Video Replay use in Boxing

[Ricky]

What's your opinion on the matter?

I'm not sure i like it - does it encourage fighters who are fouled to play up on it?

Let's say a fight is getting all too tough on a guy, like Khan, who then takes a low shot, does he think "I'll say I can't continue and the video replay gets me off the hook" ?

[Boxing Prospect]

I'm for it IF it's used consistently, fairly, transparently, clearly, with all the terms and stuff laid out in plain language. None of the fancy language for a body or organisation to decide when it's used or not.

So for that to happen it would need to be independent of the orgs.

But we know boxing is never going to be in a rush for fairness and consistency

[JimStone]

I'm against it. It's only brought in to sports to keep the bookies happy and I don't like that the country is increasingly populated by degenerate gamblers.

When it was sport first and not business first the wrong lbw call or the goal that was that wasn't were great talking points. Take that human fallibility away and you're left with a sterilised product in my view.

[deadpan]

I'm against it. It's only brought in to sports to keep the bookies happy and I don't like that the country is increasingly populated by degenerate gamblers.

When it was sport first and not business first the wrong lbw call or the goal that was that wasn't were great talking points. Take that human fallibility away and you're left with a sterilised product in my view.

I agree emphatically. VAR is a joyless invention that kills the visceral thrill of the moment.

[m1kee50]

What's your opinion on the matter?

I'm not sure i like it - does it encourage fighters who are fouled to play up on it?

Let's say a fight is getting all too tough on a guy, like Khan, who then takes a low shot, does he think "I'll say I can't continue and the video replay gets me off the hook" ?

Regulation 3.50 - its at the refs discretion whether an intentional low blow is worth disqualification.

1. If an intentional foul (other than a low blow) causes an injury, and the injury is severe enough to terminate the bout immediately, the boxer causing the injury shall lose by disqualification. A boxer who is hit with an intentional low blow must continue in a reasonable amount of time (but no more than five (5) minutes) unless the referee in his absolute discretion disqualifies the offending boxer.

In the case of an accidental low blow:

3. A fighter who is hit with an accidental low blow must continue after a reasonable amount of time but no more that five (5) minutes, or he/she will lose the bout by abandonment.

Bouts are not stopped in a fighters favour because that fighter says 'I cannot continue' see e.g Khan vs Crawford. It is for the ref with the advice of the doctor to determine if the bout needs to stop.

[m1kee50]

I'm for it IF it's used consistently, fairly, transparently, clearly, with all the terms and stuff laid out in plain language. None of the fancy language for a body or organisation to decide when it's used or not.

So for that to happen it would need to be independent of the orgs.

But we know boxing is never going to be in a rush for fairness and consistency

This.

The way I see it, the only fair way it can work is if it is a separate kit from the TV setup. Otherwise non-tv shows won't get the benefit? The BBBofC IMO would have to own and bring the kit to the shows rather than impose the cost on everyone with a promoters license.

If its going to be fair then IMO it has to be at all levels, and consulted at the end of every fight, even if its just a formality.

The real test of it will be when it has to go against a champion/home fighter.

[oogiebe]

What are they going to do? Stop the fight for several minutes and review the vid? It's a people sport including the officiating. No way.

[margaret thatcher]

They've used it before and it's never turned into the 'stop every minute' scenario people always catastrophize about. I've seen it just done between rounds when they're not fighting anyway.

I like the idea and I don't believe this pretty much unfounded stuff about fighting being stopped constantly. I think it's worth a try and if it doesn't prove beneficial then be away with it.

[oogiebe]

They've used it before and it's never turned into the 'stop every minute' scenario people always catastrophize about. I've seen it just done between rounds when they're not fighting anyway.

I like the idea and I don't believe this pretty much unfounded stuff about fighting being stopped constantly. I think it's worth a try and if it doesn't prove beneficial then be away with it.

No one thought that the NFL replay venture would cause such delays and while it's better now, it brings the game to a stop. I'm just wondering what will be 'reviewable' and how the process would work.

[margaret thatcher]

It's already been used in places though and it's NEVER happened where there are these constant and prolonged stops. People always say it will but it never has. Usually the cases can be reviewed between rounds or once a fight has been called anyway.

[oogiebe]

It's already been used in places though and it's NEVER happened where there are these constant and prolonged stops. People always say it will but it never has. Usually the cases can be reviewed between rounds or once a fight has been called anyway.

So everything is reviewable?

[margaret thatcher]

Nope, you'd obviously need some guidelines as to what is reviewable and by who. Obviously you aren't going to have it so a judge can call a timeout to see if any given punch was blocked or landed.

