What are the grounds for DQ?

[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.

[killersheep]

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.

[DaxxKahn]

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....

[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 (), 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??

[GAME]

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 (), 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.

[Zilla]

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 (), 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.

[hfahrenheit]

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 (), 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?

[killersheep]

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?

He was trying to land a left hook, which actually connected but had nothing on it because his feet were moving in opposite directions.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

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.

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