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.