The W
Views: 97561452
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.7.14 0423
The W - Pro Wrestling - RAW #833 5/11/09 (Page 2)
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.40
Pages: Prev 1 2
(2658 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (30 total)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.22
    Originally posted by geemoney
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
        Originally posted by geemoney
        Rhodes threw a chair into the ring, and Batista got to it and swung at Rhodes. The ref saw this, and called for the bell.

        ...

        He got a chair and brought it into the ring (no DQ), then used it on Orton (DQ). Come on, can we get some consistency in calls within the SAME show?


      According to your recap, Batista used a chair twice and got disqualified for using a chair twice. I don't see the inconsistency.

    He never hit anyone the first time.


Ah, I see. I haven't seen the show yet, and didn't realize this. Sorry.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1894 days
Last activity: 1828 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
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.



"And here...we...go."
geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.72
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    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.

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.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1894 days
Last activity: 1828 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
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."
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 7 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.22
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    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.


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.
Chumpstain
Kolbasz








Since: 21.1.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#26 Posted on
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    So 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.
geemoney
Scrapple








Since: 26.1.03
From: Naples, FL

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.72
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    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)

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).
Mr Shh
Toulouse








Since: 9.1.02
From: Bergen County, NJ

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.43
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.





You askew my mirror. I askew yours.
John Orquiola
Scrapple








Since: 28.2.02
From: Boston

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 23 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.56
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.
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 96 days
Last activity: 81 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
Godspeed, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, Wisconsin Army National Guard! Victory in Iraq!

    Originally posted by Torchslasher
    The 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?










NWAWisconsin.com...Live, Local Pro Wrestling!

Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 5.40
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: WWE Superstars #5 -- May 14th, 2009
Next thread: When We Were Marks: Nash vs. PCO
Previous thread: Ring of Honor on HDNet #8 9.5.09
(2658 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Related threads: RAW #832 5/4/09 - RAW #831 4/27/09 - RAW #830 4/20/09 - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - RAW #833 5/11/09 (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.383 seconds.