Have you noticed that all referees at all levels allow a scrum half to pick the ball out of a ruck? That is technically handling in a ruck, but it improves the game
Until fairly recently, a hand-off was illegal because by definition the ball carrier was playing a man without the ball.
If you want to get picky, releasing the ball forward to take a kick should not be allowed.
I understand where you are coming from, and I did say that at the lower levels referees are much stricter. Just point out to juniors that TV rugby often judges thing differently. After all if Mum or Dad drives the family car like Lewis Hamilton drives his F1 Mercedes, there would be problems aplenty.
There are things here I agree with and things that are not really the point. "Dropping" a ball to kick it is essential. So It has to happen to allow kicking which IS allowed.
We have had to allow the SH to pick the ball out because our rucks are not really rucks they are pile-ups. HAD the elite guys kept a handle on ruck infringements back in the 1970s and 1980s we might not have the mess we now have and the need to allow an illegallity would probably not have developled.
Driving a racing car on a circuit and driving along the high street are very different activities it totally different vehicles. The comparrison is not really valid. In part because the two activitie have clearly defined and DIFFERENT rules / Laws that cover them. Rugby does not do that.
Hand offs, yes they were illegal but we chose to ignore the law so eventually the law makers changed the law to fit the illegality. Of course we could have enforced the law and there would have been no need to change the law. The tail is wagging the dog.
So what bit do I agree with?
Well the inference I take from your penultimate sentence. The senior game has different laws to the ones in the law book. There is in effect a "secret (email?)" law book that the pro game employs. HERE is the problem. Ordinary players see the seniors "get away" with stuff that I and most on here would be blowing the whistle for. These player and the spectators will quote law at you with the question / comment: "Why's that not a penalty? It's in the law book". Often the only answer we can give is "...TV (pro) rugby often judges thing differently..." . That really is not acceptable to supporters.
The solution is simple.
In the most recent draft of "trials & changes", WR codified the play on / advantage option following collpased scrums (in the Elite game). Something that has been an "unwritten law" for a number of years, now it is laid down. People don't have to like the law but at least the game can point to the fact the NO or WB etc are applying the laws and we can support that comment. The game becomes more transparent and honest. SO let us have an "ELITE LAW BOOK" Or "ELITE VARIATIONS" as an appendix to the law book. WR can then comfortably allow the crooked feed for the reasons that people have stated.
Until then WR looks to be at odds with the elite refs. We get announcements that there will be ZERO tolerance to crooked feeds and after a week or two it is business as usual. It's a nonsense