Deleted
Joined on: Jun 9, 2024 20:37:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 5:11:17 GMT -5
I mean in terms of creating rules and sticking to them? I remember it was always a rule that the champion must defend his title within a period of 30 days or he will be stripped of the title. Im not 100% if this is still a rule but Im guessing this has probably been forgotten about if it still is. Im sure Michaels was stripped of his Intercontinental Title because he never defended it within this period.
I feel WWE never really make any rules concrete these days so it always gives them an opportunity to change things but I think it would be good if they made some concrete rules and sticked to them.
Whats our opinion on the matter? It doesnt need to be the 30 Days defending rule but is there any other rules either in the past or maybe rules you feel should be introduced?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 9, 2024 20:37:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 5:19:48 GMT -5
Rock will be defending at EC, which is 3 weeks after the Royal Rumble.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 9, 2024 20:37:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 5:24:34 GMT -5
Rock will be defending at EC, which is 3 weeks after the Royal Rumble. I wasn't exactly referring to The Rock's reign as champion. But, if he does defend at Chamber and his next defence is at Mania then thats 49 days. |
|
Falconsinclair
Superstar
Joined on: Jun 24, 2012 9:16:24 GMT -5
Posts: 803 
|
Post by Falconsinclair on Feb 9, 2013 5:33:49 GMT -5
The whole 30 days things is sadly a thing of the past. That became apparent when Punk was hurt and had to miss the TLC PPV and not defend the belt in nearly two months, just so they could pad is stats before feeding him to the Rock.
I personally would love see the WWE bring that rule back and enforce it as most heel champions never seem to defend there titles, despite losing week in and week out to the main event faces the WWE is pushing down our throats.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 9, 2024 20:37:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 8:35:10 GMT -5
in tna odb and eric young havent defended there titles sense april of 2012
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Feb 9, 2013 9:04:48 GMT -5
I don't think the rule was ever 30 days. I remember it being 90, and I think 45, but not 30.
|
|
TheXtremisT
Main Eventer
10 Year Member
This is the way
Joined on: May 3, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,890
|
Post by TheXtremisT on Feb 9, 2013 9:23:27 GMT -5
I don't think the rule was ever 30 days. I remember it being 90, and I think 45, but not 30. Yeah 45 days rings a bell, but 30 days would make more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by alexgg on Feb 9, 2013 9:34:14 GMT -5
They make rules up as they please.
I remember when Legacy went to attack Triple H in a match, and Rhodes/DiBease stood on the apron and Cole said something like "Oh no, if Triple H attacks them he will be disqualified!"
Made no sense as it wasn't any kind of stipulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chip on Feb 9, 2013 9:47:44 GMT -5
rules are only as valid as the storyline they are accompanying
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hammers on Feb 9, 2013 9:56:44 GMT -5
How did they ever explain Finlay getting disqualified in the Royal Rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rule 30 on Feb 9, 2013 10:07:05 GMT -5
How did they ever explain Finlay getting disqualified in the Royal Rumble. 2008, right? Wasn't it because he came in before his number? |
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Feb 9, 2013 12:16:54 GMT -5
How did they ever explain Finlay getting disqualified in the Royal Rumble. 2008, right? Wasn't it because he came in before his number? On the PPV they said because he used the shillelagh. I do remember there being a couple of cock and bull excuses though about how the shillelagh "is a foreign weapon" or that Finlay was DQ'ed because he jumped the gun like you said. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Feb 9, 2013 12:26:54 GMT -5
They usually have these rules to use at their convenience... It's wrestling so it's expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Feb 9, 2013 12:27:15 GMT -5
They only recognize these "rules" when they feel like it as part of the story. The rest of the time, WWE just ignores and forgets about the fake rules they've made in the past.
|
|
gawd6sic6™
Main Eventer
" I cross the lines you love to hate "
Joined on: Jan 13, 2009 13:50:08 GMT -5
Posts: 4,868
|
Post by gawd6sic6™ on Feb 9, 2013 12:28:00 GMT -5
the only continuity rule break i hate is.... rope/hold breaks.... they get a 5 count.... i HATE it when the ref steps right in and pulls a guy off of someone in the corner... or on the ropes...
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH316 on Feb 9, 2013 15:47:13 GMT -5
They make things up as they go. If they kept rules in place, they would have contradicted themselves a million times already.
|
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Feb 9, 2013 16:28:41 GMT -5
even in the 90s they didn't follow it. ultimate warrior and hogan were exempted, i believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jericho Is God!™ on Feb 9, 2013 16:53:57 GMT -5
in tna odb and eric young havent defended there titles sense april of 2012 That's TNA what do you expect  |
|
JL24FPS
Main Eventer
Director, Animator, Editor, Podcaster, Diabetic.
Joined on: Oct 25, 2006 14:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,832
|
Post by JL24FPS on Feb 9, 2013 17:06:42 GMT -5
I remember when Edge was IC Champion feuding with Jericho and he injured his groin, he had to forfeit the title because he wouldn't be able to defend it within the 30 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyleecyotee on Feb 9, 2013 17:16:55 GMT -5
I would think its more of "cant/won't defend" rather than "didn't defend as long as he wa willing too". I wish they would stick with one set of rules or explain why they aren't being used. Otunga should us this in his gimmick.
|
|
