He was DQed for using the chair as a weapon both times. Just because his attempt was unsuccessful on try number one doesn't remove intent. There's lots of stuff to complain about on Raw, but that's pretty nitpicky.
Originally posted by oldschoolheroHe was DQed for using the chair as a weapon both times. Just because his attempt was unsuccessful on try number one doesn't remove intent. There's lots of stuff to complain about on Raw, but that's pretty nitpicky.
I'm just saying, sometimes they let it go unless you actually hit the guy. And sometimes they do this. A little consistency wouldn't kill them.
Yeah, but in terms of show-long consistency there's no problem here. Besides, ref's discretion is often responsible for variable calls in pretty much every other sport on the planet. We're not dealing with legal precedent here-logically, calls would absolutely vary from match to match and official to official.
(edited by oldschoolhero on 13.5.09 0044) "And here...we...go."
Originally posted by oldschoolheroHe was DQed for using the chair as a weapon both times. Just because his attempt was unsuccessful on try number one doesn't remove intent. There's lots of stuff to complain about on Raw, but that's pretty nitpicky.
So throwing a chair into the ring, as Cody Rhodes did in the first match before Batista grabbed it, doesn't indicate intent?
Yeah, but in terms of show-long consistency there's no problem here. Besides, ref's discretion is often responsible for variable calls in pretty much every other sport on the planet. We're not dealing with legal precedent here-logically, calls would absolutely vary from match to match and official to official.
In other sports, an athlete who cheats to the extent Batista did would be suspended. That comparison does not work. That's why the phrase "sports entertainment" came into existence.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanSo throwing a chair into the ring, as Cody Rhodes did in the first match before Batista grabbed it, doesn't indicate intent?
Ted DiBiase was distracting the referee, and thus he didn't see Cody throwing the chair in. He just saw Batista take a swing at Cody after grabbing it.
Originally posted by oldschoolheroYeah, but in terms of show-long consistency there's no problem here. Besides, ref's discretion is often responsible for variable calls in pretty much every other sport on the planet. We're not dealing with legal precedent here-logically, calls would absolutely vary from match to match and official to official.
(edited by oldschoolhero on 13.5.09 0044)
Final word from me on this: I understand the idea of referee's discretion, but what should end a match via DQ and what shouldn't should be logically spelled out and not left up to the ref to decide. Something like that should be pretty black and white, IMO.
And going back to the "intent" idea- I wouldn't mind it if that was spelled out by the announcers. They could say that even though Batista didn't hit Rhodes, he intended to, and that's enough for a DQ in WWE rather than actually having to hit someone (especially because it's not enforced very often- usually you actually have to hit the guy for a DQ).
I think this would have been SO much better (and cooler, too) if Batista had actually made contact against Cody, then later, swung and missed against Orton. That way, the second ref (even better if it was the same ref from the first match) would have called for the judgment DQ based on m.o. and a developing pattern. It would have added a little more nuance to the story.
This "intent" or "referee's discretion" debate is despite the fact that the rules weren't like this before. It used to be very clear in WWE what called for a DQ when a foreign object is involved: Who used it. Jimmy Hart's megaphone or Mr. Fuji's cane regularly used to find their way into the ring. Who INTENDED to use it wasn't disqualified, it was who USED it. As long as the referee saw it. It was never about intent, it was about who made contact with what and whether it was seen by the referee.
It boils down for me as not liking the rule change. Nor do I like similar recent rule changes like referees putting their hands on wrestlers and physically breaking them up in the corners.
When there were actual heel announcers, like Heenan, Ventura and Lawler a decade ago, there'd at least be someone giving a voice to inconsistencies.
Godspeed, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, Wisconsin Army National Guard! Victory in Iraq!
Originally posted by TorchslasherThe only thing I really liked about Raw-- The "I'm On A Boat" sign.
Aw, c'mon! No love for the guy right next to him that had the "EPIC FAIL" sign perfectly positioned in-between Orton and Batista on the hard-cam's 2shot?
I'm not going to post the whole spoiler or anything, anyone who cares to read them can and probably already has elsewhere. I just wanted to note:
1. No trades as of yet. Which means if they happen, they happen after the split.
2.