BoxRec

Terry O connor was a disgrace tonight ,AGAIN

FIGHTFANs wrote:Terry O connor was a disgrace tonight ,AGAIN

No.

And as for decisions, home fighters will often get the nod from judges and refs because either the a side or champ usually gets the benefit of doubt, or the crowd are backing one guy heavily and the cheers every time their man lands are swaying the judges. I don't think either of those were factors tonight.

Close fight, for a championship, not long to go.
So why no count ?
Fighter was looking over the ropes so please don't say O'Connor had looked him in the eyes.

Parson Cross wrote:Close fight, for a championship, not long to go.
So why no count ?
Fighter was looking over the ropes so please don't say O'Connor had looked him in the eyes.

Exactly and as someone said in the rbr if it was the other way round no way would he have stopped the fight.

Very poor from O'Connor, but sadly predictable. Anyone who thinks he would have made the same call if Cardle had gone down with 90 seconds remaining either needs their head examined or has never seen a Matchroom show before.

Not seen it but I'm not supposed there are some fakcing terrible refs in the UK. Jobs for the boys IMO.

still think he tripped , was undoubtably hurt, but for it to be waved off without a count when it was was a discrace

FIGHTFANs wrote:Terry O connor was a disgrace tonight ,AGAIN

Should of defiently gave Dodd a count and gave him a chance,does my head in when a cracking fight gets overshadowed by a referees decision.

My only defence of that stoppage could be that O'Connor was already just seconds away from stepping in anyway and the KD was all the convincing he needed that it was over.

Cardle was wading in and looked to have him hurt for agood chunk of that round, Terry could have been very close to stepping in and maybe only needed to see a couple more punches. When he went over and turned around his mind was made up.

I'd have liked to see him get at very least a count, there was no good reason not to give him 8 seconds. But the above is the only reasoning I can find why he didn't give him that opportunity which he clearly deserved

rd350lc wrote:still think he tripped , was undoubtably hurt, but for it to be waved off without a count when it was was a discrace

Should have gave him a count but not buying into the conspiracy . For me he was going to step in seconds before only for him to end up flat on his ass. Already basically confirmed a re match in the interview after, fair play to Cardle for being honest.

Anyone watch Sam Eggington v Dale Evans last month? Terry o Connor was ref for that British title fight, could have stopped that fight plenty of times but gave Dale more than a chance to win, he nearly did in the 12th to.

Poor decision but not a fix up for me.

I think Jamie Moore raised a valid point about Cardle being badly hurt in 10th. I'm not 100% that was KD so that is probably why Dodd didn't wait for a count - Bellew said he got up too soon, but if it wasn't a KD he's not going to stay on the floor.

Referees in this country are not impartial. Far too often the promoter's fighter is given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue when he shouldn't and far too often the away fighter is stopped at the first sign of trouble. It happens far to regularly to be anything other than complete bias or corruption.

There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

Scores after 11, McDonnell 105-104 Cardle, Edwards 107-103 Dodd, Parris 105-104 Dodd.

Supremo wrote:
There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

I agree completely, and I can't understand the shrugging of shoulders and "that's boxing" reaction from most people.

It is actually endemic in british boxing.

Boxers mentioned in this thread - Cox and Boomer - have both benefitted from the same type of refereeing in the Sai fight and the first Ovil fight.

In these fights there were different referees - o'connor is bad (and clearly takes full advantage of the promoters hospitality at the all you can eat buffet) but they are all the same, they all know which side their bread is buttered.

How many times did Mickey Vann referee Ricky Hatton? - there were times he should have been stopped on cuts but Van always let him fight on when he would have stopped the fight if it had been somebody else.

We even have the cheek to say "he needs to knock him out to get a draw in Germany(or any other country)" yet it is just as bad in this country.

Add into the mix that the referees are a closed shop (within the closed shop that is the BBBofC) and you can start to join the dots.

Also works the other way ( letting home fighters carry on when they should have been stopped) good example was Jamie Conlan a few months ago when he was getting bashed up bad in the mid rounds. If it was Conlan giving the punishment would have been stopped no question.

Exactly, watch the Prescot vs Khan knock out, can't mind who refereed that, might even have been o'Connor, he was letting Khan continue when he was absolutely gone.

bripez wrote:

Supremo wrote:
There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

I agree completely, and I can't understand the shrugging of shoulders and "that's boxing" reaction from most people.

It is actually endemic in british boxing.

Boxers mentioned in this thread - Cox and Boomer - have both benefitted from the same type of refereeing in the Sai fight and the first Ovil fight.

In these fights there were different referees - o'connor is bad (and clearly takes full advantage of the promoters hospitality at the all you can eat buffet) but they are all the same, they all know which side their bread is buttered.

How many times did Mickey Vann referee Ricky Hatton? - there were times he should have been stopped on cuts but Van always let him fight on when he would have stopped the fight if it had been somebody else.

We even have the cheek to say "he needs to knock him out to get a draw in Germany(or any other country)" yet it is just as bad in this country.

Add into the mix that the referees are a closed shop (within the closed shop that is the BBBofC) and you can start to join the dots.

What a load of nonsense!! Here you go -

http://bbbofc.com/content/applying-be-referee

I would love all the armchair referees to put up or shut up.

taffytoon wrote:

bripez wrote:

Supremo wrote:
There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

I agree completely, and I can't understand the shrugging of shoulders and "that's boxing" reaction from most people.

It is actually endemic in british boxing.

Boxers mentioned in this thread - Cox and Boomer - have both benefitted from the same type of refereeing in the Sai fight and the first Ovil fight.

In these fights there were different referees - o'connor is bad (and clearly takes full advantage of the promoters hospitality at the all you can eat buffet) but they are all the same, they all know which side their bread is buttered.