[oogiebe]

Nope, you'd obviously need some guidelines as to what is reviewable and by who. Obviously you aren't going to have it so a judge can call a timeout to see if any given punch was blocked or landed.

So what is reviewable? Fouls? Knockdowns? Causes of cuts?

[margaret thatcher]

Sure, doesn't mean a replay needs to be done every time one of them is called. Like I said, it's been used for that stuff before and it's been nothing more than fantasy that constant stopping happens.

[oogiebe]

Sure, doesn't mean a replay needs to be done every time one of them is called. Like I said, it's been used for that stuff before and it's been nothing more than fantasy that constant stopping happens.

If it's as limited in its usage as you allude to, then yeah, it won't be an issue.

[watsupdoc87]

The way refeereing and the VAR are in football now the last few years has ruined it for me. Its fukin horrible now. I don't watch football for enjoyment anymore (apart from Ireland) only to gamble. Overpaid diving wimps and the new refereeing and var applauds this sterilisation of the sport. A little off the subject but im against video replays. Fuk more computees in everything

[Ricky]

What's your opinion on the matter?

I'm not sure i like it - does it encourage fighters who are fouled to play up on it?

Let's say a fight is getting all too tough on a guy, like Khan, who then takes a low shot, does he think "I'll say I can't continue and the video replay gets me off the hook" ?

Regulation 3.50 - its at the refs discretion whether an intentional low blow is worth disqualification.

1. If an intentional foul (other than a low blow) causes an injury, and the injury is severe enough to terminate the bout immediately, the boxer causing the injury shall lose by disqualification. A boxer who is hit with an intentional low blow must continue in a reasonable amount of time (but no more than five (5) minutes) unless the referee in his absolute discretion disqualifies the offending boxer.

In the case of an accidental low blow:

3. A fighter who is hit with an accidental low blow must continue after a reasonable amount of time but no more that five (5) minutes, or he/she will lose the bout by abandonment.

Bouts are not stopped in a fighters favour because that fighter says 'I cannot continue' see e.g Khan vs Crawford. It is for the ref with the advice of the doctor to determine if the bout needs to stop.

So I started this thread after the Edwards v Martinez farce. So, a foul in itself isn't enough to NC or DQ after a foul, it's the refs discretion, as you say.

How affected a fighter is by a foul is alot more subjective than say, an offside in football.

[m1kee50]

Regulation 3.50 - its at the refs discretion whether an intentional low blow is worth disqualification.


In the case of an accidental low blow:


Bouts are not stopped in a fighters favour because that fighter says 'I cannot continue' see e.g Khan vs Crawford. It is for the ref with the advice of the doctor to determine if the bout needs to stop.

So I started this thread after the Edwards v Martinez farce. So, a foul in itself isn't enough to NC or DQ after a foul, it's the refs discretion, as you say.

How affected a fighter is by a foul is alot more subjective than say, an offside in football.

In the case of Edwards v Martinez I feel the ref should have deemed it an intentional foul after a legitimate KD, and disqualified Martinez, as per 1 below. Edwards was not continuing even though he was being counted over, he was unable to signal to the ref that he had been fouled, he was clearly affected by it.

Intentional Fouls

1. If an intentional foul (other than a low blow) causes an injury, and the injury is severe enough to terminate the bout immediately, the boxer causing the injury shall lose by disqualification. A boxer who is hit with an intentional low blow must continue in a reasonable amount of time (but no more than five (5) minutes) unless the referee in his absolute discretion disqualifies the offending boxer.

2. If an intentional foul causes an injury and the bout is allowed to continue, the referee shall notify the authorities and deduct two (2) points from the boxer who caused the foul. Point deductions for intentional fouls that do not cause injury will be at the discretion of the referee.

3. If the contest continues and at a later round it needs to be stopped because of the same injury, the rules in relation to accidental fouls will apply.

4. If the boxer injures himself while attempting to intentionally foul his opponent, the referee will not take any action in his favour, and this injury will be the same as one produced by a fair blow.

If the referee feels that a boxer has conducted himself in an unsportsman-like manner, he may stop the bout and disqualify the boxer.

[Ricky]

So I started this thread after the Edwards v Martinez farce. So, a foul in itself isn't enough to NC or DQ after a foul, it's the refs discretion, as you say.

How affected a fighter is by a foul is alot more subjective than say, an offside in football.

In the case of Edwards v Martinez I feel the ref should have deemed it an intentional foul after a legitimate KD, and disqualified Martinez, as per 1 below. Edwards was not continuing even though he was being counted over, he was unable to signal to the ref that he had been fouled, he was clearly affected by it.

