Ref.s need to start pinging Player A for holding the tackled player in, but Player B also has to know that retaliation is always going to get you punished more severely (and rightly so).
This sort of responses is, imo, a huge part of the problem. I am trying to adress A, i specifically mention B is not correct in his behaviour, and yet we continue to turn our heads away from A and focus on B. The problem, the instigator, the root cause, is A, not B. And we keep hearing about how the ref should have, would have, could have pinged, but that never happens.
Im my book, retaliation is a lesser offense than aggression yet the laws of the game tend to punish retaliation equally or worse than aggression. That, for me, is not only nonsensical but also ruins part of the game. It allows (for the possibility at least) of a weaker player for team A to instigate a fight with B's best player. Worst case, they are both off and team A wins. Then we hear post game about how the ref could have, should have, would have pinged this or that, ad nauseam.
You start punishing A severely and the instances of B doing something collapse overnight, guaranteed.
The trouble is, I don't think there's a law against holding the tackled player in
Law 14!
You could argue once the ruck is formed there is a bit of a grey area, but just to use a well known example of what i am taking about when Owen Farrell held CJ stander got into this situation both were not part of the ruck anymore. I picked that example becase a) i have no skin in that game, b) I want people who act like farrell in that instance to be severely punished, instant YC and c) i want people like Stander to get a slap on the wrist IF AND ONLY IF the do not close their fists.
You might be looking for another thing. My point, again, is that as it stands this encourages instigators, punishes people who get caught with illegal moves and tends to penalize more heavily to the people who react. I really, really think that is a terrible for the game.
amp.rugbydump.com
