I just got back from some fights in NY with one of our guys fighting for a title in the semi-main event. In the fight his opponent gets hit, moves back, twists or hyperextends his knee, falls and can no longer continue. I assume that my guy wins that title and the referee calls the match a No-contest. A No-contest usually results when something beyond the control of the fighters stops the match. In the case of a fighting moving and falling and not being able to continue, I don't think that constitutes a No-contest. Having torn ACLs in matches, I hoped back up and continued to fight. If I couldn't have continued, then the other other fighter should be awarded the victory. I don't think it should be declared a No-contest.
In looking at decisions determined by officials (refs, judges, etc.), I think that they should do all in their power to let the fighters determine the outcome. I would rather extensions rounds be added in the case of a draw. Depending on the sport, rulings should be based on the basic definition of the sport. For example in combat sports, the objective is dominate one's opponent with the most efficient techniques for that sport. In a boxing match, we know a right cross hits harder than a jab. So, if it boils down which wins between the two, the right cross should win as opposed to looking at it as both landed a punch.
It would be great if all officiating had competitive experience or training in what they are judging (believe or not, many times it is neither), we could see better decisions. As professional as commissions and organizations want to be, they main area the fail in is getting credible experienced people to officiate.
No comments:
Post a Comment