How did Pac get 120 points on 2 scorecards?

I think the rules are clear, a KD called by the ref has to be scored even if it's an incorrect call. To answer the OP's question, the only way Pac can get 120 points on 2 scorecards without disregarding this rule is if you have the following scorecard:

120-108

10-9
10-9
10-8
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-10
10-9
10-9

120-107

10-9
10-9
10-8
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-9
10-10
10-8
10-9

 

It only means no other person can make that call.

Did that phrase mentioned anything about judge cannot apply discretion?

"A legal blow" read the fine print on the KD clause.

Is the legal blow required by the clause present on that 10th round KD call or was there a blow at all?

I told you it can be exploited.

 

It only means a judge or any other person cannot call a KD. :yep

 

I'm not trying to mess with you here, but you're jumping in logic. That is, you're drawing conclusions that don't necessarily follow from your premises. To put it more plainly, A+B does not necessarily equal "C."

I'm not saying that the judges should not have scored the round for Mosley. But even based on the rule book points that you have brought up, that doesn't mean they had to score the round for Mosley.

Some of the points you bring up, from the rule book:

* Only the referee can rule a knockdown

This doesn't completely apply here, because we're talking about "not" a knockdown, so to speak. But your point is clear: It's the referee that rules if a knockdown happens, not the judges.

And that's true, but it's not complete. The follow up is this: Even if a ref rules a knockdown, the judge doesn't have to score it. At least as far as I understand the rules of scoring. Not the traditions of scoring -- how things are usually scored -- but the rules of scoring (the way things must be scored). That is, what a judge has to score, or how they have to score.

Which leads to the next point you brought up:

* Judges shall deduct points for knockdowns only when they are called as such by the referee

"Shall" is not the same as "must." What this point means is that the judges may only score a knockdown when a ref rules a knockdown has taken place. That is, a judge can't score a 10-7 round and claim he did so because of a knockdown(s) when the referee never ruled a knockdown took place.

The rule does not say, however, "if a referee scores a knockdown then the judge must score it as a knockdown." That might seem like a small point, or one that doesn't follow from the rule, but it is different. And because it is different, it gives the judges flexibility in how they score a round.

I could be off on this: Maybe there is a rule saying judges "will" or "must" score a knockdown a certain way, if the ref rules a knockdown took place. But that doesn't seem to be the case, which is what Iole was basically saying. And part of what I was alluding to: If there were no flexibility in how judges scored rounds, then every judge would score every round of every fight exactly the same. Which we know isn't the case.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. What seems to have happened last night, though, is that the judges (or two of them, anyway) realized Bayless blew the call and they reflected that in their scoring. And the judges appear to have the latitude to do that in this instance. If they did not have the ability to do so, why would they do it? I doubt they want to jeopardize their reputations or ability to judge fights based upon scoring one round of a non-competitive fight for one fighter over the other. That doesn't seem to make much sense.

We have to assume the judges know the judges rule book better than we do. If they scored the round 10-10 or scored it for Pac, two of them, it seems highly unlikely that the rule book prevents them from doing so. Even if the standard practice is to do otherwise. Which is what the third judge appeared to follow, the standard practice (that "Mosley knocks down Pac" round is the only round which the third judge gave to Mosley, but the judge did give that round to Mosley).

 

Wrong. The rule did not specifically stated that a judge cannot make scoring discretion in case of a bad call.

Factor in the requirements on when to call a KD. To be specific check the "A legal blow" clause.

You don't put a judge there for nothing.

 

it's clear that only the referee can call a KD...
but is there any rules saying that a judge cannot use his discretion about
a bad call of a referee? (it is a clear bad call)

i think its a wake call for Boxing organizations revised the rules...
co'z what happened if fight is too closed... i think it's unfair for the fighters...

 

Well these people were acting as if the Judges doesn't know the book.

Clearly I cannot find in the book barring Judges discretionary power in case of a bad KD call.

Provisions when to call a KD was clearly laid out in the book.

 

It was very obviously not a knockdown and the judges scored it as such. I was happy to see judges using their brains for once.

 

Agreed and well said.

Discretionary power basically means you (in this case, the judges) decide what to do. In other words, it means power that is not clearly laid out or limited. If a judging rule says you "will" or "will not" score something, then you have to do, or not do, that. If there is not a set rule for scoring a certain event, though, or there is -- as you have said -- grey area about how to interpret a rule, then that is where a judge's discretion comes in.

Think about it like this, from everyday life: Most cities have rules/laws about jaywalking. People are supposed to use crosswalks. But the law might not say how I have to walk in a crosswalk. I can walk backwards through the crosswalk unless the law says I can't walk backwards. That's in my discretion. The only boundary here is that I have to walk in the crosswalk.

The judges have to score the person who won or tied the round with 10 points. Only refs can rule a knockdown. Etc. Much of the rest of the stuff seems to be left up to the judges -- they can walk backwards through the crosswalk even if most people don't walk backwards through the crosswalk.

Last night, two judges walked backwards through the crosswalk on how they scored the round Pacquiao was "knocked down" in. The other judge walked forward through the crosswalk.

But they all seemed to walk through the crosswalk, which means they were probably inside the rules in how they scored the round.

 

On the dot. :good

 

Thanks man! :thumbsup

Cant wait for Wlad-Pizza Face. Nice avatar by you! :good

 

I remember watching the news (cause I live in Vegas) it pissed me off how even the news people were saying that when Pacquaio got knocked down it was a push and when Mosley did they said it was a real knocked down. other then that I think Arum Fixed this fight and paid the judges to do that