she (Red 5) thought she was fouled on the play by Gold 10. Gold's fist punch to the face is not in the same ballpark as a wimpy kick.
|
It doesn't matter whether you thought that the wimpy kick wasn't meant to start a fight. The
fact is that the wimpy kick actually
did start the fight. The severity of the instigating act, a
wimpy kick, isn't a factor either, by rule. The case book play points that out nicely by using verbal taunting as an instigating act. If you
start a fight--in any way--the rulesmakers want both parties punished
equally. If Red 5 doesn't kick Gold 10, that fight doesn't happen.
You'd really let the person who instigated that mess off with a lesser punishment that the person who retaliated? In direct opposition to the intent and purpose of the "fighting" rule?
OK. We disagree completely on that one.