Boxing is the "Sweet Science". If you begin to taint it by second guessing the officials you render the referee's as well as the Judges as "Lame Ducks"! The referee did a fine job and the commission should back up the official unless he wants to become an after thought in the structure of New York Sports.  Billy Reds Inverso USA Boxing Official

 

Goldstein's Response:  I am assuming you are talking about the Keenan Collins-Delvin Rodriguez fight in which the referee declared a no contest.   I don't necessarily think that instant replay or second guessing would make the referee's and judges "lame ducks."  The NFL uses instant replay in a controlled environment and I think it helps improve the accuracy of the game, especially considering the fact that the referees themselves are allowed to rule on the replay.   Instant replay will now be used in the NBA for flagrant fouls and it is also making huge waves in professional tennis with an immediate digitally rendered replay that has proven to be very accurate and fan favorite.   The difference in these situations is that the decisions are made almost immediately and affect the games right then and there.  In boxing this is much more difficult because the referee would have less than a minute between rounds to review the tape and make a decision that could affect the outcome of the fight.   There would need to be an alternate referee and or commission member reviewing the tape while the rounds are continuing.  Overturning the Rodriguez-Collins fight like the Cauthen-Frank situation is a slippery slope and could open a Pandora's Box of fights that should be overturned.   Terrible decisions, knockdowns vs. slips, punches vs. head butts; where would it end?  Would boxing have to overturn the infamous "phantom punch?"  How many previous fights could be overturned if this was allowed?  I cannot recall an instance where the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL or any other professional sport overturned an official result weeks after the fact.   

 

 

Hey Matt, The thing about instant replaying well to me is there is nothing but pros to it. It just depends on when it's implemented in a fight and who is delegated to use this tool. I believe a fighter's corner should have one chance to challenge a penalty or action that is questionable during a fight but it must be reviewed after the final bell or whenever the fight was halted. It should not be used between rounds to stop the flow or progress of a fight because it simply changes the tide of it. Otherwise you would have trainers and promoters licking their chops throwing flags in the ring whenever they feel like it because they're fighters are in trouble.  Once the fight is over then we can make the final adjustments and re tally the scores up on the board or deem if the fight becomes a no contest or whatever ruling is deemed necessary. Lastly the review/replay booth should give both corners, if needed, one review each but again should be utilized at the end of the fight. Sure there might be more of a handful of penalties than usual and questionable things going on in a fight, so it is up to the trainers/promoters and the review booth to use this powerful tool when it is most needed, but like a time out once it is burned you can't use it again.  Athletic commissions and sanctioning bodies should have access to this tool and review a fight after even weeks later and change the end result if needed. I might read up a lot on more lawsuits between promoters and the commissions/sanctioning bodies because of reverse rulings but in the end instant replay is such a positive thing. So you get my vote for instant replay in boxing matches, but not if its obstructs the flow of the fight. Other wise we would see a crap load of controversy when flags are thrown in at times when a fighter should have been KO'd or TKO'd.  I tell you this if instant replays are allowed in between rounds then boxing just opened up a new door of crap and controversy making it actually harder to rule and regulate a typical fight.  Michael S. River

 

Goldstein's Response: That's not necessarily a bad idea to allow a corner 1 or 2 chances to have something reviewed on instant replay.   But if the instant replay could only be used to at the end of the fight, would everyone have to wait until the referee reviews 4 instant replays before the points are recalculated?   Also, assuming there is a replay booth is a major stretch.  Most professional boxing matches are not even taped let alone broadcasted.   Commission's barley have enough money for one representative at local cards let alone a team to review tape.  Instant replay is not something that can be applied universally to the sport considering that not all fights are taped or broadcasted.   Could you imagine if the NFL said they would only use instant replay for AFC divisional home games?

I think Instant Replay in Boxing would be a great idea.  The Ref doesn't always see everything that goes on in the ring - so this would help.  Especially when they miss the knock downs - where the guy's  glove touch the mat for a second. Prime example:  Zab Judah knocked Floyd down in there fight.  Do I think it would have changed the outcome of the fight - NO - but the guy does deserve
the credit for what he did.  I'm pretty sure that are plenty of instances that can be brought up - this was the first one that came to mind. All other sport have instant replay for a reason - to keep things as honest and fair as possible.  Why not the sport that has a controversy about it?  Kevin Epps

Goldstein's Response:  Kevin, I completely agree that referee's miss many things in the midst of a fight.  And this is no slight on referees in boxing or any sport.  No one can possibly see everything all the time.  After all, most physicists think Einstein was completely wrong for the last 20 years of his academic life.  I agree that Zab definitely knocked Floyd Mayweather down when his glove touched the canvas.   Maybe it would not have had an outcome on the fight, but if Zab had one another round and or an additional close round was scored in his favor, we could have seen the P4P #1 fighter in the world dethroned.   If Zab knew that the scorecards were a point or so closer, maybe he would have turned up the heat rather than fade and intentionally foul the "Pretty Boy." And to address your last paragraph, not all other sports have instant replay.   There are only a few that actually utilize it regularly.    

