Hopkins retains WBC title

And in fact if you read the WBC rules the correct decision would be a Technical draw.

 

I see you havent actually addressed any points I made and are now reducing yourself toname calling. that's your choice.

like I say go read the WBC rules. If a fighter refuses to continue immediately proceeding an incident that the referee decides is no foul, then the fighter loses by abanonment and the other fighter is awarded a TKO victory. Wahts so hard to understand about this?

And how can you claim that it was clear from the refs point of view that is was clear... were you standing at the same spot the ref saw the incident? no? so stfu idiot

 

You can hear the referee say 'no foul' pretty much immediately after it happens and several times after.

 

But how can it be no foul? He picked him up and threw him to the floor ffs. Sure maybe that's not enough to be disqualified for but it's still clearly a foul whether it's intentional or not. The referee missing that is quite bizarre but I do see the point that for some strange reason he thought it's a perfectly legal move and Hopkins being unable to continue is his own problem therefore it's a TKO but it's still wrong.

 

Yes but what im saying is he called it, 'no foul', immediately, he made it clear several times. whether or not he chose to look at the monitors to confirm this is up to him but in his mind he saw no foul and obviously did not see the need to review this decision. The TKO decision is just a result of the events preceeding it and the correct result of the actions that the ref judges to have just happened

 

Watch the tape, he hardly picked him up, hopkins was was on top of Dawsons back and he shoved him off. The ref called this no foul at the time as perhaps he saw this as a result of Bernards actions. It is the refs job to percieve the rules and implement as he sees fit. He made a call and stuck with it so fair dos to him.

If you look in the WBC rules the exact ruling for an instance like this is very unclear so is open for debate. and there is no exact written rule to cover the exact instance in which Dawson and Hopkins were involved in, hence why the difference in opinions between the Ref and the WBC.

It was a tough call to be fair.

 

He made the call immediately so didnt have the benefit. look at the ref on the tape, hes focused on whats happening in the ring not on whats being replayed to the audience on the big screens.

 

Fair enough but I was highlighting why there is a difference in opinion between the ref and the WBC. I was under the impression that a WBC championship bout is held under the WBC championship rules... is this wrong?

 

:huh

Sorry mate I agree with what you're saying about how the referee didn't see it as a foul and stuck with his opinion but it's still the wrong call and I don't think it was a tough one to make.