Does Shane have no respect for "the rematch" clause?

[d_henderson1810]

I have noticed, since Shane McMahon has started running Raw, that he doesn't seem to show any respect for something that has been wrestling for years. PPV main events are built on it, feuds are continued on it.

That is the ex-champion's "rematch clause".

Here are three examples of the rematch clause being ignored since WM32.

1) Triple H- Shane books a Fatal-4-Way on RAW which A.J. Styles wins. But did he forget that the previous champion, Triple H, has not had his rematch for the WWE Title he lost to Roman Reigns at WM?

There is no need for a No. 1 Contender's Match until the ex-champion has exhausted his opportunity.

Now, if this was explained away in the storylines it would make more sense. For example, maybe when Vince gave Shane the chance to run "Raw" "for the night" Shane should have used that opportunity to sack Triple H and Stephanie. Maybe have Triple H mention that he wanted a rematch that night on Raw, but Shane sacks him and orders a Fatal-4-Way. Then it would have made sense. But to ignore Triple H altogether doesn't make sense, considering that, when he returns and takes back Raw, he could just remove A.J. Styles from the main event, and place himself there instead.

2) Kevin Owens- It isn't just the WWE Title where the rematch clause is ignored. At least twice in two weeks, it has happened for the IC belt.

Firstly, last week on Raw, why did Miz get a title shot against Zack Ryder, and beat him for the title. Kevin Owens, as the previous champion, deserves a rematch, so they should have had Owens v Ryder.

Then, this week, when Owens calls out Shane on it, Shane says that Owens has to "earn" his shot. Why? He never got his rematch to begin with. He is OWED a rematch, he doesn't have to earn it.

3) Zack Ryder- Continuing on from this, not only did Owens have to fight in a match to "earn" the right for a shot at a title he already had the right to fight for, they then stuck him in the No.1 Contender's Match with - CESARO?

What about Zack Ryder's rematch clause? Ryder, as the most previous IC champion, should have fought Owens, since both are the last two champions before the Miz? How has Cesaro earned a shot at anything recently?

Also, why even have Zack Ryder win the IC belt, if he is going to lose it the next night, and then not even feature in the program to get it back? Why not just have the Miz win at WM32, and claim the belt straight away?

I wonder if Shane got a rematch when he lost the European title or the Hardcore title all those years ago? If so, he is a hypocrite. If not, he is just bitter.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Zack Ryder already had his rematch for the Intercontinental Championship: he had it on the first SmackDown after WrestleMania and he lost. As a result, I see no real reason why Ryder should be given any sort of preferential treatment. Besides, as a fan, I can say that I have little to no interest whatsoever in Miz vs. Ryder III. As for the WWE Championship, again, I can't say that I'm all that intrigued to see Reigns vs. Triple H II anytime in the near future; we've seen that program quite a bit since the end of last year and I've got no problem with it being put on the backburner. Besides, Triple H hasn't been "denied" a rematch, he's been "overseeing various duties as the C.O.O. of WWE" and those duties will keep him out of the ring for a while; as a result, it's entirely possible Trips could demand for his rematch later on down the line when, possibly, it feels fresher.

As for Kevin Owens getting another shot at the Intercontinental Championship, it's easy to see where WWE is going with the whole thing. Shane is going to be sticking around for a while as a babyface authority figure with some backbone, something that we haven't seen very much of in WWE for a long while, and the Raw after WrestleMania is traditionally viewed as a means of giving just about everything in WWE a fresh start. As part of generating some degree of genuine feeling that's happening, certain things like guaranteed rematches are being looked over right now concerning heels like Kevin Owens because it generates support for Shane as a babyface. What we're getting instead is a couple of programs and potential programs that fans have been wanting to see for a while: the Zayn vs. Owens singles feud is going to be moving forward, AJ Styles has his shot at the WWE Championship, Triple H & Stephanie are off television for a while, Cesaro might become Intercontinental Champion and receive a strong run as champion. As a fan, when I compare those happenings with seeing a pointless feud with Miz & Zack Ryder or Cesaro spinning his wheels, I think I'll stick with what we're getting right now. In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind if Owens had retained and his feud with Zayn was for the IC title but, surprise, I don't always get everything I want and I'm okay with that.

