The poll combines three questions - is it RAW, is it RAI, and does it makes the game better or worse. I think each of these is independent.
Even if it's not the RAI, that needn't mean that it makes the game worse. It could be that an unintended loophole actually made the game better than the designer's intentions.
Of course, you're perfectly entitled to think that it's worse, as well as not RAI, if it seems somehow gamey or abusive to you - but it's not worse simply because it's not the RAI.
Of course, it's not worse simply because it's not the RAI. It' s just giving my reasoning why I think it makes passing a gamey or abusive thing. But I can understand why other people can see it perfectly legal and/or in character with the game.
As Topsy Kretts said, if there would be a dodge (basic) action, it would be with no doubt. But there is not. The only actions you can take are fight or retreat while engaged. One implies you want to fight, the other that you do not. All RAI, as subjective as it can get. RAW, you can take none.
Most of the times, you don't want to activite when somehow your less than capable fighter (lets say a juve) somehow survived a combat monster (lets say a killy corpse grinder leader) and you want to tie him into combat so he can't kill another more valuable fighter next round. why taking the risk of retreating while you can be "safer" just staying there? (Tactically speaking)
My take on this (totally fluff wise) is you should at least either fight or retreat (or both) to represent the actual outcome of the fight from your fighter point of view. The saving grace of this is that if you fail the initiative test on the retreat action, you can't leave, and no reaction attacks are being made. That way, that hypotetical "dodge" action happens...
Again, I know RAW you can do nothing at all, I can understand the benefits of that tactically speaking. It's just I find it out of character (and I fight against grinders often, Im the one injured here

)