Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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.
|
The fact you mention is
your opinion. My opinion is otherwise.
I believe that Gold 10 had a chance to restrain herself and didn't.
Re: Taunting: it is verbal. Provide a case were both acts are physical.
Yes.
See my interp above.
You're stretching the truth here. I did eject Gold 10, just as you did. So, there's not a complete disagreement.