Why are athletic commissions so arrogant

[filthynumber1]

And refuse to reverse bad/wrong decisions.

I mean it's clear as day referee Copeland fucked this one up 6 ways from Sunday yet the bogus decision remains.
Commissions are just so damn stubborn and arrogant

side note
Maybe if that ref Gary Copeland spent less time injecting steroids into his 5ft3 frame and more time to the rules he may make better calls

 

[Tronald Dump]

Seems like they got this one right. TKO would have been egregious, however, sending to a decision was the correct call. I think a point should have been deducted, but the result is still a victory by technical decision.

 

[KOPPE]

Blindado was 1-4 in his last 5 before this fight and is probably getting the boot soon. Not saying its right
but i dont think anybody cares enough to do anything about it.

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

lolololol

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

And refuse to reverse bad/wrong decisions.

I mean it's clear as day referee Copeland fucked this one up 6 ways from Sunday yet the bogus decision remains.
Commissions are just so damn stubborn and arrogant

side note
Maybe if that ref keith Copeland spent less time injecting steroids into his 5ft3 frame and more time to the rules he may make better calls

*5ft4 with spiked hair bro (see post above)

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

Seems like they got this one right. TKO would have been egregious, however, sending to a decision was the correct call. I think a point should have been deducted, but the result is still a victory by technical decision.

DQ would have been right.

NC would have been bate minimum for ‘right’

 

[Luthien]

Have you ever been to the DMV TS?

It is the same attitude, you have no option but to deal with these guys and they aren't held accountable and they know it.

 

[Tronald Dump]

DQ would have been right.

NC would have been bate minimum for ‘right’

I mean, I wouldn't be mad about a DQ or an NC. But Copeland would have had to warn prior for a DQ to make sense..and he did not. I guess it comes down to that "double eye poke" where teh Chris was obviously more at fault but they were treated equally. That's why I say a point should have been deducted.

Edit: As pointed out below and realized by me thereafter, he did indeed warn him, but unless you think it was intentional, the poke should have resulted in a point deduction at most. A shame, as nobody can deny that Silva deserved to have the remaining time to perhaps pull a rabbit out of a hat.

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

Have you ever been to the DMV TS?

It is the same attitude, you have no option but to deal with these guys and they aren't held accountable and they know it.

This is strangely accurate comparison.

 

[Luthien]

This is strangely accurate comparison.

 

[ipowerslapmywife]

Weidman was winning 99% of the fight anyway

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

DQ would have been right.

NC would have been bate minimum for ‘right’

No one has ever been DQed for an eye poke.
You can’t go against precedence, it would be unfair to Weidman.

Edwards didn’t get DQed after he was hard warned by Herb Dean and then blinded Belal.

The ruling here is the same as Edwards vs. Belal. Edwards and Belal would have gone to a decision too had they been in round 3, it was a no contest cause first round.

The rules don’t allow them to make it a no contest after a certain point. And there has been far worse eye pokes than this one without DQs, the rules didn’t change, if you didn’t DQ for same behavior in the past, you can’t DQ against Weidman unless you give notice of a rule change.

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

No matter who you are, the DMV employees:

 

[Tronald Dump]

 

[filthynumber1]

Seems like they got this one right. TKO would have been egregious, however, sending to a decision was the correct call. I think a point should have been deducted, but the result is still a victory by technical decision.

DQ is the correct and only call here. Multiple fouls and a double eye poke for the win??
Are you serious

 

[Blanqa Blanqua]

No one has ever been DQed for an eye poke.
You can’t go against precedence, it would be unfair to Weidman.

Edwards didn’t get DQed after he was hard warned by Herb Dean and then blinded Belal.

The ruling here is the same as Edwards vs. Belal. Edwards and Belal would have gone to a decision too had they been in round 3, it was a no contest cause first round.

The rules don’t allow them to make it a no contest after a certain point. And there has been far worse eye pokes than this one without DQs, the rules didn’t change, if you didn’t DQ for same behavior in the past, you can’t DQ against Weidman unless you give notice of a rule change.

What’s right and ‘the status quo’ are different things.

 

[Goutfather]

as i understand, it boils down to protecting the institution. if they let some controversy strongarm them into second-guessing a ref, then pretty soon everyone will want the commission to make calls, and it will devolve into chaos and litigiousness. that’s their thinking, which i don’t agree with necessarily. imo, if the ref or the judges make an egregiously incorrect call, blatantly against the rules, the commission must step in to correct it. you can’t have a system set up with no way to correct mistakes.

that said, i don’t think this quite meets that high bar. sounds like the problem is the rules allow for this, instead of requiring a no contest. the only problem i see is the eye pokes themselves, and this idea that they’re not intentional. if something happens 3x in a fight, you can presume it’s intentional. still, bruno said he believes the eye pokes were not intentional. so that’s the end of it.

 

[maximus__]

No one has ever been DQed for an eye poke.
You can’t go against precedence, it would be unfair to Weidman.

Edwards didn’t get DQed after he was hard warned by Herb Dean and then blinded Belal.

The ruling here is the same as Edwards vs. Belal. Edwards and Belal would have gone to a decision too had they been in round 3, it was a no contest cause first round.

The rules don’t allow them to make it a no contest after a certain point. And there has been far worse eye pokes than this one without DQs, the rules didn’t change, if you didn’t DQ for same behavior in the past, you can’t DQ against Weidman unless you give notice of a rule change.

You can make it a NC at any point. You can DQ for any intentional foul. Weidman intenitonally poked his fingers into Bruno's eyes 2 times in that finishing sequence.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

What’s right and ‘the status quo’ are different things.

What is right is that people are treated equally under rules. The greatest injustice is to apply the same rule to different people differently.

You can rewrite the rules and make things different, but as it stands, it is the correct ruling.

You cannot treat Edwards and Weidman differently in the same spots.

 

[Sean_wongster_wongmastter]

You can make it a NC at any point. You can DQ for any intentional foul. Weidman intenitonally poked his fingers into Bruno's eyes 2 times in that finishing sequence.

No one has ever been DQed over an eye poke.
Rulings need to stay consistent for there to be Justice, if you don’t rewrite the rules, they remain the same as apply to all.

You can’t screw over Weidman when no one else got DQed in the same spots.

I always thought you can’t do a no contest after a certain point, dunno.