Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hfahrenheit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zilla
How is this controversial? Fighter A slips and is obviously not on his feet. Fighter B sees Fighter A has fallen, winds up, and blasts Fighter A with a punch.
What has gone on in other fights under similar situations is irrelevent.
If you see a fighter is not on his feet you cannot hit him. Hey, if you knock an opponent down, why not stand over him and hammer his head with your fists if the ref hasn't stopped you? To use the excuse that the ref hadn't yet stepped in is ludicrous. Any fight when an opponent has taken a knee should get a DQ victory if the other fighter hit him while he was down. Cheating in the past doesn't vindicate cheating in the present. If I recall correctly, in the Cotto fight, Margarito was about to punch him when he took a knee. It wasn't like Cotto took a knee THEN Margarito wound up and punched. Dirrell fell, THEN Abraham pulled back and threw.
Why is it so odd for some to think that a flush punch from a hard puncher could discombobulate an opponent who was in no way prepared to be punched?
BULLSHIT.
you're not answering the question, and frankly muddling the integrity of the discussion by putting forth some sort of protectionism for Dirrell.
I don't care who won the fight, I don't have a stake in either fighter, but you're making an argument for one of the fighters, therefore exhibiting bias. I've never boxed beyond the school yard, and don't really know all the rules. I am asking a question based on the inconsistency of rulings.
Boxing has one rule book.
The argument isn't that it was a foul, it most certainly was, my argument is that there has to be a unilateral ruling system, and if that is grounds for an immediate DQ, then they need to go back and correct all of those decisions... otherwise the whole thing stinks.
RE: "If I recall correctly, in the Cotto fight" [you don't recall correctly; Cotto had taken a knee, and was clearly yielding, and Margarito took a full swing and knocked blood and sweat across the ring. HBO liked to use the clip to show the fierceness of the fight.]
IMO, THEY SHOULD HAVE DEDUCTED A POINT FROM ABRAHAM FOR THE FOUL, AND IF DIRRELL COULDN'T CONTINUE, WENT TO THE CARDS IN WHICH DIRRELL WOULD HAVE WON EASILY. THEY ALSO SHOULD HAVE COUNTED BOTH KNOCKDOWNS.
BOTTOM LINE: THEY GOT THIS ONE ALL WRONG.
To answer your question, the grounds are the ref's discretion. Therefore it's not wrong, regardless of the precedent as Zilla said.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Soto got DQed for grazing the back of Lorenzo's head and that was much less blatant, Lorenzo also did not go down after.
Bottom line here is that it's the ref's call, it's clearly within his rights to do so based on the circumstance. If Cole deems a fighter is unable to continue from an illegal blow, even if a fighter IS able to continue a ref is in his rights to call a halt to a bout on an illegal shot like that.
Be that as it may, it is also the responsibility of the various athletic commissions to review fights for consistency.
One sport, one rule book.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
I'd like to make it clear, I believe Arthur being DQ'd was the correct and only possible decision. Whether or not Dirrell was acting, if a fighter is laying flat on his back unresponsive the fight is over. In that situation the ref has no choice other than DQ the fighter that committed the foul.
The fact remains though, fighters get hit when down ALL the time. The ONLY reason Abraham was DQ'd is because Dirrell didn't get back up (as history shows). Making Abraham out to be some cheating monster is ridiculous.
This post above almost perfectly reflects my thoughts. Thanks Fenster.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hfahrenheit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Soto got DQed for grazing the back of Lorenzo's head and that was much less blatant, Lorenzo also did not go down after.
Bottom line here is that it's the ref's call, it's clearly within his rights to do so based on the circumstance. If Cole deems a fighter is unable to continue from an illegal blow, even if a fighter IS able to continue a ref is in his rights to call a halt to a bout on an illegal shot like that.
Be that as it may, it is also the responsibility of the various athletic commissions to review fights for consistency.
One sport, one rule book.
The rules state it's the ref's discretion.
Rules of Boxing - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
"A violation of the following rules is considered a foul, and can result in a point deduction or disqualification"
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hfahrenheit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
Soto got DQed for grazing the back of Lorenzo's head and that was much less blatant, Lorenzo also did not go down after.
