Comments Thread For: Andrew Moloney Legal Battle Continues Over Franco Rematch Outcome

[ShoulderRoll]

Maloney should get the win. Is not about if there will be or won't be a 3rd fight. Is who comes as the champ to the fight.

Maloney got robbed.

Moloney thumbed Franco in the eye.

There was what looked like a clash of heads which instant replay wasn't able to conclusively prove or disprove. Much less the ref in the heat of the action.

In the NFL if instant replay isn't conclusive enough to overturn a call then the call stands.

The same should apply here. Due to all of the above it seems fair to me to let the result stand and have a 3rd fight to settle the score.

[ShoulderRoll]

I don't like the idea of bringing new camera angles and footage now.

Anything that helps the truth to come out is a good thing.

But if it takes this much reviewing to come up with an answer then I don't think the ref can be blamed too much for making the call he did in the heat of the moment.

[Ajvar]

Anything that helps the truth to come out is a good thing.

But if it takes this much reviewing to come up with an answer then I don't think the ref can be blamed too much for making the call he did in the heat of the moment.

Listen, there is a conclusive evidence that they initially looked the footage of "clash" of the wrong eye and ref calling a "clash" on the wrong eye. So... yeah... there is nothing sane to overrule, there is idiocy which needs to be overruled hence you don't need 100% conclusive evidence that something which that idiocy tried to prove did not actually happened.

That idiocy-approved statement doesn't have more "handicapped" legitimacy than Moloney's claim (which everybody approves). So now we see multiple jabs and other punches into his eye. That PROVES the damage. And we have so far nonexistent headbutts which are merely sliding head bumps at best in somewhere close to the right eye yet mostly still above (brow).

In other words if ref said there was a foul in the blind spot yet that decision ref made looking into tv watching movie The Replacements with Keanu then you don't need "solid enough evidence to overturn his decision". You just ban that referee and who defended him and then create fair hearing what could have happened in that blind spot.

It's clear as a day what actually should be: banned commission representatives, another hearing about why commission tried to defend that ugly choice and obviously Moloney is the winner of that fight.

[ShoulderRoll]

Listen, there is a conclusive evidence that they initially looked the footage of "clash" of the wrong eye and ref calling a "clash" on the wrong eye. So... yeah... there is nothing sane to overrule, there is idiocy which needs to be overruled hence you don't need 100% conclusive evidence that something which that idiocy tried to prove did not actually happened.

That idiocy-approved statement doesn't have more "handicapped" legitimacy than Moloney's claim (which everybody approves). So now we see multiple jabs and other punches into his eye. That PROVES the damage. And we have so far nonexistent headbutts which are merely sliding head bumps at best in somewhere close to the right eye yet mostly still above (brow).

In other words if ref said there was a foul in the blind spot yet that decision ref made looking into tv watching movie The Replacements with Keanu then you don't need "solid enough evidence to overturn his decision". You just ban that referee and who defended him and then create fair hearing what could have happened in that blind spot.

It's clear as a day what actually should be: banned commission representatives, another hearing about why commission tried to defend that ugly choice and obviously Moloney is the winner of that fight.

There appeared to be a clash on the correct eye, though. Even if they then switched to rubbing heads on the other side.

Here we are weeks later and replay reviews are STILL being argued. So the ref did the best he could in making a split second call in the middle of the action.

[Toffee]

There appeared to be a clash on the correct eye, though. Even if they then switched to rubbing heads on the other side.

Here we are weeks later and replay reviews are STILL being argued. So the ref did the best he could in making a split second call in the middle of the action.



I don't

If the ref thinks he sees a clash then fair enough. Then they go to the video to check it.

We watched that process. They went to the video, didn't find a clash, and still awarded a no contest.

I don't care what they've found since. I care that the commission's representatives on the night used video evidence and then made the opposite decision to what they found!

[tritium_arma]

Franco should file a protest for getting thumbed in the eye.

Just fight a third time in Australia already and let's move on.

He should file a protest for a legal punch?

[ShoulderRoll]

If the ref thinks he sees a clash then fair enough. Then they go to the video to check it.

We watched that process. They went to the video, didn't find a clash, and still awarded a no contest.

I don't care what they've found since. I care that the commission's representatives on the night used video evidence and then made the opposite decision to what they found!

They didn't see anything conclusive enough that night to overturn the ref's call.

That was the appropriate action in my opinion.

Here we are weeks later and people STILL aren't certain. So that shows you how tricky this was.

[ShoulderRoll]

He should file a protest for a legal punch?

Not for a legal punch. For the thumb to the eye.

[Leonbus2]

Not for a legal punch. For the thumb to the eye.

You don't watch boxing too often, do you?

[ShoulderRoll]

You don't watch boxing too often, do you?

Why? Do people that watch boxing often enough ignore it when a thumb goes into the eye?