I think that instant replay would be valuable for the sport of boxing.  I think it would work well if it was used for the purpose of determining whether a cut was caused by a punch or a head butt.  I think it would also be valuable in determining slips from actual knockdowns or in the event where a guy's glove touches the canvas or doesn't touch the canvas.  All in all it would be better for the sport if the correct call was made in those cases.  Instant replay would eliminate a fair amount of disputes.  Because it is unfair to a fighter who trains hard and makes boxing his livelihood to have a cut called accidental head butt when it was actually a punch.  Or to have a ref call a knockdown a slip when it was legit knockdown.  We have all seen that it doesn't even take long to review in between the rounds and make the correct call.  Announcers do it in between rounds all the time. Now, I don't think that instant replay should be used to review entire fights and overturn the judge's scorecards.  If they were to use it for that purpose then there would be no need for judges at all.  So I think the instant replay should be limited to in between rounds kind of stuff.   Otherwise, you could open the door for a whole lot more corruption if we have fights being overturned days later.   So at the end of the day as a boxing fan, I just want the correct calls being made without bias based on facts.  We have the technology, other sports do it successfully.  There is no reason why boxing shouldn't do it.  Carlos Oquendo Jr.

Goldstein's Response:  Carlos, I too think instant replay could be valuable to a sport with many disputes and controversial outcomes.   But I do not agree that "it does not take long to review in between rounds and make the correct call."  The referee will have less than a minute to review the tape and make a decision.   The NFL has two minutes per review and the referees still do not always make the right call.  This is also assuming that the boxing referee does not have to warn corners for infractions, discuss issues with the commission and ringside physicians and that all fighters answer the bell in the appropriate amount of time.  Less then 60 seconds is clearly not enough time to review instant replay and make the correct call when the referee has other obligations.    

Absolutely, boxing needs to catch up with everyone else already.  Instant replay should've been used a long time ago, maybe Taylor would've got the decision he deserved against Chavez when Richard Steele prematurely stopped the fight with one second left in the 12th and final round.  Thank you,
man.watson@us.army.mil

Goldstein's Response:  Exactly how would instant replay change anything about Meldrick Taylor's loss to Julio Caesar Chavez?  

I was glad to see this discussion topic posted on boxingtalk because instant replay must become a part of the sport in ALL commissions.  Just last night, I watched the replay of Marquez/Barrera in anticipation for September 15th.  Jay Nady flat out missed the punch that put Marquez on the canvas.  This was not a judgment call--a punch landed and the direct result was a knockdown.  Luckily, this error did not come in to play in deciding the winner, but that is beside the point because it easily could have.  Just last week, Delvin Rodriguez was robbed of a win when he cut his opponent with a punch landing directly above the eye; incidentally it was the same exact location in which the cut appeared.  The ref did not see that the cut came directly from that punch, and that is ok.  What is not ok is the fact that broadcasters can review the tape from beginning to end to determine clearly that there was no clash of heads, and the powers that be cannot utilize the tape to determine FACT, not judgment, which eventually would have decided the proper outcome of the fight.  In cases such as these, when fact is miscalled, instant replay needs to be implemented.  Barrera knocked Marquez down with a punch: that is fact, no arguments about it.  The official call needs to reflect that.  Rodriguez cut his opponent with his fist: that is fact, no arguments about it; once again the official call needs to reflect that.  However, there needs to be stipulations with instant replay.  In other words, it should only be used at specific times.  Similar to how a football coach can only challenge certain calls.  Judgment calls should not be changed because of instant replay.  If a referee determines a fighter is holding too much in a fight with constant clinching, and deducts a point from his perceived offender, that should not be reviewed, even if there are opposing opinions.  Because that is why there is an official in the ring: to make judgment calls, and officiate accordingly, and his call in a case like this must be respected, or else, why even bother having him in the ring?  Steve Smoger will often let a fighter take serious punishment before stopping a fight, when another referee may have stopped the bout sooner.  This is simply an added element to the boxing match, if anything, it adds intrigue.  Now, there can be bad calls, but they are still bad JUDGMENT calls.  For example Quicky McStoppy who officiated Calzaghe/Manfredo, while Manfredo was in over his head, the bout, it is fair to say, should not have been halted AT THAT VERY MOMENT.  Bad call, but still a judgment call.  Eliminate those by simply not giving him another big assignment, that's all.  To sum up, instant replay should not by any means replace an official, or judge.  Their jobs are invaluable.  There needs to be strict and detailed stipulations separating what is a factual call, and what is a judgment call.  Instant replay should only be used on factual calls.  When a factual call is straight wrong, that is when instant replay needs to make it right. 
~justin in DC

Goldstein's Response:  Justin, I agree that instant replay will instill accuracy into the game and determine certain factual things that are missed, but I do not think the difference between "fact" and "judgment calls" is so easy to determine.   Everything in life is subjective.  The examples you provide are clear, but certainly many others are not, like the "phantom punch."   What is fact in that situation?  I agree that instant replay should be instilled at certain times.  The big question here is, when?   Anything more than a minute in between rounds will change the game so significantly that it is not worth doing.  As well, what about the fights that aren't taped.   The boxing community would basically be throwing up their hands and saying "oh well, those fights don't matter."  You might think that club shows do not matter, but every prospect fights in 10-15 club shows on their way to the top, except for a chosen few of course.   Boxing needs to show a unified front with universal rules.  Different rules in different states clearly hurt the game.   Some states have stringent drug test laws.  On the other hand, I know boxers with more than 20 fights and they never received a drug test.  This cannot be good for boxing as a "mainstream" commodity.      