Also, you do know that Shane McMahon really isn't "running" anything right? It's just a storyline. The same executives are in the same spots they've been in, the same writers are still working and Vince McMahon still maintains control of WWE, especially making the final creative decisions, with an iron fist.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I have noticed, since Shane McMahon has started running Raw, that he doesn't seem to show any respect for something that has been wrestling for years. PPV main events are built on it, feuds are continued on it.

That is the ex-champion's "rematch clause".

Here are three examples of the rematch clause being ignored since WM32.

1) Triple H- Shane books a Fatal-4-Way on RAW which A.J. Styles wins. But did he forget that the previous champion, Triple H, has not had his rematch for the WWE Title he lost to Roman Reigns at WM?

There is no need for a No. 1 Contender's Match until the ex-champion has exhausted his opportunity.

Now, if this was explained away in the storylines it would make more sense. For example, maybe when Vince gave Shane the chance to run "Raw" "for the night" Shane should have used that opportunity to sack Triple H and Stephanie. Maybe have Triple H mention that he wanted a rematch that night on Raw, but Shane sacks him and orders a Fatal-4-Way. Then it would have made sense. But to ignore Triple H altogether doesn't make sense, considering that, when he returns and takes back Raw, he could just remove A.J. Styles from the main event, and place himself there instead.

2) Kevin Owens- It isn't just the WWE Title where the rematch clause is ignored. At least twice in two weeks, it has happened for the IC belt.

Firstly, last week on Raw, why did Miz get a title shot against Zack Ryder, and beat him for the title. Kevin Owens, as the previous champion, deserves a rematch, so they should have had Owens v Ryder.

Then, this week, when Owens calls out Shane on it, Shane says that Owens has to "earn" his shot. Why? He never got his rematch to begin with. He is OWED a rematch, he doesn't have to earn it.

3) Zack Ryder- Continuing on from this, not only did Owens have to fight in a match to "earn" the right for a shot at a title he already had the right to fight for, they then stuck him in the No.1 Contender's Match with - CESARO?

What about Zack Ryder's rematch clause? Ryder, as the most previous IC champion, should have fought Owens, since both are the last two champions before the Miz? How has Cesaro earned a shot at anything recently?

Also, why even have Zack Ryder win the IC belt, if he is going to lose it the next night, and then not even feature in the program to get it back? Why not just have the Miz win at WM32, and claim the belt straight away?

I wonder if Shane got a rematch when he lost the European title or the Hardcore title all those years ago? If so, he is a hypocrite. If not, he is just bitter.

Maybe you should work your dilemma out with this guy:

WWE has the right to book who they want on top, you have the right to whine and grizzle about it, and to switch off or not buy tickets, instead of coming on here, complaining and then following it with action of actually walking away, instead of just talking about it.

I have the right to come on here and talk to fans of wrestling about our love for wrestling, without trolls trying to criticize the product at every turn.

The stories are simple and shouldn't need explanation. HHH has a rematch clause but he doesn't seem to be around to take advantage of it along with all the other advantages he has in his role as basically the boss. Owens inserted himself in the World Championship scene plus he's kind of a dick so why would Shane give him anything easy. Zack Ryder got his rematch and lost on Smackdown. He needs to get in the back of the line since he wasn't much of a winner to begin with.

But I'd much rather talk about our love of wrestling.

 

[kadroan]

WWE hadn't always respected rematch clauses. The Rock still hadn't got his lol and his lost the title 3 years ago. I'm not sure if you could count Orton's match at Battleground 2014 as his rematch.

