Only in Germany..........!!

[Novirasputin]

No, it doesn't.

We've been over this 5 times, and you were proven wrong after the 1st time.

There was no injury from the butt, as was stated directly by Neumann after it happend.

You continue to quote the rule under the "Injury (cuts)" section of intentional fouls.

This makes you wrong, and misinformed.

Directly above that section it states the point deductions or DQ depends on the severity of the foul.

The headbutt was FAR from severe, and in any other fight would have earned a warning or a 1 point deduction at worst.

You're wrong, and have been referring to the wrong rule.

It's really sad to see someone so stubborn and unable to admit they're wrong.

The fighter is given a break because he was not only headbutted but headbutted to the back of the head.


That is an injury. A slight one but one that has to give the guy a break in case the shot is painful which it could have been because it hit right on that area behind the ear.

Right the PD and the DQ are teh only two options.
If the fighter can continue then there is an auto 2 points deduction.

Too much? YES for that shot but the rules are well known by the SUPERVISOR of teh IBF and the referee, an American.

Thus they did this.
They didn't confuse it either because they said the jaw and blood was form a punch
so they didn't say "that is why we are taking off the points."

So its not your word against mine but yours againt Neumann and the IBF supervisor.

Could they be wrong?
perhaps and the IBF will review it and if anything they will decide.

[Bozo_no no]

The fighter is given a break because he was not only headbutted but headbutted to the back of the head.


That is an injury. A slight one but one that has to give the guy a break in case the shot is painful which it could have been because it hit right on that area behind the ear.

LOL!

Can you stoop any lower? Can you sound anymore pathetic?

If the fighter can continue then there is an auto 2 points deduction.

Sixth time: No there isn't, because there was no injury from the butt.

You don't know what you're talking about, and are continiously quoting the wrong rule because you're upset you were proven wrong.

An automaic 2 point dedcution is if the foul causes a cut or injury.

The headbutt did NOT cause any injury, and you're now resorting to making one up. You have NO IDEA about any pain behind his ear.

His jaw was broken by a punch, not a headbutt.

You confused the rule, and have been desperatly trying to deflect from that ever since.

There was no injury caused by the butt, thus no automatic deduction was called for.

You are wrong. The longer you go without admitting it, the more desperate you look.

[Novirasputin]

LOL!

Can you stoop any lower? Can you sound anymore pathetic?



Sixth time: No there isn't, because there was no injury from the butt.

You don't know what you're talking about, and are continiously quoting the wrong rule because you're upset you were proven wrong.

An automaic 2 point dedcution is if the foul causes a cut or injury.

The headbutt did NOT cause any injury, and you're now resorting to making one up. You have NO IDEA about any pain behind his ear.

His jaw was broken by a punch, not a headbutt.

You confused the rule, and have been desperatly trying to deflect from that ever since.

There was no injury caused by the butt, thus no automatic deduction was called for.

You are wrong. The longer you go without admitting it, the more desperate you look.

Ok in that case
ask somebody to hit you right in that area behind the ear. If it doesn't hurt
then you are right
if it does then taht is an injury. a sligth and none recurring one
but that is why the action is stopped.

As i said you are not the IBF supervisor and your interpretation of the rules is not relevent.

[Bozo_no no]

Ok in that case
ask somebody to hit you right in that area behind the ear. If it doesn't hurt
then you are right
if it does then taht is an injury. a sligth and none recurring one
but that is why the action is stopped.

As i said you are not the IBF supervisor and your interpretation of the rules is not relevent.

You couldn't be anymore sad.

You spent the first five pages of this thread ignroing the fact you had the rule mixed up and misquoted.

Now out of nowhere, you're changing your story to invent some invisible indistinguishable injury from the butt to make it tie in the rule you didn't realize you'd misquoted.

Give it up. Seriously.

There was no seperate injury from the butt. It was a very small headbutt and it did NOT cause any specific injury.

2 points was excessive and NOT mandatory for that foul.

You were wrong. Deal with it and move on.

[Novirasputin]

You couldn't be anymore sad.

You spent the first five pages of this thread ignroing the fact you had the rule mixed up and misquoted.

Now out of nowhere, you're changing your story to invent some invisible indistinguishable injury from the butt to make it tie in the rule you didn't realize you'd misquoted.

Give it up. Seriously.

There was no seperate injury from the butt. It was a very small headbutt and it did NOT cause any specific injury.

2 points was excessive and NOT mandatory for that foul.

You were wrong. Deal with it and move on.

i didn't make anything up.

You ignored it when i wrote about the implicit fouls because you felt like you are right and keep arguing a point that is based on your interpretation.

the term "severity of the foul" is not the same as the "severity of the injury"
otherwise they would say "severity of the injury"
i.e. if teh injury is slight or none like with AA then they would say this.

