Nevada still isn’t getting instant replay right

The Nevada State Athletic Commission should be applauded for using instant replay but fight action shouldn’t be interrupted in the process.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission instituted instant replay for combat sports about a decade ago.

Keith Kizer, the NSAC’s Executive Director at the time, made one thing clear: Replay would be used during the fight but the action itself would never be interrupted. He and the commissioners understood the importance of maintaining the structure of the sport, three minutes of fighting and one minute of rest. Timeouts were allowed only when fighter safety was an issue.

Kizer, a smart guy, and the commissioners at had it right. Current NSAC officials, who have expanded the process, have it wrong.

The NSAC employed instant replay during the Arnold Barboza Jr.-Alex Saucedo fight on the Teofimo Lopez-Vasiliy Lomachenko card Saturday in Las Vegas. Referee Celestino Ruiz ruled a slip when Barboza went down from a punch in Round 7.

The replay official, former referee Joe Cortez, knew better. He turned on a yellow light to indicate the referee’s ruling is under review and Ruiz stopped the action. Cortez informed Ruiz that Saucedo should’ve been credited with a knock down, the call was corrected and the corners were informed of the reversal.

All that is fine. Instant replay is used in an effort to get it right. And that’s what happened.

Here’s the problem: There was no reason whatsoever to stop the action to make the correction. Cortez could’ve waited until the end of the round to confer with Ruiz, who then could’ve informed the fighters of the ruling while they sat on their stools.

What did stopping the action accomplish? Was either fighter going to change his strategy or the way he was fighting because of the correction? Of course not.

One could argue that a fighter might change his or her tactics if that happened late in a close contest, although fighters aren’t apprised of the official scoring until the bout is over. Another possible example: The wrong call on whether a cut was caused by a punch or head butt could lead the injured fighter to coast when he should’ve been attacking or vice versa.

I acknowledge that there is no perfect approach to instant replay. However, in my opinion, the correction can almost always wait a minute or two – whatever time remains on the clock — until the end of the round to maintain the flow of the fight.

We’re frustrated when a tired or injured fighter purposely spits out his mouthpiece to buy time by forcing the referee to stop the action. We’re annoyed when the ref has to call a time-out because of loose tape on a fighter’s glove.

Why? Because it disrupts the flow of the fight.

And while stopping the action for instant replay can result in the correct call, as it did in the Barboza-Saucedo fight, it can also impact the fight in other ways. For example, it could give a tired or injured fighter extra time to recover. That’s not right. Boxing is not like football or baseball, which stops and starts anyway.

Nevada and other jurisdictions are on the right track by using instant replay. Again, it’s important to get these calls correct. The point here is that you don’t have to stop the action – which fundamentally changes the sport – to get that done.

[lawrence-related id=14772]

Nevada still isn’t getting instant replay right

The Nevada State Athletic Commission should be applauded for using instant replay but fight action shouldn’t be interrupted in the process.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission instituted instant replay for combat sports about a decade ago.

Keith Kizer, the NSAC’s Executive Director at the time, made one thing clear: Replay would be used during the fight but the action itself would never be interrupted. He and the commissioners understood the importance of maintaining the structure of the sport, three minutes of fighting and one minute of rest. Timeouts were allowed only when fighter safety was an issue.

Kizer, a smart guy, and the commissioners at had it right. Current NSAC officials, who have expanded the process, have it wrong.

The NSAC employed instant replay during the Arnold Barboza Jr.-Alex Saucedo fight on the Teofimo Lopez-Vasiliy Lomachenko card Saturday in Las Vegas. Referee Celestino Ruiz ruled a slip when Barboza went down from a punch in Round 7.

The replay official, former referee Joe Cortez, knew better. He turned on a yellow light to indicate the referee’s ruling is under review and Ruiz stopped the action. Cortez informed Ruiz that Saucedo should’ve been credited with a knock down, the call was corrected and the corners were informed of the reversal.

All that is fine. Instant replay is used in an effort to get it right. And that’s what happened.