 

[Navi]

Well actually I don't think HHH is even interested in a rematch with Reigns. He was just a placeholder till Mania and he was used to put Reigns over, because he was a better alternative than Sheamus was. So Reigns has the title, and he will most likely hold it till Summerslam or the Rumble. HHH is out of the picture.

Ryder lost the title to the Miz, and had his rematch already and lost. So now techinally Owens should have a match with Ryder, but he's destined for a feud with Zayn. This clears the way for a returning Cesaro to get in on the action.

And before you ask "Why Cesaro?", why not, he's just that damm good and deserves a run with a midcard belt.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Shane McMahon is NOT running things or making any decisions. He's just there.

Triple H hasn't been on TV. No one wants to see HHH vs. Roman again anyway.

Who wants to see Kevin Owens vs. The Miz? Let's just hop right in to Owens vs. Zayn.

Zack Ryder will get his rematch. I don't see why it can't be a triple threat match.

 

[ShinChan]

Zack Ryder will get his rematch. I don't see why it can't be a triple threat match.

Well I reckon that you didn't read above posts revealing that he has already got it.

Zack Ryder lost the title at Raw and was provided the rematch on the following Smackdown itself.


As for the OP, Shane McMahon is just in an on-screen role. He has nothing to do with making matches.

Triple H hasn't appeared since Wrestlemania so how come he gets a rematch?

Owens challenged Reigns on the Wrestlemania-fallout Raw for the big title but he failed to become the No. 1 contender for it. So this week he asked for a rematch and simply had to earn it as he should but couldn't because then it would be a heel Vs. heel match for championship which rarely happens.

And Ryder defended against Miz because Miz was going to win and Ryder pushed him off the ladder to win. So isn't it justified to defend against Miz?

 

[Psykohurricane55]

In the history of wrestling, if the guy that beat the former champion loses the championship, the former loses his rematch clause, so sadly, owens doesn't have a rematch clause anymore since ryder lost the belt to miz and even got his rematch so let move on from this.

Has for the wwe championship, it's clear that hhh isn't coming back for now so what is shane to do, not have a title match at payback ? Wait for hhh to show up and use his rematch clause? Storyline wise, they needed to find a number 1 contender since hhh wasn't coming back and I wouldn't be surprise if they use the rematch clause thing at another ppv.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Zack Ryder already had his rematch for the Intercontinental Championship: he had it on the first SmackDown after WrestleMania and he lost. As a result, I see no real reason why Ryder should be given any sort of preferential treatment. Besides, as a fan, I can say that I have little to no interest whatsoever in Miz vs. Ryder III. As for the WWE Championship, again, I can't say that I'm all that intrigued to see Reigns vs. Triple H II anytime in the near future; we've seen that program quite a bit since the end of last year and I've got no problem with it being put on the backburner. Besides, Triple H hasn't been "denied" a rematch, he's been "overseeing various duties as the C.O.O. of WWE" and those duties will keep him out of the ring for a while; as a result, it's entirely possible Trips could demand for his rematch later on down the line when, possibly, it feels fresher.

As for Kevin Owens getting another shot at the Intercontinental Championship, it's easy to see where WWE is going with the whole thing. Shane is going to be sticking around for a while as a babyface authority figure with some backbone, something that we haven't seen very much of in WWE for a long while, and the Raw after WrestleMania is traditionally viewed as a means of giving just about everything in WWE a fresh start. As part of generating some degree of genuine feeling that's happening, certain things like guaranteed rematches are being looked over right now concerning heels like Kevin Owens because it generates support for Shane as a babyface. What we're getting instead is a couple of programs and potential programs that fans have been wanting to see for a while: the Zayn vs. Owens singles feud is going to be moving forward, AJ Styles has his shot at the WWE Championship, Triple H & Stephanie are off television for a while, Cesaro might become Intercontinental Champion and receive a strong run as champion. As a fan, when I compare those happenings with seeing a pointless feud with Miz & Zack Ryder or Cesaro spinning his wheels, I think I'll stick with what we're getting right now. In a perfect world, I wouldn't mind if Owens had retained and his feud with Zayn was for the IC title but, surprise, I don't always get everything I want and I'm okay with that.

