slapbangwhallop wrote:I seem to remember you went whining to and got me a warning here when I replied to you with an innocuous comment so it nice to see that you are proving yourself hypocritical!
Anyway, that aside, you are talkin out of an orifice other than your gob because I spoke to an A* referee about this very subject on the night!
Carry on!
Dear oh dear...
I'm simply disagreeing with you on a matter of fact. Should be easy enough to resolve. I'll even keep it polite too!
Give me a bit of time. Maybe I'm on shaky ground now given your research!
If you're right, you're right and I'll let everyone know.
Well its fun that I get a yellow card if I politely disagree with you on here! Get my point?
Maybe do your research before coming on here with yer sarky comments though yeah.
Toodle pip!
I can't remember what you got a warning for but it certainly won't have been for politely disagreeing...unless you were breaching an earlier tagging order
And, of course, I have done my research. There's no way I'd disagree with you otherwise.
Two refs support my view but because of what you've said, I'll get a clarification from the Board.
It could be a WBA thing though, granted. Just can't see it though.
The Dark Destroyer wrote:It's British rules to score the KD isn't it? Is the trouble that this is was a WBA title eliminator?
Yeah, could be that mate.
Wouldn't surprise me if the WBA changed rules half way through a fight
It's BBBoC rules I'm talking about.
I was under the impression that any KD in a world level sanctioned fight was at the judges discretion, the sky commentators even said on the Haye fight that the judges may choose to disregard the KD.
To be honest i didsnt know it was any different at domestic level.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:I wouldn't trust commentators mate.
I always find it breathtaking how the 'analysts'/former pros on Match of the Day constantly get basic rules wrong.
You could be right though.
Wasnt there a big thing about it during the mosley v pac fight because the ref gave a KD one judge counted it, one out ruled it and the other gave a 10-10 round or some nonsense.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Rather pithy, to the point statement from the BBBoC:
"The referee is in charge of the contest and if the referee calls a knock down then it is a knock down."
Doesn't explain how IJL ballsed up the Prizefighter scoring when he managed to avoid scoring a KD.
The scoring system is probably alright, but the mechanics behind it are all wrong. There should be someone from the Board (at least with a modicum of independence) collating and checking the cards before they are announced. All points deductions, KD's, etc should be applied AFTER the judge has scored the fight. The judge then has pretty much one of five scores to choose from 10-8 and 10-9 either way or 10-10. Let the judge score the round as he sees it and let the "system" apply any deductions at the completion. Not too tricky is it?
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Rather pithy, to the point statement from the BBBoC:
"The referee is in charge of the contest and if the referee calls a knock down then it is a knock down."
Doesn't explain how IJL ballsed up the Prizefighter scoring when he managed to avoid scoring a KD.
The scoring system is probably alright, but the mechanics behind it are all wrong. There should be someone from the Board (at least with a modicum of independence) collating and checking the cards before they are announced. All points deductions, KD's, etc should be applied AFTER the judge has scored the fight. The judge then has pretty much one of five scores to choose from 10-8 and 10-9 either way or 10-10. Let the judge score the round as he sees it and let the "system" apply any deductions at the completion. Not too tricky is it?
S'true, but how many balls-ups have the WBC done over the years with their "Score the fight, then deduct a point after the fight, then add two, divide by four" approach? The amount of decisions changed after the result's been announced always make me cringe: Lopez-Alvarez I, Chavez-Miguel Angel Gonzalez, Barrera-Juarez I...
Oh, hang on. I am seeing a pattern here. Maybe that method (scoring the fight then deducting points afterward) works after all, you just have to make sure it doesn't involve a high profile fight with a Mexican legend.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Rather pithy, to the point statement from the BBBoC:
"The referee is in charge of the contest and if the referee calls a knock down then it is a knock down."
Doesn't explain how IJL ballsed up the Prizefighter scoring when he managed to avoid scoring a KD.
The scoring system is probably alright, but the mechanics behind it are all wrong. There should be someone from the Board (at least with a modicum of independence) collating and checking the cards before they are announced. All points deductions, KD's, etc should be applied AFTER the judge has scored the fight. The judge then has pretty much one of five scores to choose from 10-8 and 10-9 either way or 10-10. Let the judge score the round as he sees it and let the "system" apply any deductions at the completion. Not too tricky is it?
IJL made a mistake and it wasn't noticed until it was read out. That's that.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Rather pithy, to the point statement from the BBBoC:
"The referee is in charge of the contest and if the referee calls a knock down then it is a knock down."
Doesn't explain how IJL ballsed up the Prizefighter scoring when he managed to avoid scoring a KD.
The scoring system is probably alright, but the mechanics behind it are all wrong. There should be someone from the Board (at least with a modicum of independence) collating and checking the cards before they are announced. All points deductions, KD's, etc should be applied AFTER the judge has scored the fight. The judge then has pretty much one of five scores to choose from 10-8 and 10-9 either way or 10-10. Let the judge score the round as he sees it and let the "system" apply any deductions at the completion. Not too tricky is it?