Here’s the problem: There was no reason whatsoever to stop the action to make the correction. Cortez could’ve waited until the end of the round to confer with Ruiz, who then could’ve informed the fighters of the ruling while they sat on their stools.

What did stopping the action accomplish? Was either fighter going to change his strategy or the way he was fighting because of the correction? Of course not.

One could argue that a fighter might change his or her tactics if that happened late in a close contest, although fighters aren’t apprised of the official scoring until the bout is over. Another possible example: The wrong call on whether a cut was caused by a punch or head butt could lead the injured fighter to coast when he should’ve been attacking or vice versa.

I acknowledge that there is no perfect approach to instant replay. However, in my opinion, the correction can almost always wait a minute or two – whatever time remains on the clock — until the end of the round to maintain the flow of the fight.

We’re frustrated when a tired or injured fighter purposely spits out his mouthpiece to buy time by forcing the referee to stop the action. We’re annoyed when the ref has to call a time-out because of loose tape on a fighter’s glove.

Why? Because it disrupts the flow of the fight.

And while stopping the action for instant replay can result in the correct call, as it did in the Barboza-Saucedo fight, it can also impact the fight in other ways. For example, it could give a tired or injured fighter extra time to recover. That’s not right. Boxing is not like football or baseball, which stops and starts anyway.

Nevada and other jurisdictions are on the right track by using instant replay. Again, it’s important to get these calls correct. The point here is that you don’t have to stop the action – which fundamentally changes the sport – to get that done.

[lawrence-related id=14772]

Kenny Bayless, NSAC goofed by stopping fight for review

Referee Kenny Bayless and Nevada officials should be embarrassed by the decision to stop the Top Rank main event for a review Tuesday.

I have the utmost respect for the Nevada State Athletic Commission, which is one of the finest oversight bodies in the world. And Kenny Bayless, the veteran referee, is one of the best in the business.

Those are among the reasons I was so flabbergasted by what I witnessed Thursday night on ESPN.

Jose Pedraza was in the process of dominating Mikkel LesPierre in the bubble at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas when the talented Puerto Rican went down from a punch to the stomach at 1:50 of Round 5 and Bayless began his count.

After the round, Bayless was alerted to the fact that the apparent knockdown might’ve been the result of a trip. Thus, a moment after the bell sounded to begin Round 6, Bayless called a timeout, left the ring and conferred with his fellow officials to determine whether  it was a knock down or a trip.

After watching replays, they finally decided that it was the latter and the fight resumed.

Here’s the problem: The process took 2 minutes, 10 seconds, which is an eternity in boxing. I understand that Nevada rules allow a break in the action to make such a determination but it’s a horrible, short-sighted idea for a number of reasons.

In no particular order …

  • Pedraza put LesPierre down and hurt him later in Round 5. I believe LesPierre recovered sufficiently before the end of the round. Still, any advantage Pedraza had was lost in that 2:10.
  • The break in the action spoiled the flow of the fight. As ESPN broadcaster Joe Tessitore pointed out on the air, a bout is composed of three-minute rounds with one-minute of rest between them. “You have to withstand that and endure that,” he said. Right. That’s boxing. Timeouts generally are justified only to protect the fighters.
  • Three minutes-plus (including the minute before the review period) is long enough for a boxer to grow cold. Thus, when the fight resumed after the break, Pedraza and LesPierre had to transition from cool idle to hot fight mode in an instant. That’s not easy.
  • And the break in the action sucked the life out of the fight. It’s also difficult for fans to get re-engaged after such a long – and bizarre – break.

Beyond all that, the timeout wasn’t necessary. Bayless could’ve told LesPierre and his cornerman after Round 5 that the knockdown might’ve been a trip and was under review. Then a replay official could’ve made the determination during Round 6 and informed the corner before Round 7.

In other words, was it really imperative for LesPierre to know whether it was a knockdown or a trip at that moment? I know it changed the scoring of Round 5. Still, it didn’t warrant stopping the fight for two minutes.

And, on top of everything else, Bayless and Co. got the call wrong. In my opinion, it WAS a knockdown. Yes, Pedraza tripped over LesPierre’s foot but it was a clean punch that started the process. That’s an obvious knockdown in my book.