Also, you do know that Shane McMahon really isn't "running" anything right? It's just a storyline. The same executives are in the same spots they've been in, the same writers are still working and Vince McMahon still maintains control of WWE, especially making the final creative decisions, with an iron fist.

I get what you are saying.

I don't mind if they are pushing guys like AJ, Cesaro and Zayn up. But the storylines and the reasons for them have to make sense.

For example, you said that Shane may the authority figure for a while. Well, this doesn't make sense because he LOST at WM.

So after Vince did everything to destroy his son, and stop him running Raw, he lets him run Raw anyway.

This is why this year's WM was pointless. Zach Ryder winning meant nothing, if he loses the belt the next night. A.J. gets a WWE Title shot after LOSING at Wrestlemania, and Shane runs Raw after LOSING his match.

I am just questioning the illogical storylines of late, and how they say one thing, and then do another.

Do everything they are doing now, but then explain why. Have Shane gain control by blackmailing Vince (by whatever was in this strongbox that was mentioned). Have Owens lose his belt at WM, Zach beats him, Miz beats him, and have a Triple-Threat at "Payback". Have Triple H not get a rematch because Shane fires him from WWE. Stuff like this explains why they are doing things like that. Maybe even have Shane say that he no longer honors "rematch clauses". But they seem to be doing a bunch of things without explaining on air why.

 

[Cena Is A Punk Rocker]

Hey let's not forget about Batista. He still hasn't gotten his rematch.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Maybe you should work your dilemma out with this guy:



The stories are simple and shouldn't need explanation. HHH has a rematch clause but he doesn't seem to be around to take advantage of it along with all the other advantages he has in his role as basically the boss. Owens inserted himself in the World Championship scene plus he's kind of a dick so why would Shane give him anything easy. Zack Ryder got his rematch and lost on Smackdown. He needs to get in the back of the line since he wasn't much of a winner to begin with.

But I'd much rather talk about our love of wrestling.

Having it that Shane won't give Owens a title rematch, because he is a "dick" doesn't excuse the fact that he has a "rematch clause".

"Rematch clauses" sound like they are something in a wrestler's contract in the storylines. So, how does Shane, as a "temporary" authority figure (who gained authority even though he lost Wrestlemania).

You say Ryder wasn't much of a winner to begin with. Fine, then don't have him win the IC belt at WM then. Maybe have Miz win the IC Ladder match, and cut out the middle-man.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Well actually I don't think HHH is even interested in a rematch with Reigns. He was just a placeholder till Mania and he was used to put Reigns over, because he was a better alternative than Sheamus was. So Reigns has the title, and he will most likely hold it till Summerslam or the Rumble. HHH is out of the picture.

Ryder lost the title to the Miz, and had his rematch already and lost. So now techinally Owens should have a match with Ryder, but he's destined for a feud with Zayn. This clears the way for a returning Cesaro to get in on the action.

And before you ask "Why Cesaro?", why not, he's just that damm good and deserves a run with a midcard belt.

This is why they should have had Shane v Triple H HIAC at WM instead. Then Shane running the WWE would make more sense.

I would have had Reigns v Ambrose at WM for the WWE Title.

They could have still had the Ryder v Owens match, and have Zahn cost Owens the match, and the chance to get back into the IC picture. This would have removed Owens from the IC Title equation and generated heat for his feud with Zayn.

I don't mind Cesaro being in the IC Title picture, as long as there is an explanation as to why. Why, for example, was he not in the WWE IC Title match at WM?

 

[d_henderson1810]

In the history of wrestling, if the guy that beat the former champion loses the championship, the former loses his rematch clause, so sadly, owens doesn't have a rematch clause anymore since ryder lost the belt to miz and even got his rematch so let move on from this.

