I'm sick of referees DQ'ing champions in title matches...
 

I mean, from a kayfabe point of view, it's the most retarded, infuriating thing ever. It pisses me off everytime it happens.

'Oh, Sheamus knocked me out of the ring, boo-hoo I'm gonna disqualify him, that'll show him'.

I mean, if that was real fucking life I'm sure a referee would be 'ha, you're not getting out of it that easy, get in there and finish the match!'.

Why can't the make a stupid fucking rule where titles can change via DQ? LIfe would be so much more satisfying then.

Oh yeah, I should add... SUMMERSLAM SPOILERS!!! :foc:

AGREE. WWE has been doing this a lot lately, specifically with Sheamus and Swagger. I understand why but it is similar to the way they killed house show business in the 80's and they will repeat the same if they keep it up.

I saw a match once (can't remember who it was), when the champ kept trying to get DQ'd and the ref wasn't allowing it. Smart ref.

I remember that too. JBL maybe?

Whilst in agreement with this...we do have 2 threads that kinda cover this.

There were a million threads about the Nexus/WWE match, go rectify that first, then I'll get back to you.

Didnt TNA have titles changing hands via DQ for a while? Dont think it cut back on the DQ finishs though.

<font color=goldenrod>Yeah. I know that heels aren't supposed to win cleanly most of the time...but Sheamus and Swagger constantly got DQ'ed and/or retain via cheap fashion. They also both won the belt in technically fair fashion in terms of the rules...but it was still viewed as being cheap. Neither man seemed like a credible champion, and seemed to look more legit through other storylines (Sheamus crippling HHH, Swagger's mean streak against Rey, etc.)</font>

Better than Cena winning.

It happened during the Triple H/Scott Steiner match at Royal Rumble 2003. Triple H kept trying to get disqualified and Earl Hebner kept refusing to disqualify him until finally he disqualified him and thus Triple H retained the title.

Yes

Maybe they should have titles change hands on a disqualification and countout, like WCCW and early TNA did, so the heel champions can't use that to their advantage.

I understand the use of DQs, but like any other finish it should be used sparingly. Otherwise it loses its touch. Has Sheamus pinned anybody in any title defense in either of his title reigns?

but it makes you hate the heels more.

I think that should be the case if there's a long running program where the heel keeps finding cowardly ways to retain the title without actually finishing the match. It would mean more as a match stipulation that way. I wouldn't want to see it as common place in title matches.

Shouldn't be done @ a PPV.

To an extent, but after a while even the kiddies are going to realize that a heel who keeps getting DQ'd must not have what it takes and loses credibility. Eventually, a heel has to proclaim some sort of dominance.

I was upset that it was done at a Summerslam.

Or it just annoys you. DQs in title matches, especially at PPVs, wear thin after a while.

I loved that rule but they never capitalized correctly with it. If someone's rival came out and beat up the champs opponent he would be dq'd and lose the belt.That sets up the entire story line easily and they never did that I don't think.

That sort of happened with Madison Rayne and Angelina love at the last PPV, but they ended up reversing the decision anyway because they proved the biker wasn't Velvet Sky or Von Erich, and they had to be the ones that interfered in order for the belt to change hands.
Then they went and had Angelina Love win the belt a couple weeks later anyway..which makes no sense but its TNA so what do you expect..?

This issue can get a bit worrisome at times, I agree. But every so often you do get a PPV match where because of prior events leading to the title match, the GM or Vince or somebody puts a stipulation(s) saying that if the champ loses via DQ and/or count-out they automatically lose the belt to their opponent or some such. It just doesn't happen as often as I think some fans would like to see it happen.

Wouldn't be as big a deal if there weren't like 30 DQ finishes between the World and mid belts each year at PPVs.

The "lose on a DQ" rule works if it's a longstanding deal, but it rarely happens and they rely on the DQ so often as to make it rather stale. Plus, I really don't think sheamus should be booked as a chickenshit heel, but that's not really related.

Basically, the "loss on a DQ" should be used only occasionally, when a wrestler flaunts the standard rule as part of a feud. But in between those times, they shouldn't beat DQs into the ground.

I think Intentional Count-outs > Intentional DQs.

But that's just me.

On RAW last night they had Sheamus attack Orton, and instead of winning by DQ, Orton got counted out.

What the fuck was that?

I think the refs back was turned for the first punch every punch after was from Orton.