I don’t want to be too hard on the NSAC, which I believe constantly evolves in an effort to better serve the boxers and everyone else in the sport. All oversight organizations should be as diligent as this one.

That said, what happened on Tuesday was both ridiculous and alarming. If NSAC officials are a sharp as I think that are, something like this will never happen again.

NSAC cleared to discipline Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. for refusing drug test

A judge on Tuesday cleared the way for Nevada officials to discipline Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. for refusing to submit a urine sample.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission can discipline Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. for refusing a urine test after all.

A judge on Tuesday dismissed a restraining order won by Chavez and upheld a motion to dismiss his case, which has taken a number of turns since Chavez, scheduled to fight Daniel Jacobs in Las Vegas, refused to submit a sample to the Voluntary Anti-Doping Agency on Oct. 24, according to a report on BoxingScene.com.

BoxingScene.com’s Thomas Hauser laid out this timeline:

Oct. 30 – The NSAC suspends Chavez temporarily pending the results of a commission meeting on Nov. 20.

Nov. 20 – The suspension is extended by a unanimous vote until a final disciplinary action is brought against Chavez. The Chavez-Jacobs fight, set for Dec. 20, is subsequently moved to Phoenix.

Dec. 17 – A Nevada court grants Chavez’s request for a temporary restraining order preventing the NSAC from proceeding with the disciplinary action.

Jan. 15 – The NSAC files a motion to kill the restraining order. Chavez, according to Hauser, responds by filing a motion to change the restraining order to a preliminary junction.

March 5 – The NSAC files a motion to dismiss Chavez’s case against it.

April 28 – A judge grants both of the NSAC’s motions and denies Chavez’s request via a conference call. That allows Nevada officials to discipline Chavez  for refusing to submit a sample for the drug test.

Nevada Commission says ‘no’ to post-weigh-in stare down

Nevada officials ordered that there will be no face-to-face pose after the weigh-in Friday for the Deontay Wilder-Tyson Fury rematch.

LAS VEGAS – The face-off is off.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission took a cue from promoter Bob Arum, ordering that there will be no eye-to-eye, nose-to-nose pose after the weigh-in Friday for the Deontay Wilder-Tyson Fury heavyweight rematch on ESPN/Fox pay-per-view.

About 24 hours earlier, the traditional pose for the cameras after the final news conference was eliminated after Arum shouted: “No face-off, no-face-off.’’

The risk to pay-per-view revenue for the rematch Saturday night at the MGM Grand was too big then. It would have been too big a risk Friday.

“We don’t want to screw this up by having these two guys push each other or fight each other at the weigh-in,’’ Arum said about the news first reported by ESPN.

The face-off has been a boxing tradition. But there have been incidents during the last couple of years. Gennadiy Golovkin and Canelo Alvarez shoved each other at the weigh-in before their rematch, won by Canelo on a decision Sept 15, 2018 in Las Vegas. A Terence Crawford punch narrowly missed Jose Benavidez Jr. at a weigh-in before a Crawford win by stoppage on Oct. 13, 2018 in Omaha, Nebraska.

There was shoving at the news conference Wednesday. Wilder pushed Fury, who fell back a couple of steps. Fury shoved back. Then, there was a volley of profane trash talk.

First Arum and now the Nevada Commission want to eliminate any chance of a brawl that could force a cancellation.

Read more:

Video: Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury get physical at news conference

Deontay Wilder victory over Tyson Fury would be better for boxing

The Boxing Junkie Analysis: Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II

Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury II: All officials will be American

Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury get physical at news conference

Deontay Wilder, Tyson Fury will have say in choosing officials

The NSAC will give a list of officials to Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury and allow them to toss those with whom they aren’t comfortable.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission evidently isn’t taking any chances with officials for the Feb. 22 Deontay Wilder-Tyson Fury rematch in Las Vegas.

The NSAC reportedly will give a list of at least three possible referees and 10 to 12 judges to the fighters and allow them to toss anyone with whom they aren’t comfortable.