IJL made a mistake and it wasn't noticed until it was read out. That's that.
So having a simple system whereby each card is checked before they are read out to ensure they are compliant would have identified this "mistake", the card could have been corrected and the the correct result announced. I'm yet to hear a single valid reason why this can't be applied to all fights.
earsjohn wrote:
So having a simple system whereby each card is checked before they are read out to ensure they are compliant would have identified this "mistake", the card could have been corrected and the the correct result announced. I'm yet to hear a single valid reason why this can't be applied to all fights.
Well, it would take quite a while in 12-round championship fights...but I'm sure they are supposed to be checked by a supervisor anyway.
But what happens when the supervisor doesn't spot it?
Anything with a human element = mistakes at some point.
earsjohn wrote:
So having a simple system whereby each card is checked before they are read out to ensure they are compliant would have identified this "mistake", the card could have been corrected and the the correct result announced. I'm yet to hear a single valid reason why this can't be applied to all fights.
Well, it would take quite a while in 12-round championship fights...but I'm sure they are supposed to be checked by a supervisor anyway.
But what happens when the supervisor doesn't spot it?
Anything with a human element = mistakes at some point.
Having each card checked by a second person reduces the chances of errors going undetected. It will also pass the burden of responsibility for scoring errors from the judges to the Board, reducing pressure on judges.
And as for the time taken in a 12-rounder - how long can it take to add up 12 rounds of between 8 and 10, three times? It's not rocket science or nuclear physics, it's simple addition and subtraction. Being able to add up to 120 should be a mandatory requirement of the job.
earsjohn wrote:
So having a simple system whereby each card is checked before they are read out to ensure they are compliant would have identified this "mistake", the card could have been corrected and the the correct result announced. I'm yet to hear a single valid reason why this can't be applied to all fights.
Well, it would take quite a while in 12-round championship fights...but I'm sure they are supposed to be checked by a supervisor anyway.
But what happens when the supervisor doesn't spot it?
Anything with a human element = mistakes at some point.
Having each card checked by a second person reduces the chances of errors going undetected. It will also pass the burden of responsibility for scoring errors from the judges to the Board, reducing pressure on judges.
And as for the time taken in a 12-rounder - how long can it take to add up 12 rounds of between 8 and 10, three times? It's not rocket science or nuclear physics, it's simple addition and subtraction. Being able to add up to 120 should be a mandatory requirement of the job.
A supervisor does this job already. I think.
As one of them said to me, "You would be surprised how difficult simple adding up is when you're under pressure"
earsjohn wrote:
So having a simple system whereby each card is checked before they are read out to ensure they are compliant would have identified this "mistake", the card could have been corrected and the the correct result announced. I'm yet to hear a single valid reason why this can't be applied to all fights.
Well, it would take quite a while in 12-round championship fights...but I'm sure they are supposed to be checked by a supervisor anyway.
But what happens when the supervisor doesn't spot it?
Anything with a human element = mistakes at some point.
Having each card checked by a second person reduces the chances of errors going undetected. It will also pass the burden of responsibility for scoring errors from the judges to the Board, reducing pressure on judges.
And as for the time taken in a 12-rounder - how long can it take to add up 12 rounds of between 8 and 10, three times? It's not rocket science or nuclear physics, it's simple addition and subtraction. Being able to add up to 120 should be a mandatory requirement of the job.
Anyway, re IJL, that wasn't just adding up and wouldn't have rectified his mistake.
Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:
Well, it would take quite a while in 12-round championship fights...but I'm sure they are supposed to be checked by a supervisor anyway.
But what happens when the supervisor doesn't spot it?
Anything with a human element = mistakes at some point.
Having each card checked by a second person reduces the chances of errors going undetected. It will also pass the burden of responsibility for scoring errors from the judges to the Board, reducing pressure on judges.
And as for the time taken in a 12-rounder - how long can it take to add up 12 rounds of between 8 and 10, three times? It's not rocket science or nuclear physics, it's simple addition and subtraction. Being able to add up to 120 should be a mandatory requirement of the job.
Anyway, re IJL, that wasn't just adding up and wouldn't have rectified his mistake.
But my "system" would have identified the incorrect card (ie, that the KD hadn't been scored) and the error would have been able to be rectified. Having someone check the cards to confirm that mandatory deductions (for knockdowns and infringements) would ensure these have been added. If the argument against this simple enhancement to an antiquated system is simply that it might add an extra 20 seconds to a 45 minute fight or that a second person checking may still miss the error, then there really is no hope. As a paying punter, I want to know that the decisions I see in the ring are being consistently and correctly applied. I don't get that comfort at present and I get an impression that those making money from the sport are happy with the corruption-encouraging status-quo. Too many people are happy to defend a system that allows mistakes to have fundamental impacts on the careers and bank balances of boxers. Baffling.