Intentional Fouls

1. If an intentional foul (other than a low blow) causes an injury, and the injury is severe enough to terminate the bout immediately, the boxer causing the injury shall lose by disqualification. A boxer who is hit with an intentional low blow must continue in a reasonable amount of time (but no more than five (5) minutes) unless the referee in his absolute discretion disqualifies the offending boxer.

2. If an intentional foul causes an injury and the bout is allowed to continue, the referee shall notify the authorities and deduct two (2) points from the boxer who caused the foul. Point deductions for intentional fouls that do not cause injury will be at the discretion of the referee.

3. If the contest continues and at a later round it needs to be stopped because of the same injury, the rules in relation to accidental fouls will apply.

4. If the boxer injures himself while attempting to intentionally foul his opponent, the referee will not take any action in his favour, and this injury will be the same as one produced by a fair blow.

If the referee feels that a boxer has conducted himself in an unsportsman-like manner, he may stop the bout and disqualify the boxer.

But here in lies the issue, it's a huge grey area. A referee can get a sense of how much a fighter is affected by a foul, more so than a video replay. What if the late shot by Martinez had a bit less juice on it, and was only a fraction of a second late? We could have a scenario where the ref uses his discretion that there's not enough on it to warrant a NC or DQ, but the video replay sees things in black & white; late shot equals nc.

I felt this the case in a recent Rigondeaux fight, he knocked the guy out but the shot was practically on the bell (thrown before the ball, landing just after), overruled to a NC upon replay.

[m1kee50]

In the case of Edwards v Martinez I feel the ref should have deemed it an intentional foul after a legitimate KD, and disqualified Martinez, as per 1 below. Edwards was not continuing even though he was being counted over, he was unable to signal to the ref that he had been fouled, he was clearly affected by it.

But here in lies the issue, it's a huge grey area. A referee can get a sense of how much a fighter is affected by a foul, more so than a video replay. What if the late shot by Martinez had a bit less juice on it, and was only a fraction of a second late? We could have a scenario where the ref uses his discretion that there's not enough on it to warrant a NC or DQ, but the video replay sees things in black & white; late shot equals nc.

I felt this the case in a recent Rigondeaux fight, he knocked the guy out but the shot was practically on the bell (thrown before the ball, landing just after), overruled to a NC upon replay.

Agree with all of that... in the worst case the ref can call it unsportsmanlike, as above, or rely on the following:

3.38 The following acts shall not be permitted during a Contest:-
(a) hitting below the belt:
(b) using the “pivot blow”:
(c) hitting on the back of the head or neck:
(d) kidney punching;
(e) hitting with the open glove, the inside, or the butt or the back of the hand, or with the wrist or elbow;
(f) holding, butting, or careless use of the head, shouldering, wrestling or roughing:
(g) not trying;
(h) persistently ducking below the waistline;
(i) intentional falling without receiving a blow;
(j) failing to break when so ordered, or striking or attempting to strike an opponent on the break;
(k) deliberately striking a opponent when he is dropping to the floor or when he is down;
(l) hitting an opponent after the termination of a round;
(m) any other conduct which a Referee may deem foul;

3.38.1 In any of the above cases the Referee shall name the Boxer at fault and call upon him to desist and may in his sole discretion have the power to caution or disqualify a Boxer for any such act with or without reference to any medical opinion.

[m1kee50]

VAR will correct bad reffing it wont improve it. The ref had a number of options available to him other than awarding the win to Martinez, he chose poorly IMO

[Dixonian]

The way refeereing and the VAR are in football now the last few years has ruined it for me. Its fukin horrible now. I don't watch football for enjoyment anymore (apart from Ireland) only to gamble. Overpaid diving wimps and the new refereeing and var applauds this sterilisation of the sport. A little off the subject but im against video replays. Fuk more computees in everything

I've hated video replays in every sport I've seen it in. In rugby so many tries end up going to the video replay and ruin the moment. It's now increasingly happening in football and is leading to more and more penalties for minor infringements. Even in cricket or tennis I dislike it. Imagine if it was around in McEnroe's day? He'd have nothing to rail against. There'd be no bust ups with umpires, just a call for hawkeye every time.

Like a previous poster said, every sport is being increasingly sterilised. The human element increasingly reduced.

Sport is not meant to be 100% fair. As long there's a level playing field, and the officials are honestly doing their best, that's all you can ask for. We don't need every decision being correct, just the vast majority of them - which they already are.

[ERIC GUY]

The BBBofC have used my videos to investigate in cases of certain fights,, but have not done anything live at a show when I am filming, sometimes a reporter will ask for a replay,

[margaret thatcher]

OMG

They used video replay to correctly change a KD call in Bert-Gvo to a slip, and it didn't take 10 hours!! And it never does, it's an unfounded argument against it as far as boxing is concerned.