[Bozo_no no]

i didn't make anything up.

You ignored it when i wrote about the implicit fouls because you felt like you are right and keep arguing a point that is based on your interpretation.

the term "severity of the foul" is not the same as the "severity of the injury"
otherwise they would say "severity of the injury"
i.e. if teh injury is slight or none like with AA then they would say this.

You are reaching new lows here.

The term "severity of the foul" is the only one that applys here, because THERE WAS NO INJURY stemming from the foul.

Thus the section you keep quoting is WRONG because it DOESN'T APPLY.

This is and has been black and white.

You quoted the wrong rule, and maintained your ignorance for several pages before this latest "there was a small injury" story got dreamed up.

There was no injury stemming from the foul, which was not severe in the slightest.

This headbutt:

[IMG]http://i20.***********.com/albums/b246/crazyvince/miranda.gif[/IMG]

was NOT deserving of an automatic 2 point deduction any way you look at it, INCLUDING misquoting the IBF rules.

[Novirasputin]

You are reaching new lows here.

The term "severity of the foul" is the only one that applys here, because THERE WAS NO INJURY stemming from the foul.

Thus the section you keep quoting is WRONG because it DOESN'T APPLY.

This is and has been black and white.

You quoted the wrong rule, and maintained your ignorance for several pages before this latest "there was a small injury" story got dreamed up.

There was no injury stemming from the foul, which was not severe in the slightest.

This headbutt:

[IMG]http://i20.***********.com/albums/b246/crazyvince/miranda.gif[/IMG]

was NOT deserving of an automatic 2 point deduction any way you look at it, INCLUDING misquoting the IBF rules.

I agree it wasn't but depending on the way you interpret injury it was BY THE BOOK>

we may not like it and you can call me wrong
but if Miranda goes to court to file a motion or whatever

that is precisely how Neumann, the Supervisor and the IBF will defend the decision
because lawyer talk is lawyer talk.

Rather then calling me wrong find a similar fight to show this so called "black and white"

That headbutt was clearly blatant and intentional and could have cause a # of serious injury rather then slight injury (and i have said this before you were just too busy to read my posts since you think so highly of yourself) but the ref has no ability and neither has the doctor to determine if there is a concussion and what not.

For that they would need to stop the fight and check AA they couldn't so the two points was the best they can come up with in terms of the IBF rules.

[Bozo_no no]

I agree it wasn't but depending on the way you interpret injury it was BY THE BOOK>

we may not like it and you can call me wrong
but if Miranda goes to court to file a motion or whatever

that is precisely how Neumann, the Supervisor and the IBF will defend the decision
because lawyer talk is lawyer talk.

Rather then calling me wrong find a similar fight to show this so called "black and white"

That headbutt was clearly blatant and intentional and could have cause a # of serious injury rather then slight injury (and i have said this before you were just too busy to read my posts since you think so highly of yourself) but the ref has no ability and neither has the doctor to determine if there is a concussion and what not.

For that they would need to stop the fight and check AA they couldn't so the two points was the best they can come up with in terms of the IBF rules.

Blah blah blah.

Wrong.

There was NO INJURY TO INTERPRET from the foul.

Period.

Get it though your head.

You were wrong about the rule, and you're embarassing yourself.

Going to court... stopping the fight to check for injuries... you should start a comedy routine.

I've never seen someone stoop so low to avoid admitting they're wrong.

[Novirasputin]

Blah blah blah.

Wrong.

There was NO INJURY TO INTERPRET from the foul.

Period.

Get it though your head.

You were wrong about the rule, and you're embarassing yourself.

Going to court... stopping the fight to check for injuries... you should start a comedy routine.

I've never seen someone stoop so low to avoid admitting they're wrong.

If i thought i was wrong i would admit this.
I am not, you are. Hence we are arguing. You just can't take an argument.You were probably always told that you were always right
and were one of those know it all kids.

[Bozo_no no]

If i thought i was wrong i would admit this.
I am not, you are. Hence we are arguing. You just can't take an argument.You were probably always told that you were always right
and were one of those know it all kids.

You started out completely oblivious to the fact you had the rule mixed up and said if I pointed out where the correct rule was you'd admit you were wrong.

I posted the correct rule 4 times before it sunk in, and then you compeltely changed what you thought happened to try and sink it up with the injury rule.

There is no argument here.

You were wrong, it was pointed out, and you've been verbally squirming around like a child now for pages and pages.

There was no injury that was caused specificly by the foul. Thus, the two point deduction that applys to injuries caused by intentional fouls DOES NOT apply.

Again, all you're doing now is embarassing yourself.