"The referee is sure going to have his hands full in this match"

[Coco]

I was watching AJ Styles and Matt Sydal vs. Dragon Kid and Genki Horiguchi from ROH's Best in the World home video release. Decent disc if you don't have the matches and can pick it up cheap. Some dudes, but some very fun, energetic stuff too. But, I digress. I'm gonna give this paragraph another try.

I was watching AJ Styles and Matt Sydal vs. Dragon Kid and Genki Horiguchi from ROH's Best in the World home video release. Decent disc if you don't have the matches and can pick it up cheap. Near the opening of the match, the announcers said something to the effect of the quotation in the thread title. However, referees also normally have problems with singles matches. If wrestling were real (the problem with this thread probably stems from those four words, but I'm not stopping now), wouldn't fans and officials have noticed the things that one referee misses (like tags or feet on the ropes) and DEMAND that a second referee be assigned to watch from the outside? This would certainly do a great deal to legitimize contests, that's for sure.

Why isn't this done or at least addressed?

 

[klunderbunker]

Back in the 80s Gorilla Monsoon would always advocate for two referees for tag matches. Other than that though, it's never really been brought up. I'd often say in reviews that the referee misses it due to having a speck of dramatic convenience in his eye or something to that effect. It's just one of those things that you go with in wrestling and they hope that you don't pick up on. There's not much more to it than that really. It's just one of those things that happens. Also, you'll notice that occasionally another referee will run down and after an explanation, the original referee will reverse his decision. Does this mean that decisions can be changed forever? As in you could reverse a decision of a match from 1987? It's inconsistent, but it's how things work in wrestling.

 

[Coco]

Back in the 80s Gorilla Monsoon would always advocate for two referees for tag matches. Other than that though, it's never really been brought up. I'd often say in reviews that the referee misses it due to having a speck of dramatic convenience in his eye or something to that effect. It's just one of those things that you go with in wrestling and they hope that you don't pick up on. There's not much more to it than that really. It's just one of those things that happens. Also, you'll notice that occasionally another referee will run down and after an explanation, the original referee will reverse his decision. Does this mean that decisions can be changed forever? As in you could reverse a decision of a match from 1987? It's inconsistent, but it's how things work in wrestling.

I know it's how things work, but sometimes I just feel like taking things seriously. It's the Davey Richards in me.

Now that you mention it, I'm sure I've heard Monsoon say it in occasional old matches I've seen. Even though it's not really done anymore, I think little details like that really enhance the experience. The typical script leaves you thinking announcers aren't the best thinkers in the world.

As for assigning two referees to a match, I think it'd be a great thing to run in an angle just to poke at one of the typical wrestling tricks. Have a petition circulate or a vociferous movement get some TV time with a few faces at the forefront who are tired of the same old heel tactics costing them matches. Even if heels find an underhanded way to kill the movement (which seems right, if only to save a timeless tension builder in the genre) it'd be better than most of the angles we see run these days and it'd be a nice way to give some midcarders something to do.

Has anything like that ever been done before? You'd know better than I, KB.

 

[klunderbunker]

Not really, at least not in any major promotion on a national level. There were evil referee angles in all of the major companies, but nothing on a big level like that. It's always been one heel referee (the evil twin in 88 in the WWF, Bill Alfonso in one of the most bizarre heel pushes in history in the mid 90s in ECW and Nick Patrick as the NWO referee in 96-97 in WCW) that was causing problems. There was a "referees on strike" angle in 99 in WWF but it went nowhere. There have been others but most of them never went much of anywhere.

There are two problems with the idea. Other than Alfonso, the angle never went much of anywhere. At the end of the day, the fans simply don't care about referees. The one in 88 was just a catalyst for Hogan/DiBiase and the WCW one never went anywhere other than a single major botch. At the end of the day, the referees are just placeholders and little more. The other issue is having faces whine like that goes against everything faces are about. Rather than whining and saying "That's not fair!", they should rise up and do something about it physically. Now if you have heels do it, it's much more annoying and much easier to get behind.

 

[Coco]

See, I think we could pull it off in the era of the Smarky McGee fan without making the face come off as whiny. If you get a sense that the crowd is getting a hard-on for clean finishes, they can petition for a change in regulations regarding the number of referees assigned to a match with a "We don't need to take advantage of a loophole! We fight to the finish! We're wrestlers!" type of promo. It wouldn't be so much about bitching as much as it would be them wanting a fight with honor. A heel group would oppose it, obviously because they don't like the work they'd have to do, but under the guise of "Well, this is how it's always been done. It's what those who came before us would want." As for referees being placeholders, I absolutely agree. A tonne of involvement from referees in the angle isn't really what I have in mind. It's more about giving certain wrestlers something to do to define themself further as men of honor or otherwise, and it would obviously lead to issues between those wrestlers. I've had enough of the "evil referee," so that's certainly not what I'm advocating.

Not sure if that makes the angle any better. Just a notion I had.

 

[klunderbunker]

Well the problem is that it's getting too close to making things about rules and regulations rather than the wrestling. It makes sense in theory, but at the same time the whole two referees thing kind of takes away the dynamic of one match with three people in the ring. It's as timeless as wearing very small amounts of clothing when wrestling. The problem is that at times you need to have a referee mess up. It gives the face a chance to take issue with a decision. Back in I think 1981, Bob Backlund was feuding with Greg Valentine. The ref got bumped and wasn't thinking clearly for the rest of the night. Backlund wins, but the referee gives the belt to Valentine in confusion. There was a long string of rematches as Backlund tried to get the physical title back while still being champion. Got them months of main events off of one single action. It's needed at times and helps the show along a lot.

 

[Coco]

Oh, I agree that wrestling needs the three man formula in the ring. It works in many different ways and it will never lose its usefulness. At the same time, I think wrestling gains from credibility (whatever that is) if they address kayfabe problems, even to have them realize that the old system still works just as good as anything. And I'd definitely want to make sure the faces' idea doesn't become wrestling law. It has to fail in some way and there'd be some fun to be had from it. For example, have a try-out match with the new system where third and fourth men distract both officials and lead to a screwy decision. Not only would the new system be proven not to work better than the old one, the heels would have killed the faces movement and heated up whatever feud came from it. And I suppose it'd be original. Some people go for that sort of thing.

If you want another possible conclusion, the heels could invalidate the petition by having dead people sign it or having people sign it multiple times. Or they could show that the multiple referee system isn't economically efficient as referees are (kayfabe) paid by the match.

Trust me, even if you think this sounds like too much, this is nowhere near as bad as the angle where I'd have a petition go around to have every object that's not nailed down removed from the arena. I think I'd end that one with a heel trying to use a referee or an announcer as a weapon.

How did this turn into a fantasy booking discussion? I feel like a massive noob.

 

[klunderbunker]

When I was reading that, the first thing that came to my mind was Vince Russo. It's too much. There's just too much going on there and it's too complex to get something like that going. The theory is fine, but it gets too far into things too quickly.

As for the not nailed down idea, there was something kind of similar to that in Memphis back in 79 where Terry Funk said he couldn't get a fair fight with Lawler because fans kept giving him weapons, so they emptied the arena and let them fight. Not exactly the same, but it was considered a great match. The problem was no one paid to see it but whatever. It could work, but again there is no way it could be kept from becoming overly complicated.