Boxing is unquestionably a sport.

 

There are judges.

 

So the "if there are judges" criteria is moot.

I'd say no to referee's being judges in the same sense as say a diving or gymnastics judge. An umpire interprets the rules in baseball, he/she doesn't "grade" or judge a home run on the merits of the swing, or a strike based on the fluidity of the pitchers delivery. Judges DIRECTLY pick the winner, umps/refs don't.

Judges pick a winner based on criteria. A ref decides on calls based on criteria. Both require interpretation. Very little difference, IMO.

Judges pick a winner based on criteria. A ref decides on calls based on criteria. Both require interpretation. Very little difference, IMO.

 

A ref can make any calls he/she wants. It still doesn't decide the winner. A ref can call 50 fouls on Team A, but if Team B misses all the free throws, what impact did it really have on the outcome?

A ref can make any calls he/she wants. It still doesn't decide the winner. A ref can call 50 fouls on Team A, but if Team B misses all the free throws, what impact did it really have on the outcome?

The sports that I know that have judges don't "pick a winner," either. Points are awarded based on criteria and the interpretation of the application of that criteria. Points are totaled and placements determined.

 

I've MANY times seen the last basket of a basketball game be decided on the interpretation of a rule. If it goes one way, one team wins. If not, the other team wins. That is a game that either team could have won, but the interpretation of one rule decides the winner.

 

Heck, think about all of the "is it a catch or isn't it" interpretation of NFL officials in the post-season. I may be mis-remembering but I thought that you said that the Steelers would have been in the Superbowl if the interpretation of the rule in one of the conference championship games had been the same for their playoff game with Jacksonville.

 

I have no problem with judges or referees. They have to make judgment calls.