Was Uzcategui hitting Dirrell after the bell intentional/flagrant? What is after the bell protocol?

The rules are sensibly and supposedly clearly that a boxer can't win on an accidental foul. So: did Uzcategui intentionally or flagrantly hit Dirrell after the bell? And was this handled correctly and fairly by the referee?

Check it out here:

This content is protected

It sure doesn't look intentional to me. It was the natural follow through of a combination a half second after the bell. And the ref should've jumped in there. There have been several occasions when a fighter lands a punch significantly later, deliberately, but nothing's done because he doesn't hurt the opponent. But I immediately thought this looked identical to Barthelemy-Argenis Mendez. Which was initially misruled a ko win, but later corrected as an accidental foul and a no contest.

Barthelemy-Mendez:

This content is protected

There was no pause or decision to begin throwing after the bell in either case. They're the same situation. In fact there was more of a delay for Barthelemy than Uzcategui. The only difference was Mendez was completely out. But the objective fact from the replay is Uzcategui hit Dirrell only a split second after the bell, and completely unintentionally. That cannot be considered 'blatant'.

Point 2:
If the referee did consider it flagrant enough to result in disqualification, shouldn't he immediately have stopped the match and declared Dirrell the winner? There should be a clearer protocol. If the referee thinks it was intentional or flagrant he should have to declare it a DQ then and there. If not, there's too much confusion about whether the boxer's fit to continue and about what next happens, and, as we saw with Dirrell, the downed boxer is in effect given a chance to take a DQ win. Comparing it to Barthelemy-Mendez, the ref started a count, so shouldn't that rule that it was a legal punch? But the decision was later overturned from a KO win to an acknowledged late punch and no contest, so I guess starting a count doesn't necessarily declare it a legal punch.

If it was unintentional, shouldn't the referee have to immediately indicate so, then immediately following that determine if the downed boxer is fit to continue? If he's not fit to continue, then fight over: if it's before the determined rounds at which the bout's official it's a no contest, and if it's after it goes to the scorecards. If the referee determines that he is fit to continue, shouldn't he be given up to 5 minutes to continue, like a low blow? This might not happen too often, but it's pathetic that when it does the ref and everyone at ringside throws their arms around and panics like clueless children. A clear protocol based on an understanding of the rules should have to be followed. Doesn't how I've described the procedure make sense?

Here's another noteworthy fight in which the fight ended with a punch after the bell, Starling-Molinares:

This content is protected

In that case Cortez simply completely screwed up. He insisted the punch landed at the bell and was legal, and counted Starling out. But it was clearly after the bell, though unintentional, so if it was declared so would the right thing have been to go the scorecards?

I'll mention Roy Jones-Griffin too:

This content is protected

Unlike the others, though it might not have been intentional that WAS flagrant, Griffin was on the canvas for well over a full second, and being on your knees is different and a boxer should be aware enough that his opponent's down to restrain himself. So an immediate DQ was deserved. But the referee did start a count! Doesn't or shouldn't that declare that it was a legal punch? Who makes the decision? Or is the referee allowed to change his mind 30 seconds later? Is boxing just making it up as they go along?

 

The youtube clip I included was taken down as I posted this, ugh. Please post it for observation when it's again available

 

That's closer to the truth than a DQ. The Starling shot was more delayed that this and that was called legal. But you're wrong and though it was only a split-second and unintentional it was still after the bell so can't be a KO win.

 

Thanks I didn't hear the ref as it happened live. He's a total blowhard. He didn't say once if he thought it was inentional or not, as if that's not significant. He just saw a late punch, saw Dirrell go down, then decided he was the hero and it's a DQ and that's all there is to it. It sure does make him look like he helped Dirrell with a win. And that's why there needs to be a clearer procotol for this.

 

By the way, I just watched the interview with the ref after Jones-Griffin. Larry asked him exactly what I wondered, why he started counting, then called the DQ. The ref's response makes sense to him, but not to the rules. He said he wanted to see if Griffin was ok. But that means it's not clear whether he considered the shot landed while Griffin was down or not! How he can he then confident DQ Jones? It doesn't have to be this hard, but boxing is so pathetic.