BoxingTalk, I think instant replay would be beneficial in fight changing decisions, The ref being the sole judge in major fights is just wrong.  If basketball has refs that are crooked and being influenced by organized crime you just know that there must have been refs in boxing being used the exact same way. But in basketball a bad call means a foul shot or two, in Boxing a bad call can end the fight. Instant replay must be used, And the only reason I can see for officials not wanting this excellent tool is their own interests would be compromised. Mike G  Providence RI

Goldstein's response:  Mike, I see your concern in corrupt referees and officials but I do believe those are rare, isolated cases.   Yes, some referees believe that instant replay will undermine their authority and make them seem less valuable.  Referees have to understand that they will always be needed no matter how much instant replay is used.   And second, instant replay review during the fight could become the alternate referee's responsibility, thus proving their employment more secure in hiring two referees per show.  

I believe that having Instant Replay in between rounds is a fantastic idea. A slip counted as a knockdown or vice versa could be reviewed and corrected. After all, a win or loss can directly impact the marketability and profit of fighters. The responsible thing to do is try to make the outcome as fair and accurate as possible. I don't like the idea of anyone reviewing fights days later and much less overturning a decision. It would have to take a very rare instance for that to be a possibility. I think that the referee should still be able to stop the fight as he sees fit; after all other referees for other sports aren't questioned on what is considered a "judgment call". I don't think that reviews should be done (except in extreme cases) where the commission reviews scoring and such. Their job was to have the best possible people scoring in the first place. (and that's a whole other topic I could easily go off on a tangent about) Eliecer Olivares

Goldstein's response:  Eliecer, I don't like it either when fights are reviewed days or weeks later.   But you say it should be allowed in very rare instances.  Well, who is right to decide those specific instances?   Right now we have 50 different commissions, none of which have a set standard on this issue.  (Although NY is certainly setting a precedent.)   It's a very subjective procedure, especially when no set policy exists.     

I think that instant replay is not good during the fight or after the fight, unless the fight comes down to a decision of one of the fighters winning or losing.   Also it takes away from the non stop action that could be going on in boxing if we stop to review plays. Look at what happened in the Holyfeild and Bowe fight when they had to stop for a few minutes because of the flying man. (It changed the way of the fight) If it is ruled a no contest, then you give those same 2 fighters a chance to rematch again for the same money and rounds if desired.   Now if it came down to making a decision at the end of the night and whether he won or lost and the fight went more then 4 rounds then I think instant replay is good.   In the world of boxing today when HBO and Showtime wants to see fighters with no losses on their record well decisions that are bad could change the career of a promising young fighter. If they did not win or lose, it doesn't hurt anybody. But when you put that lost on their record it could really make a difference on whether they ever have a chance for the big money.   Let's allow the fighters to fight and the judges and referees to make their decisions, not the TV cameras.  We are killing the sport, not helping it. Then we wonder why other athletes are going to other sports.   No instant replay in baseball or soccer, or basketball, or hockey only football. Let's keep our sport of boxing between 3 in the ring and 3 outside of the ring, but let's do a better job of hiring good judges and referees. Marshall Kauffman

Goldstein's Response:  Marshall, if the instant replay did not have an impact on someone winning or losing, what would be the point of the instant replay at all?  In any instance, if there will be a point given or taken away in the middle of a fight, it could easily affect the out come.  I agree, instant replay cannot not by any means modify the times between or during the rounds.   This would be a drastic change in the sport that would be completely unnecessary and a detriment.  I think the solution would have to be that the alternate referee would review the tape under the guidelines of the Association of Boxing Commissions while the fight is going on.   The HBO and Showtime "no loss" policy is huge for fighters that want the biggest purses possible.  I don't think instant replay hurts other sports and I don't think it would hurt boxing.   I personally feel that there needs to be a set policy in which all of the commissions and sanctioning bodies agree upon.  There are many inexperienced commissions out there that operate at sub par levels.   Boxing cannot afford random unpredictable behavior by just anyone.  There is one commissioner in particular that I think is on the verge of psychotic.   Yes, there is no instant replay in the MLB, NBA or NHL, but there is in the NFL and the NFL is by far the most popular sport in America.  I think instant replay helps the NFL because it is done in a controlled environment in which the policy is strictly regulated and that it can only take up so much time where it does not hurt the flow of the game.   Instant replay could help boxing in a big way; we just can't let it affect the intricacies that make our sport so great.   By the way, Sonny Liston got KTFO!  

M

Send questions and comments to: boxingtalk@gmail.com