Great post! It is true... A DQ resolves a lot of problems... No longer do we have this idea that Tank might have risen to the occasion if he knew Roach got the point. I think that argument is weak to begin with because aren't fighters supposed to try to win the fight at all times? Tank knew he was in a close fight...
But a DQ would be a correct ruling and nobody can complain about what might have been. What they will look at is the relative actions of all involved, and who can be called responsible for the actions leading up to the event. I believe it would look something like this: Tank originally takes a knee, this means the ref should have penalized him, deducted him... At that point was Tank's foul egregious enough? Because then the ref steps in and enables him...
So, was Tank the primary means of the DQ, or was it the ref that enabled him? This will be a sticky point because usually when a ref is negligent this is not enough to overturn a fight. The fighter has to be at least somewhat responsible for causing the problem.
But a DQ would be a correct ruling and nobody can complain about what might have been. What they will look at is the relative actions of all involved, and who can be called responsible for the actions leading up to the event. I believe it would look something like this: Tank originally takes a knee, this means the ref should have penalized him, deducted him... At that point was Tank's foul egregious enough? Because then the ref steps in and enables him...
So, was Tank the primary means of the DQ, or was it the ref that enabled him? This will be a sticky point because usually when a ref is negligent this is not enough to overturn a fight. The fighter has to be at least somewhat responsible for causing the problem.
Comment