WBO rules state be up at 8

[Russian Crushin]

It's unclear - it talks about what the referee should do on count of 8 and count of 10. BUT it doesn't actually state how referee should react on count of 9.. it's like those rules were written to make sure there's going to be confusion if the fighter gets up between 9 and 10.

Whats unclear about it? It clearly states he gives the fighter to the count of 10

[techliam]

The ref has the discretion to stop a fight if a guy is up at 1, 5, 8, 9, or if he hasn't been knocked down at all.

Unless he's calling the 8-count, hence it has a separate provision in the rules. If the ref called the fight off instantly when Scott went down, he would more often than not be removed from the WBO. Scott should have gotten up at 8, so the ref would have had to check him outside the count, as per the 8-count

[boxingfocus]

I think I explained the rule correctly in my posts. Its not hard to understand for me. I said it was a little vague because there are things left out and people could interpret it incorrectly if they don't comprehend what they are reading. My posts below...

The rule is a little vague. However, it does not say nor does it imply that the fighter should be up by 8.

(c) If, when reaching the count of eight (8), the fighter is up This wording suggests that the fighter doesn't need to be up at 8.

If the contestant taking the count is still down when the Referee calls the count of ten (10), the Referee shall wave both arms indicating that the contestant has been knocked out.

The ref did not do this in the fight on Saturday. He waved the fight off after saying 9. Therefore, he did not follow the rules according to the WBO.

Section (C) is addressing a mandatory 8 count. It is not stating that a fighter must be up by 8. If a fighter is up before 8, the referee must count up to 8 and then evaluate if the fighter is fit to continue. If the fighter isn't up by 8, the referee must continue to count until he reaches 10 and then he waves the fight off or the fighter rises off the canvas. If the fighter beats the count, the referee must then decide if he is fit to continue. This process did not happen correctly on Saturday.

OK; you're winning me over. I can't argue with this.

[viperz007]

it wasnt fixed i think
ref concentration probably cost the fight

as what i read
it says that if a fighter stood up between 8-10 counts ref need to stop counting and check the fighter if his okay to go on or stop the fight

ref should have stop counting and checked the fighter
but he didnt

one thing also is the fighter took so much time and probably gave the reff reasons to stop it

[Spray_resistant]

Its weird how people dont know how to read when they are hugging a fighters nuts. Words like "if" and whole sentence comprehension has disappeared from Brits vocabularies on saturday

(c) If, when reaching the count of eight (8), the fighter is up, the Referee, if he deems it necessary, may examine said contestant taking all the time needed to evaluate whether the contestant is fit to continue. If the Referee determines that the fighter is fit to continue, the Referee shall promptly order the contest to continue. (d) If the contestant taking the count is still down when the Referee calls the count of ten (10), the Referee shall wave both arms indicating that the contestant has been knocked out

Nothing really tricky here and does in no way suggest you have to get up at 8 but after 8 you do risk being stopped by ref discretion.

Malik beat the count but stupidly waited until 9.25 to get up, seems risky if he wanted to fight and wasn't really hurt.

[Blakey80]

I'm a year late on this.
Just wanted to say that those WBO rules that you are stating were not applied correctly, to the letter, as many here have suggested that they weren't.
The referee did not declare '10' before counting them out. And there is nothing explicit in those rules highlighted that says a fighter must be up at 8 - That is referring to a compulsary 8 count.

I always thought that if there was a difference before sanctioning organisation regulations and commission regulations, the commission whose jurisdiction it is in has the responsibility for the regulations, regardless of whether there is a title at stake from the sanctioning body. The boxers are fighting under that license at that point in time.

The difference is that:
BBBoC Rule (3.32) - a boxer is deemed to be 'down' by one of four criteria; one of which is 'when the boxer is in the act of rising.'

Therefore, the point at which the boxer has nothing on the canvas but his feet is not the point at which the boxer is no longer 'down', which is what the WBO rules imply.

Also, BBBoC rules that '10' does not have to be verbally stated. The count is upto 10, so after '9' the next point is 'out'. It can be visually waved off at 10 or verbally indicated, but does not have to be explicitly indicated with a '10'. But this is just an aside - ten seconds is ten seconds, however it is communicated.
The main point is that under BBBoC rules he was arguably still in the act of rising. Maybe to some he was stood up and ready, but I'm not sure whether he was or wasn't - he didn't start rising until '9' was called. It was a close call either way and anyone who says that they can "clearly" see it either way is slightly biased. It was very close, not clear. The referee had a tight call to make and Scott should not have put himself in that position. But, personally, if it was me I'd have given the benefit of the doubt and let him fight on.

It was certainly harsh on Scott, and I always like fights to continue if the fighter has a chance and is not in danger. But some of the suggestions, like a fix are pretty ridiculous. I'm sure I read that someone thought that the referee was too quick to count to four - well, he never counted to four. He took over the count at '4' from the timekeeper, so the referee can't really be blamed for anything; He can be judged on his tight call, but at the end of the day he had a marginal decision to make that could have gone both ways.