Bottom line here is that it's the ref's call, it's clearly within his rights to do so based on the circumstance. If Cole deems a fighter is unable to continue from an illegal blow, even if a fighter IS able to continue a ref is in his rights to call a halt to a bout on an illegal shot like that.
Be that as it may, it is also the responsibility of the various athletic commissions to review fights for consistency.
One sport, one rule book.
The rules state it's the ref's discretion.
Rules of Boxing - Boxrec Boxing Encyclopaedia
"A violation of the following rules is considered a foul, and can result in a point deduction or disqualification"
Cool, and thank you for the link.
But even in the case of discretion, isn't that reviewable? In American sports (college and professional), every "judgment" call made by a ref is 100% reviewable by the governing body.
I watched an interview from someone in a boxing commission talking about the lopsided scorecards in the Malignaggi v. Dias I fight, and the guy said they review every fight they put on...and in this case he admitted that judge had a bad night.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Or more importantly:
''If the foul results in an injury that causes the fight to end immediately, the boxer who committed the foul is disqualified.''
Well there you go. Job jobbed I guess.
''You can't hold your opponent and hit him at the same time, or duck so low that your head is below your opponent's belt line.''... Yeah right :rolleyes:
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Boxing should atleast be consistant. If they are going to DQ abs then DQ Maragarito, Tyson. Marcianao etc.
Why award Dirrell and Griffin just because they are good actors ( Griffin more so, Dirrels act needs a little more work )
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
I should be clear I am all for reform, because in reality we don't have one set of rules. Rules vary state to state and country to country based on the athletic commission of jurisdiction and further by the presiding sanctioning bodies and further from the private contracts of the fighters which is all left up to the judgment of the ref to enforce those rules. Cheating is common still and you'd be hard pressed to find a fighter that doesn't break the rules in one way or another.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
killersheep
I should be clear I am all for reform, because in reality we don't have one set of rules. Rules vary state to state and country to country based on the athletic commission of jurisdiction and further by the presiding sanctioning bodies and further from the private contracts of the fighters which is all left up to the judgment of the ref to enforce those rules. Cheating is common still and you'd be hard pressed to find a fighter that doesn't break the rules in one way or another.
yep
In the UK you tend to see per ratio more out and out barnyard fights because our rules are pretty lenient. Head to germany and its a total reverse, almost everything is punishable under their sanctions.
America (vegas imparticularly) seem to have found the middle ground which is why i usually prefer to see fights across the pond. But thinking about it i wouldnt wanna lose british boxings sense of identity even if our rules can at times seem a tad crazy
Had the scenario from saturday had happened in the UK i genuinelyfear under the BBBoC it would of been declared as a non contest
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
If it is a punch thrown after the fighter had been downed for any length of time it calls for auto DQ....EG a fighter hits the canvas even by 1 knee the opp stops in front pauses then throws the shot...
In thought the fighter throwing the shot paused because they realize they had a downed opp then decided to throw anyway....
If an opp falls in the middle of a combo and gets a shot it is usually ruled accidental and something that happened in the momentum of a flurry.....
Anyone remember Jones DQ against Griffin?
Most of the time though a DQ will only be called if the fighter has been dirty all night, or inflicted damage to the opp to where they can not continue like Dirrell claimed...
Though in the end it is the refs call and Saturday it was a bad bad ref....
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Ok - Let's assume Direll wasn't acting...I don't give a shit what any of your signatures say or how you define somebody "knocked out" should be acting (:rolleyes:), the truth is NOBODY knows for sure whether he was acting apart from Direll himself.
So, yeah the ref was bad for not seeing those knockdowns...They were pretty obvious to me and everyone else BUT that call was the only call that could have been made. If he took a point off of AA and then ordered Direll to carry on because he felt he was acting, it would have been the most horrific decision of all time (Especially if the ref was wrong). What if it led to Direll's death? I'm sure Cole would be getting twice the amount of shit he is getting now.
He made the right choice, Direll was owning AA anyway...he had his legs with him still and was clearly going to ride out the 11th and 12th..what's the problem??
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Ok - Let's assume Direll wasn't acting...I don't give a shit what any of your signatures say or how you define somebody "knocked out" should be acting (:rolleyes:), the truth is NOBODY knows for sure whether he was acting apart from Direll himself.
