Dixon: sorry, i thought the "mutually beneficial" comment was rather diplomatic. Terry can speak for himself. If he wants to comment on here, I however have to do the typing. Lol.

Mike Angove, Sorry man, I'm like a dog with a bone sometimes. Regarding making informed comments about the rules etc blah. Pick up your copy, go to Article 27... have a squiz at the run down there...Supervisor, supervisory staff etc.. the structure and what each does.
Now go to Article 28. The one headed "Reconsideration For Judgement"... then have a read of that. Now, can you tell me that these procedures were implimented? If the judges have a copy of Article 28, can they confirm that the procedures were undertaken? Can the ring announcer confirm that the procedures were as written? If so then cool, discussion over. If not and the decision to overturn the judges was made solely by the "supervisor", then surely Jason would, if he chose to, have cause to action Article 29.
Cant introduce one rule ie: 0.5 scoring system, and ignore others to suit yourself...... or can you? (im using the word "you" as a rhetorical collective.)
The "rules" (MIKE) speak for themselves and are quite clear on the "Reconsideration." Anyone wants to know what the above articles contain verbatim then feel free to email.

Dave: I already have 2 bloody jobs... maybe a third is required. You taught me well.

Scotty: well will beat the Cobett/Cope thread yet.

Alan Wong still hasnt been answered.

Not much of the bone left to gnaw on.... so I'll happily shut the fuck up now.