How many times did Mickey Vann referee Ricky Hatton? - there were times he should have been stopped on cuts but Van always let him fight on when he would have stopped the fight if it had been somebody else.

We even have the cheek to say "he needs to knock him out to get a draw in Germany(or any other country)" yet it is just as bad in this country.

Add into the mix that the referees are a closed shop (within the closed shop that is the BBBofC) and you can start to join the dots.

What a load of nonsense!! Here you go -

http://bbbofc.com/content/applying-be-referee

I would love all the armchair referees to put up or shut up.

There have been several examples on this site where seemingly well qualified applicants have not been accepted.

Not only that, I understand that the unsuccessful candidates are not told why they weren't succesful or why/how they did not meet the criteria.

I also understand that the referees themselves vote who is admitted to their ranks, thus creating what may be seen as a culture of crony-ism and effectively blocking what they may consider "outsiders".

Also, what is your opinion of the topic being discussed ? - in your opinion were Terry O'Connors actions at a level you would expect from a very experienced impartial referee?

Please direct me to the examples of fact you refer to; the area Council decide if you can become a trial referee not the referees. Once you gain experience which could take well over a year you go up in front of referees to answer questions on the rules; as long as you can answer them I imagine you become a lower grade referee.

Regarding the stoppage I think TO was about to stop the contest prior to the boxer going down (KD or Stumble) as he was all over the place anyway so it matters not whether he carried out a count. That is just my take on what happened; a referee first and foremost job is the safety of the boxers. Nothing underhand what so ever; again only in my opinion. I'm not going to fall out with anyone on here as that is not my intention I just think a mountain os being made out of a mole hill on this occasion

Cheers

Taffy

If it was a bad stoppage than how come Dodd didn't protest?
How come Dodd tapped the ref to say fair enough?
That says it all

bripez wrote:

Supremo wrote:
There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

I agree completely, and I can't understand the shrugging of shoulders and "that's boxing" reaction from most people.

It is actually endemic in british boxing.

Boxers mentioned in this thread - Cox and Boomer - have both benefitted from the same type of refereeing in the Sai fight and the first Ovil fight.

In these fights there were different referees - o'connor is bad (and clearly takes full advantage of the promoters hospitality at the all you can eat buffet) but they are all the same, they all know which side their bread is buttered.

How many times did Mickey Vann referee Ricky Hatton? - there were times he should have been stopped on cuts but Van always let him fight on when he would have stopped the fight if it had been somebody else.

We even have the cheek to say "he needs to knock him out to get a draw in Germany(or any other country)" yet it is just as bad in this country.

Add into the mix that the referees are a closed shop (within the closed shop that is the BBBofC) and you can start to join the dots.

Boxing forums. Where fat shaming is acceptable.

Speaks loudly of your character

taffytoon wrote:

bripez wrote:

Supremo wrote:
There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

I agree completely, and I can't understand the shrugging of shoulders and "that's boxing" reaction from most people.

It is actually endemic in british boxing.

Boxers mentioned in this thread - Cox and Boomer - have both benefitted from the same type of refereeing in the Sai fight and the first Ovil fight.

In these fights there were different referees - o'connor is bad (and clearly takes full advantage of the promoters hospitality at the all you can eat buffet) but they are all the same, they all know which side their bread is buttered.

How many times did Mickey Vann referee Ricky Hatton? - there were times he should have been stopped on cuts but Van always let him fight on when he would have stopped the fight if it had been somebody else.

We even have the cheek to say "he needs to knock him out to get a draw in Germany(or any other country)" yet it is just as bad in this country.

Add into the mix that the referees are a closed shop (within the closed shop that is the BBBofC) and you can start to join the dots.

What a load of nonsense!! Here you go -

http://bbbofc.com/content/applying-be-referee

I would love all the armchair referees to put up or shut up.

Just because anyone can apply, means nothing. Referees and judges go on for years and years, and it's very rare to see new blood, certainly at british title level and above.

Terminator666 wrote:If it was a bad stoppage than how come Dodd didn't protest?
How come Dodd tapped the ref to say fair enough?
That says it all

He wasn't happy but its not in his nature to cry about anything he's just too much of a nice guy, watch this interview he said he was "devastated" but he held it in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rB2N1-R7wE

taffytoon wrote:

bripez wrote:

Supremo wrote:
There is no way anyone will convince me that Scott Cardle wouldn't have been given a count if they show was on the other foot. Terry O'Conner therefore applied the rules without unfairly. A referee should be there to ensure a fair contest. In this country they too often fail to do this and seek to give the promoter's fighter an advantage. Yet, it is just accepted by the media, no other sport would stand for this- why is it just accepted in boxing?

I agree completely, and I can't understand the shrugging of shoulders and "that's boxing" reaction from most people.

It is actually endemic in british boxing.

Boxers mentioned in this thread - Cox and Boomer - have both benefitted from the same type of refereeing in the Sai fight and the first Ovil fight.

In these fights there were different referees - o'connor is bad (and clearly takes full advantage of the promoters hospitality at the all you can eat buffet) but they are all the same, they all know which side their bread is buttered.

How many times did Mickey Vann referee Ricky Hatton? - there were times he should have been stopped on cuts but Van always let him fight on when he would have stopped the fight if it had been somebody else.

We even have the cheek to say "he needs to knock him out to get a draw in Germany(or any other country)" yet it is just as bad in this country.

Add into the mix that the referees are a closed shop (within the closed shop that is the BBBofC) and you can start to join the dots.

What a load of nonsense!! Here you go -

http://bbbofc.com/content/applying-be-referee
I would love all the armchair referees to put up or shut up.

Shill much?