colin jones - should he have been disqualified?

there is no doubt that the guy was play acting but what was the ref supposed to do? disqualify him? that would have been ridiculous. the ref had no choice. jones put him in a very difficult situation

 

Its got **** all to do whether the fighter thinks that he can or can't continue, thats the refs decision. On this occasion Ramsey= play acting and conning ****, in brief, much more of a cheat than Jones. The difference between this and Abraham is that Abraham actually connected, a love tap resulting in Ramseyesque display by Dirrel.

 

The ref did have a choice. Not difficult is it. There were 3 choices, do nothing, take a point, or the wrong one which was DQ him.

 

he couldnt take a point because the other guy was not going to continue. his choice was to disqualify or to award jones a win.

its amazing that people hold jones to no accountability for intentionally throwing a punch at a guy who was on the floor. he broke the rules and put himself in a position where he could be DQ'd. if he never threw the ILLEGAL PUNCH, he wouldnt have gotten disqualified. simple

 

That doesn't make the decision correct.

 

i am saying that jones got what he deserved. can you disagree with that statement?

the guy clearly saw that the other guy was down and took a CHEAP ILLEGAL SHOT at the guy. i agree about the play acting etc. however all i said was that jones got what he deserved.

amy winehouse got what she deserved also.

its harsh but if you think about it, its right. people have to be held accountable for their decisions. if a guy throws a penny off the eiffel tower for the laugh and it kills someone on the ground, he should be done for murder. basically, people should be held accountable for their actions and people are acting like jones did no wrong here and got mugged. he landed a cheap shot that was illegal and shouldn't have been thrown.

 

But in this case the penny didn't kill anyone. It barely did anything in fact. It's like charging the guy that threw the penny for murder when it didn't hit anyone. Thats why there was the option to apply a bit of noddle which the referee didn't have.

 

The thing is, you are making a judgement based on the severity of the blow, which is a very subjective thing. Therefore, you cannot have a universal rule here because people will see things differently.

Many people think dirrell was caught with an absolute haymaker.. I don't.

The fact of the matter is, these shots will always lead to overmatched fighters, who are looking for a way out anyway, finding a way out.

The solution is to NOT THROW A CLEAR ILLEGAL SHOT that would open up the chance of you getting disqualified.

 

It IS subjective just like deciding whether a fighter can continue or not after a knockdown is subjective. Thats the art of being a ref.

Does every fight with a low blow end in a DQ? Does every fight with a punch after the bell end in a DQ?

No, they don't because thats what warnings and points deductions are for. So a ref can use his judgement and be subjective about the foul.

 

Generally, if these fouls occur and the recipient does not continue, it is deemed a disqualification.

Tell me about some fights where a fighter got a low blow which was acknowledged by the referee and then refused to continue, then ended up losing the fight by stoppage?

Also tell me about a fight where a punch landed after the bell which was also acknowledged by the referee and the reciepient couldn't continue and then ended up losing the fight.

I can bounce off several examples of the opposite occuring.

 

I reckon the ref or judges should've called it on who was winning at the point it was stopped. That to me seems the common sense way of dealing with it.

Yes, technically, it was illegal. But everything isn't black and white in the world. Ramsey shouldn't have been given the W for such a *****-like manouevre. And Watson should never have been disqualified for that offence, no matter what the jobsworths say.

Problem with common sense is that it isn't that common.

 

If the referee started counting him which is what he should have done then the boxer can choose to continue or not the if the referee never actual question the boxer or until ramsey started rolling about so should have counted him and seen if he could or could not continue

 

i agreed with abraham dirrell DQ.

he caught him flush and it was a lot more on purpose.

that incident was a pt deduction.

but not a DQ. atsch

 

Agreed.

Thanks for uploading. :good

 

Stop calling it a "BLOW" or a "SHOT", it was neither of these