Tweet
how can the ref say.."yea he got headbutted..but the blood didnt start coming out till a punch landed right after the headbutt??" that makes no sense at all..the cut was caused by a headbutt...was the ref just trying to save face??
-
Last edited by larry x; 08-03-2009, 09:44 AM. -
He said he saw the headbutt, but he didnt see the cut or blood until AFTER the last punch landed, and he had to go by what he saw last... he never saw the headbutt be the actual cause of the cut... because a punch came directly after the butt..
It made sense what the ref said IMO... but we all knew what caused the cut, and it wasnt a punch. -
He made a mistake and didn't want to own up to it. So what does a man do? He believes his own lies. Some guys are too proud to admit they are wrong.Comment
-
i mean it was clearly a headbutt...you think it'll end up ruled a no contest??Comment
-
The ref is full of shet.Comment
-
The ref, for some reason, thought the headbutt didn't actually play a part in the cut
rather the semi-clean punch that landed afterwards didComment
-
The ref did signal a cut after it occurred but I believe he indicated it was from a punch.Comment
-
Silly, so if I get shot in the stomach then immediately punched I guess you can attribute the blood to the punch.
Was that the doctor telling Nate that the cut is diaganol so it couldnt have been a butt? Silly of him to say that. I think people felt Nate was trying to get out of the fight so they turned on him regardless of whether he was right or not. They wanted to see a fight and after Witter quit they were gonna make somebody pay lol.Last edited by Bhopreign; 08-03-2009, 09:53 AM.Comment
-
Nope,the analyst's said that they rarely overturn the 1st ruling,was it the wrong call,it sure was,no doubt about it!!I think the ref did a terrible job,period,he acknowledged the headbutt & still allowed Nate to be pumelled in the corner,without stopping the action so the dock can examine the fighter!!
Comment
Comment