Has for the wwe championship, it's clear that hhh isn't coming back for now so what is shane to do, not have a title match at payback ? Wait for hhh to show up and use his rematch clause? Storyline wise, they needed to find a number 1 contender since hhh wasn't coming back and I wouldn't be surprise if they use the rematch clause thing at another ppv.

Why didn't Owens get his rematch against Ryder the night after WM? What did Miz do to go ahead of the line?

Also, if Shane was going to run Raw, then why have a storyline that he needs to beat Undertaker at WM to do it? Might as well have had some other explanation for why Shane got control.

 

[ShinChan]

Why didn't Owens get his rematch against Ryder the night after WM? What did Miz do to go ahead of the line?

Owens didn't ask for a rematch. He rather asked for a WWE WHC shot. Too simple. And Miz asked for the rematch and got it.

 

[Navi]

This is why they should have had Shane v Triple H HIAC at WM instead. Then Shane running the WWE would make more sense.

I would have had Reigns v Ambrose at WM for the WWE Title.

They could have still had the Ryder v Owens match, and have Zahn cost Owens the match, and the chance to get back into the IC picture. This would have removed Owens from the IC Title equation and generated heat for his feud with Zayn.

I don't mind Cesaro being in the IC Title picture, as long as there is an explanation as to why. Why, for example, was he not in the WWE IC Title match at WM?

Cesaro was still on the injury list when Mania happened, he returned afterwards. As a matter of fact Ryder replaced Neville, who I believe was slotted in to win. With all the injuries must have been a nightmare for them changing things around and all.

I also believe the only reason Miz beat Ryder and is holding the title, is because of his wife. Maryse is joining the cast of Total Diva's next season and this was a way to bring her back. Technically anyone in that match could have won the title.

Reigns had to face HHH, who else was there for him with the heel heat that HHH can bring. Sheamus doesn't have it, none of the LON guys do. Jericho or Miz would have looked silly being put into the main event just like that, so HHH was the best option. Unfortunately I don't think any of them would have worked out. Reigns was getting heat regardless of who he was up against.

 

[whoopin' ass]

It has nothing to do with Shane, that is how wwe writes things. They have no concept anymore of continuity. There have been a ton of champs who lost and never got thier rematch, or did months down the road because right after the match someone was taking time off, someone else was hot and they wanted to puch them, etc. Remember Punk and Orton? it took them what, almost 2 years to actually have their feud after Punk lost the title? It's just plain poor writing and explains why their numbers are low - how can a casual fan tune in and start watching when there is no consistency in the rules and how things are done?

 

[Azane]

Why why why

Because the Writers at WWE are writing the story how they want it, and they're bypassing a lot of gimmicks like rematches or continuity (With shane losing, but getting his win condition)

Best to not think about it too much, this isn't all some bigger picture stuff, WWE just wanted to move feuds ahead and not have Payback be just a WM rematch show, especially since WM really really really sucked.

As far as Shane running stuff, they painted themselves into a corner with needing Taker to win, but Shane to have control to keep anyone watching RAW the weeks after, so the compromise they made was "Screw logic" - the most common gimmick in wrestling.

They bumped KO into the ME scene, they put HHH back in his rocking chair, and That's that.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Well I reckon that you didn't read above posts revealing that he has already got it.

Zack Ryder lost the title at Raw and was provided the rematch on the following Smackdown itself.


As for the OP, Shane McMahon is just in an on-screen role. He has nothing to do with making matches.

Triple H hasn't appeared since Wrestlemania so how come he gets a rematch?

Owens challenged Reigns on the Wrestlemania-fallout Raw for the big title but he failed to become the No. 1 contender for it. So this week he asked for a rematch and simply had to earn it as he should but couldn't because then it would be a heel Vs. heel match for championship which rarely happens.

And Ryder defended against Miz because Miz was going to win and Ryder pushed him off the ladder to win. So isn't it justified to defend against Miz?

Didn't Shane on-air make the Fatal-4-Way Match to decide the No. 1 Contender to the WWE Title?

