Dawson - Hopkins: The WBC rules

They could, I think.

Point is they would need to argue that the referee made two errors of judgement:
- ignored a foul (an argument some are obviously sympathetic to)
- made a mistake in assessing the seriousness of an injury - i.e. that Hopkins was in fact not able to continue.

[Of course they could also argue that Dawson's actions warranted an immediate DQ irrespective of what subsequently happened to Hopkins; but I think it's fair to say that if it wasn't for the shoulder injury, few - even in the "blatant foul camp" - would have claimed it was a fight terminating offence, right?]

 

I think it works as follows. If you suffer a fight terminating injury (and that's a big if, in this case) then:
- if the injury was accidental then the decision is a NC if the incident occurs before the end of round 4 and a Technical Decision (goes to the scorecards) if it happens after that. Whether you accidentally injured yourself or were accidentally injured is of no relevance, I think (at least the rules make no distinction) [p.13 of the rules]
- if the injury is not accidental, then the offending boxer loses by disqualification (so I guess, you could argue that Hopkins intentionally injured himself and so deserves to be disqualified, though that's a bit convoluted; alternatively you argue think he was intentionally injured and unable to continue in which case Dawson would need to be automatically DQed) [p. 14 of the rules];

Note that the latter appears at odds with point 15 which states that

But I think the key distinction is that the referee might, in the latter case think that the fouled boxer is fit to continue. In that case he can disqualify either boxer - the decision is entirely at his discretion.

 

I've just given you a justification: referee decides this was an accidental injury and that Bernard is fit to continue. Bernard declines to continue and so loses the fight by TKO.

End of story.

 

I think that could well happen, particularly in light of new medical evidence from the hospital.

It would be a bit unfair on Vitali Klitschko, wouldn't it, though? Because if the referee in his case thought the injury (arguably accidentally self inflicted) was fight terminating, then VK should have won the Byrd fight by virtue of it going to the scorecards...(unless, that is, the two injuries are qualitatively of different severity - which I'm not in a position to judge).

And if it is ruled a no-contest, then the commission would effectively be saying that there was no foul (otherwise Dawson would need to get automatically disqualified - and Hopkins handed the win).

 

Thanks for your post.

I think a rule like the one you suggest ("fighter hurt himself = TKO") would make sense - but is not there yet (at least not in the rules I linked to).

In particular, point 13 is on:

and it makes no distinction whether the boxer got injured by a punch or not (or in fact injured himself).

 

This one is hard to argue against...

But still, we can try to figure out what should happen in an idealised, hypothetical world in which what was written down as rules pre-fight, continues to hold post-fight, right? ;-)

 

Ok. Someone in a different thread posted a link to the California commission rules:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/stats_regs/regulations.pdf

I'm not 100% sure what set of rules was agreed for the bout - i.e. whether these hold in their entirety or not, but let's assume they did and see what it would change...

Interestingly, the list of fouls (para 337) is somewhat different. The WBC rules make it easier to argue that Dawson fouled, I think (they mention use of shoulders and crouching). The California commission ones only make reference to (7) butting with the head or shoulder and (17) pushing an opponent. That said (para 341) states that

So you can still argue for a foul, I guess (the only alternative to an injury following a foul is an injury following a legal blow - which if the opponent is unfit to continue should end in a Dawson TKO; but given the above it is hard to argue that whatever happened was a "fair blow" - irrespective of whether Hopkins fouled or not).

The rules following a foul are slightly different however. They state that

Here I think [para 339] it is much easier to argue that whatever injury Bernard sustained seriously jeopardized his chances of winning - which would be an argument for declaring the fight a no-contest (no provision of that sort in the WBC rules).

So bottom line, the possibilities are:
Dawson intentional foul -> Dawson disqualified
Dawson unintentional foul -> Fight ruled no contest because injury seriously jeopardized Bernard's chances of winning.

You can, of course, still defend the TKO decision but you need to prove that the foul did not affect Bernard's chances of winning, which is much harder than arguing about whether he was fit to continue or not.

Bottom line: in light of the California commission rules a NC (or Dawson DQ if you go with the intentional line) would seem like the most plausible option.

So the final question is, what exact set of rules rules was agreed pre-fight...

 

That's right, but they would also have to pray that whatever they do to injure their opponent is not deemed a foul - otherwise they would get automatically disqualified and loose (unless the ref thought their opponent was fit to continue following the foul - which would just result in a point deduction).

So it would be a very high risk strategy... Which is not to imply that it hasn't been tried... E.g. in the Bowe - Golota fight, Bowe would have automatically won following the first low blow if the ref though he was unfit to continue; didn't happen and he was forced to fight on - so, to the extent that Bowe was weakened, Golota's dirty tactics paid off there (but he got carried away with the success and took things a bit too far afterwards...).