So, yeah the ref was bad for not seeing those knockdowns...They were pretty obvious to me and everyone else BUT that call was the only call that could have been made. If he took a point off of AA and then ordered Direll to carry on because he felt he was acting, it would have been the most horrific decision of all time (Especially if the ref was wrong). What if it led to Direll's death? I'm sure Cole would be getting twice the amount of shit he is getting now.
He made the right choice, Direll was owning AA anyway...he had his legs with him still and was clearly going to ride out the 11th and 12th..what's the problem??
Who are you trying to convince yourself or us? Dirrell looked like he was on his way out and given Arthurs history of dramatic last round KOs it seemed a very likely outcome. I dont blame Andre for taking the cowards way out. It was the smart thing to do considering his running tactics were no longer working.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
The truth is NOBODY knows for sure whether he was acting apart from Direll himself.
Hehe, you don't say? ;)
So yeah, the ref wasn't really given any choice but to disqualify AA. I agree with the disqualification. But there have been some interesting comparisons that can be drawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
He made the right choice, Direll was owning AA anyway...he had his legs with him still and was clearly going to ride out the 11th and 12th..what's the problem??
Well as they say, once the illegal punch was thrown, the rest was history, so I won't bother going there.
But I could if I wanted to. Just so you know :cool:
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAME
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Ok - Let's assume Direll wasn't acting...I don't give a shit what any of your signatures say or how you define somebody "knocked out" should be acting (:rolleyes:), the truth is NOBODY knows for sure whether he was acting apart from Direll himself.
So, yeah the ref was bad for not seeing those knockdowns...They were pretty obvious to me and everyone else BUT that call was the only call that could have been made. If he took a point off of AA and then ordered Direll to carry on because he felt he was acting, it would have been the most horrific decision of all time (Especially if the ref was wrong). What if it led to Direll's death? I'm sure Cole would be getting twice the amount of shit he is getting now.
He made the right choice, Direll was owning AA anyway...he had his legs with him still and was clearly going to ride out the 11th and 12th..what's the problem??
Who are you trying to convince yourself or us? Dirrell looked like he was on his way out and given Arthurs history of dramatic last round KOs it seemed a very likely outcome. I dont blame Andre for taking the cowards way out. It was the smart thing to do
considering his running tactics were no longer working.
His running tactics? What Dirrell was doing to Abraham was tantamount to face rape.
Re: What are the grounds for DQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zilla
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAME
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Althugz
Ok - Let's assume Direll wasn't acting...I don't give a shit what any of your signatures say or how you define somebody "knocked out" should be acting (:rolleyes:), the truth is NOBODY knows for sure whether he was acting apart from Direll himself.
So, yeah the ref was bad for not seeing those knockdowns...They were pretty obvious to me and everyone else BUT that call was the only call that could have been made. If he took a point off of AA and then ordered Direll to carry on because he felt he was acting, it would have been the most horrific decision of all time (Especially if the ref was wrong). What if it led to Direll's death? I'm sure Cole would be getting twice the amount of shit he is getting now.
He made the right choice, Direll was owning AA anyway...he had his legs with him still and was clearly going to ride out the 11th and 12th..what's the problem??
Who are you trying to convince yourself or us? Dirrell looked like he was on his way out and given Arthurs history of dramatic last round KOs it seemed a very likely outcome. I dont blame Andre for taking the cowards way out. It was the smart thing to do
considering his running tactics were no longer working.
His running tactics? What Dirrell was doing to Abraham was tantamount to face rape.
Maybe you should re-watch the fight after the knockdown that was robbed from AA. Dirrell clearly wasn't as sharp, was taking more significant punches.
Could Dirrell have ran enough to get a points victory? Absolutely.
But, even more so AA was on the hunt and he was connecting.
"Face Rape?" --that would be Pac v. De La Hoya--clearly you're biased.
Dirrell was landing more, working harder, and more certainly on his way to lopsided points victory, especially if they counted BOTH of his knockdowns, up until AA knocked him down. You cannot discount momentum. AA had it. Dirrell's eyes told the whole story.
But, if you really need to prove to yourself whether or not he was running...
ask yourself this:
was he running or punching when he slipped?