I know Shane doesn't actually make matches. Just like Eric Bischoff, Teddy Long and the Anoymous Raw GM don't make matches in real-life either. But on-air, there has to be a reason to have the incumbent (or, in this case, the incompetent) book a No. 1 Contender's Match, and explain away why the previous champion doesn't get a rematch.

 

[d_henderson1810]

It has nothing to do with Shane, that is how wwe writes things. They have no concept anymore of continuity. There have been a ton of champs who lost and never got thier rematch, or did months down the road because right after the match someone was taking time off, someone else was hot and they wanted to puch them, etc. Remember Punk and Orton? it took them what, almost 2 years to actually have their feud after Punk lost the title? It's just plain poor writing and explains why their numbers are low - how can a casual fan tune in and start watching when there is no consistency in the rules and how things are done?

It has to do with Shane in that he is the on-air authority figure (even explaining why that is the case is nonsense- so Vince made Shane fight Taker in HIAC at WM to stop him running RAW-but then lets him run it away).

I know that they have had people drop their title, take time off and then get it when they come back. But that isn't the case here.

Triple H is not on Raw, because he is doing executive business. Fine, then write it that Triple H and Stephanie get fired by Shane, and then bring back Triple H down the track, even as a competitor who wants his rematch.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Cesaro was still on the injury list when Mania happened, he returned afterwards. As a matter of fact Ryder replaced Neville, who I believe was slotted in to win. With all the injuries must have been a nightmare for them changing things around and all.

I also believe the only reason Miz beat Ryder and is holding the title, is because of his wife. Maryse is joining the cast of Total Diva's next season and this was a way to bring her back. Technically anyone in that match could have won the title.

Reigns had to face HHH, who else was there for him with the heel heat that HHH can bring. Sheamus doesn't have it, none of the LON guys do. Jericho or Miz would have looked silly being put into the main event just like that, so HHH was the best option. Unfortunately I don't think any of them would have worked out. Reigns was getting heat regardless of who he was up against.

I know that injuries haven't helped WWE (maybe if they gave the competitors an off-season, and didn't expect them to wrestle 52 weeks a year, then they might have time to rest and heal up. But that is a subject for another day). However, Triple H isn't injured, Ryder, as far as I know isn't injured, so what's the problem?

Besides, Cesaro was okay to go the next night, so he can't have been too injured (stick him in the Andre Battle Royal, if they don't want him falling off a ladder).

So, because Neville was slated to win, but got injured, and he got replaced by Ryder, they put the belt on Ryder instead?

Does that mean that Neville would lose his title the next night to the Miz, and then is forgotten about, while other guys (like Cesaro) are just handed title shots by Shane, who told Owens that he has to "earn" his IC Title rematch. I would love to know who Cesaro beat to earn a shot.

Okay, Miz wins the WWE IC Title because they want to have Maryse in "Total Divas". I'm cool with that. It's good to see Maryse back (it's good to see Maryse's front as well), but then the problem is easily solved- have Miz win the IC Ladder Match at WM, not Ryder.

As for Roman, no-one he is pitted against is going to get more booed than him. But for a WM opponent, I select Dean Ambrose. Make it that the "brothers" fall out (why not, it is going to happen at some stage-Wrestling 101. Why not have it at WM?). This would be a more anticipated match for Roman than almost any other opponent.

Obviously then, WWE don't care about Roman getting booed at "Payback", because they have pitted him against the very popular A.J. Styles. How is that going to turn the heat away from Roman?

They only had Triple H versus Roman because Triple H's ego dictates that people want to see him as champion in 2016. It had less to do with helping Roman and more to do with helping himself. Old habits die hard.

The only way Roman v Triple H at WM32 would have worked is if the Rock was in Roman's corner, since he is Roman's uncle. And then, after the match, the Rock gives Triple H a Rock Bottom, teasing Rock v Triple H for WM33. The Rock could divert some of Roman's heat, and he being in the corner opposite Triple H, given their past history, would make sense.