“[NSAC Executive Director] Bob Bennett promised me everybody will be satisfied,” Fury co-promoter Bob Arum told BoxingScene.com. “The truth is, unlike what happened last time, the judges here are not going to matter. If it goes to a decision, Fury wins the fight. If it goes to a knockout, the judges don’t matter.”

The officials are an issue because of the 2018 fight between Wilder and Fury in Los Angeles, which was scored a draw. Fury, who went down twice but controlled much of the fight, thought he was robbed and some agree with him.

Also, some have suggested California referee Jack Reiss should’ve stopped the fight when Fury went down in Round 12 even though he appeared to beat the count.

As BoxingScene pointed out, the referee will be from Nevada and the judges will be configured in one of two ways: one British judge, one American judge and one neutral judge, or all three neutral judges.

 

Report: NSAC warns Eddie Hearn over handling of Chavez Jr. situation

The NSAC has objected to the way Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Sports has handled the Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. situation.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission has made it clear that Eddie Hearn of Matchroom Sports must follow Nevada law – or else.

Bob Bennett, the Commission’s executive director, sent a letter to Hearn objecting to the fact Chavez is scheduled to fight Daniel Jacobs in Phoenix even though Chavez is temporarily suspended for refusing to take a drug test in Nevada, according to a report by Thomas Hauser on BoxingScene.com.

The Chavez-Jacobs fight had been scheduled to take place in Nevada before Chavez declined to provide a test sample on October 24. The venue was then changed to Phoenix.

Bennett isn’t fooling around. He states in the letter, obtained by Hauser: “Grounds exist to bring disciplinary action against Matchroom before the NSAC. If Matchroom does not take the necessary action to come into compliance with Nevada law, our office will consider its options.”

The letter lays out Nevada law, including a portion that applies directly to this situation. It reads: “Under the Ali Act, no boxer is permitted to box while under suspension from any boxing commission due to, among other things, failure of a drug test.”

The issue is scheduled to be discussed by Nevada commissioners on November 20. Hauser explained the possible outcomes of that meeting this way:

“The NSAC placed Chavez on temporary suspension pending the result of a November 20 commission meeting. At that meeting, the five commissioners are expected to review the temporary suspension and set it down for a hearing on December 18.

“The key question is whether, in the interim, the NSAC commissioners will classify Chavez’s suspension as an administrative suspension or a suspension for refusing to submit to a sample collection. If they opt for the latter, the Arizona commission would be in violation of federal law if it allowed Jacobs-Chavez to be contested.”

Here are portions of the letter:

“Nevada law prohibits any promoter licensed by the NSAC from having any dealings related to unarmed combat with a person who has been suspended by the NSAC. Nevada law also prohibits a promoter from permitting a person under suspension from participating in any contest or exhibition of unarmed combat during the period of suspension. Any violation of Nevada or Federal law by a licensed promoter provides grounds for disciplinary action.

“In addition, under the Ali Act, no boxer is permitted to box while under suspension from any boxing commission due to, among other things, failure of a drug test. Under Nevada law, an unarmed combatant that refuses to submit to the collection of a sample or specimen upon the request of the NSAC or its representative, or otherwise evades the collection thereof, has committed an anti-doping violation and is subject to disciplinary action just as he or she would be if he or she failed a drug test.

“Based on Matchroom’s ongoing dealings with Chavez while he has been on suspension, it is apparent that Matchroom has violated Nevada law. Further, given that Chavez’s suspension is based on his refusal to submit to a drug test requested by the NSAC, and thus an anti-doping violation, it is apparent that the event scheduled to occur in Arizona on December 20, 2019, is in violation of the Ali Act. As such, Matchroom is promoting an event that potentially violates federal law.”

The letter goes on:

“On November 7, 2019, I contacted Shaun Palmer, Matchroom’s Head of Legal and Business Affairs, and informed him of the legal issues with Matchroom’s dealings with Chavez discussed herein. I further informed him of the potential consequences should Matchroom not take corrective measures to comply with Nevada law, including that a violation of Nevada law would be considered by the NSAC when deciding whether to renew Matchroom’s promoter’s license.”