Facepalm on AIBA overturning decision on Vikas Krishan's bout

They say “Sports is life with the volume turned up”. Everything speeded up, birth, life and death. Unlike debating, piano deathmatches or whatever they participate in to judge the better piano player, a contest in sports offers up a clear cut winner. Piano deathmatches are subjective, to the whim of Simon Cowell and Anu Malik. In basketball, the scoreboard decides who wins, and the teams get to decide what the scoreboard reads.

There’s room even in such sports for a Tim Donoughy whistling randomly to fill his gambling purse, but the outcome at least is clear on the scoreboard. Even in a game as slow as cricket, the outcome is crystal clear. Not so in boxing.

Unless there’s a Mike Tyson kind of knockout, or a decisive series of bouts, there can always be room for an argument against the decision awarded, leading to a bunch of “Come on ref, are you blind?” moments. If you manage to get past the ref, there’s another body, AIBA, with the power to overturn the decision.

There’s a real mind-numbing controversy here in case of Vikas Krishan. Check out the two decisions of AIBA:

Decision #1: Based on the AIBA Technical & Competition Rules 12.1.9, the referee should have given at least two warnings to the Indian boxer.

Ok, well and good. The ref ought to have done that. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. There were 9 holding fouls committed by the Indian boxer in the third round, and the ref didn’t caution him.

It’s hard to not swear out profanities at this facepalm worthy logic.

You say he should have got a warning. A series of warnings actually. Ok, fine he should have. But can you take a step back and realize, that if the ref had done his job properly and awarded a warning where a warning was due, would Vikas Krishan not have tempered his gameplan and avoid future transgressions which may merit a warning?

If the ref had played it by the book, the ref’s decisions would have influenced the course of the match. Vikas would have been more wary.

Decision #2: Although the boxer from India intentionally spitted out his gumshield, the Referee’s view was blocked by the boxer from the USA and was not able to see the action.

Well boo hoo. Blindspot. Supposing for argument’s sake Vikas did get a warning, would that guarantee that Vikas ends up behind in the scoresheet?

The whole shaky and flawed premise behind this judgement is that you can just sprinkle in warnings after the bout has been fought, while ignoring the impact a warning could have had on other reasons which merited a warning.

There are two people in a ring beating each other up. If you want a hand in influencing the decision, put a glove on that hand.