What are the grounds for DQ?

[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?

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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?

No one is using any excuses about anything. You blowing this a little out of proportion.

The comparison can be made (as Fenster stated) for example in the Barrera/ Marquez fight when Barrera lamped Marquez when he was already down (I think Pacquiao did the same thing in their 1st fight ) and pretty much everyone here was more pissed that Nady blew the call on the knock down. In Fact, no one even went as far as to even suggest that Barrera should of been disqualified.

This probably speaks more of the hypocracy of the boxing fan than the general view of inconsistent officiating but none the less the point is, were are merely drawing comparisons. You can't shoot down facts

[Jody Lane]

I agree Zilla. Why is it so hard to think that Dirrell wouldn't be affected. As far as I have seen in 30 years or so of watching boxing thre have been times that there has been a delayed reaction for a fighter standing up getting hit with a shot then slumping ass over tea kettle. Truth is that AA was undefeated, was losing the fight and even after decking Dirrell the round before, didn't seem to know what to do with him in round 11. Last time I saw this much suspension of belief among a fighter's fan at their guy losing was when Roy Jones Jr coldcocked Montell Griffin blatantly and everyone said he play acted. And on my scorecard Griffin was dead even. So basically I will throw AA in with the bitches that cheat like RJJ and Andrew Golota when the going gets tough.

[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.

[hfahrenheit]

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.

[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"

[hfahrenheit]

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.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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

[GAME]

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 )

[Tysonbruno]

Fact is Arthur werent DQ'd until Andre fell to floor and rolled under rope had he remained on one knee i think ref would have given him a rest period and deducted a point from Arthur. One thing is for sure i don't envy the fighter that fights him next because he either sprints for 12 rounds or pulls out a acting masterclass a warrior he will never be i never really question a fighters heart but Andre Dirrell has a massive question mark over his for me.

[killersheep]

Fact is Arthur werent DQ'd until Andre fell to floor and rolled under rope had he remained on one knee i think ref would have given him a rest period and deducted a point from Arthur. One thing is for sure i don't envy the fighter that fights him next because he either sprints for 12 rounds or pulls out a acting masterclass a warrior he will never be i never really question a fighters heart but Andre Dirrell has a massive question mark over his for me.

Well as long as Abraham comes out smelling like roses it's ok. Give him a pass for the illegal blow that's fine.

[Tysonbruno]

Fact is Arthur werent DQ'd until Andre fell to floor and rolled under rope had he remained on one knee i think ref would have given him a rest period and deducted a point from Arthur. One thing is for sure i don't envy the fighter that fights him next because he either sprints for 12 rounds or pulls out a acting masterclass a warrior he will never be i never really question a fighters heart but Andre Dirrell has a massive question mark over his for me.

Well as long as Abraham comes out smelling like roses it's ok. Give him a pass for the illegal blow that's fine.

Im not saying that and overall i want Carl Froch to win i just don't like Dirrell at all but thats my opinion and everyone is entitled to there own.

[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.

[ryanman]

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.

[hfahrenheit]

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.