Jinsu
Freaky Bodybuilder
- Lid sinds
- 11 nov 2004
- Berichten
- 5.635
- Waardering
- 133
K1-finale Diskwalificatie dreigt voor Schilt *UPDATE!*
- Topic starter tremendes
- Startdatum
- Recente activiteit Recente activiteit:
- Reacties 47
- Weergaven 4.234
- Volgers 8
.
2Ripped4U
Advanced Bodybuilder
- Lid sinds
- 18 jan 2005
- Berichten
- 1.329
- Waardering
- 6
Snielz
Competitive Bodybuilder
- Lid sinds
- 12 nov 2002
- Berichten
- 1.962
- Waardering
- 136
Als de scheids iets niet heeft gezien, danmoet het wel heel erg zijn om er achteraf nog iets mee te doen. In voetbal is een bal over de lijn geen goal als de ref het niet heeft gezien en dat zal het ook nooit worden.
Misschien dat Schilt een boete krijgt en Gerges een Reservegevecht in de finale. En dan mogen ze beiden niet mopperen.
Misschien dat Schilt een boete krijgt en Gerges een Reservegevecht in de finale. En dan mogen ze beiden niet mopperen.
Tommyboy
Freaky Bodybuilder
- Lid sinds
- 18 mrt 2004
- Berichten
- 4.757
- Waardering
- 83
- Lengte
- 1m79
- Massa
- 88kg
- Vetpercentage
- 13%
Mensen vergeten dat als Hesdey beter had gevochten dat hij dus had gewonnen.
- Lid sinds
- 16 nov 2006
- Berichten
- 11.657
- Waardering
- 2.909
- Lengte
- 1m86
- Massa
- 102kg
Van de website van IT'S SHOWTIME:
Officieel antwoord op het protest Sem Schilt vs Hesdy Gerges
Date : October 2, 2010
Event: FIELDS K-1 WORLD GP 2010 SEOUL FINAL16
MATCH No.9, SEMMY SCHILT vs HESDY GERGES
1. REGARDING THE JUDGE DURING THE MATCH
1st round
Two judges judged that there were apparent predominant punches (jabs) by SCHILT. The other judge considered there was slight gain of SCHILT but not so apparent.
2nd round
Two judges judged there was no difference between the two, however the other judge judged that by the attack of SCHILT difference was made.
3rd round
One judge judged that there was apparent predominance of GERGES’s attack and
other two judges judged that there was slight difference but not so apparent.
All the judgment was duly made based on the k1 judging criteria and there was no misjudge to overrule the final judging announcement.
2. REGARDING THE TAPING DURING THE INTERVAL OF THE MATCH
K-1 Rules Committee examined the situation carefully and found out that the sub judge who was responsible for the second’s act acknowledged the taping during the interval and the sub judge gave a caution to the said second. According to K-1 official rules, the sub judge should have called a doctor who would confirm the injury or do the treatment of injury if necessary.
However, as the sub judge did not have enough experience on the situation, he
confirmed that the taping itself should not be a violation to the rule so that he only gave the second a caution to the act and the match was resumed.
In fact, the act of the second conflicted with the K1 official rules.
As the results, considering that there was no intentional sabotage by the second, and the sub judge approved the taping within his responsibility, the K-1 Rules Committee decided to give SCHILT and the second of SCHILT an official warning as the violation of K1 international rule; article 22, changing from the caution. However, this penalty or warning does not affect the scoring so that there is no overrule of the final judge announcement.
In addition of the above decision, the K-1 Rules Committee also acknowledged that the ring doctor was called after the match to examine the extent of injury of SCHILT that the doctor opened the taping and diagnosed that there were about 4cm cut, but not to the extent to announce the doctor stop by the bleeding from the cut.
As to the dealing of the sub judge who was responsible to supervise the second
directly, the K-1 Rules Committee decided to give him 6(six)months suspension on his K-1 judging duty, and to all the K-1 judges who were responsible for watching the taping during the interval, K-1 Rules Committee imposed them admonition sanction together with 50% reduction of their salaries for one month.
3. CONCLUSION
After through examination on the complaints and verifications, K-1 Rules Committee hereby officially declare that there is no overrule of the judging announcement on the match of Semmy Schilt vs. Hesdy Gerges dated October 2, 2010.
K-1 RULES COMMITTEE
Officieel antwoord op het protest Sem Schilt vs Hesdy Gerges
Date : October 2, 2010
Event: FIELDS K-1 WORLD GP 2010 SEOUL FINAL16
MATCH No.9, SEMMY SCHILT vs HESDY GERGES
1. REGARDING THE JUDGE DURING THE MATCH
1st round
Two judges judged that there were apparent predominant punches (jabs) by SCHILT. The other judge considered there was slight gain of SCHILT but not so apparent.
2nd round
Two judges judged there was no difference between the two, however the other judge judged that by the attack of SCHILT difference was made.
3rd round
One judge judged that there was apparent predominance of GERGES’s attack and
other two judges judged that there was slight difference but not so apparent.
All the judgment was duly made based on the k1 judging criteria and there was no misjudge to overrule the final judging announcement.
2. REGARDING THE TAPING DURING THE INTERVAL OF THE MATCH
K-1 Rules Committee examined the situation carefully and found out that the sub judge who was responsible for the second’s act acknowledged the taping during the interval and the sub judge gave a caution to the said second. According to K-1 official rules, the sub judge should have called a doctor who would confirm the injury or do the treatment of injury if necessary.
However, as the sub judge did not have enough experience on the situation, he
confirmed that the taping itself should not be a violation to the rule so that he only gave the second a caution to the act and the match was resumed.
In fact, the act of the second conflicted with the K1 official rules.
As the results, considering that there was no intentional sabotage by the second, and the sub judge approved the taping within his responsibility, the K-1 Rules Committee decided to give SCHILT and the second of SCHILT an official warning as the violation of K1 international rule; article 22, changing from the caution. However, this penalty or warning does not affect the scoring so that there is no overrule of the final judge announcement.
In addition of the above decision, the K-1 Rules Committee also acknowledged that the ring doctor was called after the match to examine the extent of injury of SCHILT that the doctor opened the taping and diagnosed that there were about 4cm cut, but not to the extent to announce the doctor stop by the bleeding from the cut.
As to the dealing of the sub judge who was responsible to supervise the second
directly, the K-1 Rules Committee decided to give him 6(six)months suspension on his K-1 judging duty, and to all the K-1 judges who were responsible for watching the taping during the interval, K-1 Rules Committee imposed them admonition sanction together with 50% reduction of their salaries for one month.
3. CONCLUSION
After through examination on the complaints and verifications, K-1 Rules Committee hereby officially declare that there is no overrule of the judging announcement on the match of Semmy Schilt vs. Hesdy Gerges dated October 2, 2010.
K-1 RULES COMMITTEE
Soortgelijke topics