Logic dictates that Shane versus Triple H at WM32 would have made more sense,than Shane and some guy who is never on Raw outside of WM season (the Undertaker), because if they want to have Shane run Raw, then he should beat the guy who ran it. Son v Son-in-law. Brother v Husband. There is probably genuine heat, and there is a built-in storyline, which makes it easier to write. You could still have it be HIAC (since Triple H wrestles in a lot of them) and at least Shane's stunt would have more purpose to it. Have Shane win, fire the Authority and Vince, and run Raw. Simple. But then, Triple H wouldn't have the WWE belt then, would he?

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Why didn't Owens get his rematch against Ryder the night after WM? What did Miz do to go ahead of the line?

Also, if Shane was going to run Raw, then why have a storyline that he needs to beat Undertaker at WM to do it? Might as well have had some other explanation for why Shane got control.

if I remember correctly, owens completly forgot about his rematch the nigt after wrestlemania since he was to preoccupied with his anger toward samy zayn costimg him the title. Has far as miz getting ahead of the line, I don't see it like this, miz was the last guy on the ladder before Ryder push him off to win the title so it makes perfect sense that he would want a match against ryder for the title since he wanted revenge for the title lost at wrestlemania. It was a smart move on miz part to con ryder into a title match. So that storyline makes sense.

as for the shane thing, I give up with the thinking of it, it really made no sense of having him lose at wrestlemania then have vince just give the power to shane for a couple of weeks but at the same time, while the execution was poor, it's still gave us a couple of interesting show and it give us an interesting storyline when vince finally take the power away from vince.
So while it didn't make any sense that shane lost at mania only to get power anyway, In the long run it's not that big of a deal since we are getting better episodes of raw now.

 

[yourdamnluck]

Shawn didn't get his rematch against austin. Neither did brock, rock or bret and what about Goldberg. Sometimes its better to not have a rematch and this is one of those times.

 

[ShinChan]

Didn't Shane on-air make the Fatal-4-Way Match to decide the No. 1 Contender to the WWE Title?

I know Shane doesn't actually make matches. Just like Eric Bischoff, Teddy Long and the Anoymous Raw GM don't make matches in real-life either. But on-air, there has to be a reason to have the incumbent (or, in this case, the incompetent) book a No. 1 Contender's Match, and explain away why the previous champion doesn't get a rematch.

Yeah, Shane made the match on-air. But why? Because those 4 wrestlers came out to challenge Reigns for the WWE World Heavyweight Title. Roman Reigns gave away an open invitation to challenge him. And these 4 accepted it and thus fatal 4-way was justified.

About Triple H's rematch, How can a boss give a chance to an employee who has no-showed?

Speaking about rematches, I just remembered that Roman Reigns also didn't get a rematch against Triple H after the latter became the new champion at Royal Rumble. Instead he was made to earn a match against Triple H by facing off against Brock Lesnar and Dean Ambrose at Fastlane.

Logic is rare in WWE.

Shawn didn't get his rematch against austin. Neither did brock, rock or bret and what about Goldberg. Sometimes its better to not have a rematch and this is one of those times.

Exactly. Rock didn't get his title rematch from John Cena either.

 

[Vanilla Midget]

You might be looking too far into it. Maybe Owens failed to negotiate a rematch clause in his contract (KO - if you're reading this, I'm available if you need a new agent). Then again maybe I'm thusly looking way too far into it.

Clearly Shane the babyface was punishing the heel by making him earn a rematch, which he failed to do. I think this Miz IC title reign is a mistake and will be short lived, but clearly they have plans for Miz and plans for KO/Sami that don't involve the title.

Owens' IC title rematch was written out so they could focus on re-introducing Maryse as a heel valet for Miz. Likely this has Total Divas implications which by all accounts sucks ass. Hopefully Cesaro is successful at Payback and this ugliness is behind us.

Triple H is missing from TV altogether. He kind of needs to show up for work to get a rematch.