The vid that explains it all

[KananKrus]

Deductions on an extremely close match is tantamount to DQ'ing the penalized party and more than likely assured its beneficiary of a win, in a tightly contested fight,

Logic dictates. Even the slightly off the wall with any competence in reasoning can surely agree to this.

In a basketball analogy... A minute left in a ball game all tied at 104, suddenly the referee calls a technical on a very "weak" infraction. Two points! 104-106. Before long, another violation is called by this ref in the last possession for the now trailing team. Another two points on free throws... score now, 108-104, at this junture, practically it is game over! The "better team" did nothing to decide the outcome of the game, the man with the whistle made sure of that. The victor is the team whom he chose!

Boy! The referee sure showed them, "who's the boss", eh! Maybe he got tired of issuing those incessant warnings during the game! Instant justice! Maybe he's that NBA ref who went to jail for bets on the games.

This is not to state that Lamont Peterson needed this gift from the ref, all's been docked is... granted that the scores are very even, the deductions purposefully represented a guarantee of victory for him. Not that Lamont needed it. He could have very well earned the win without them, but somehow the ref's less than stellar outing robbed Peterson of a "clean" win!