
Share
17th February 2017
12:03pm GMT

Magraken points to section 146 of the current regulations, and double checked with the Province for good measure, as proof that, theoretically, a low blow can actually result in victory for the perpetrator.
146 (1) No boxing match shall be terminated by a low blow, as the protectors that are used by boxers are sufficient protection to withstand any low blow that might otherwise incapacitate either of the boxers.
(2) If a boxer falls to the ring floor or otherwise indicates an unwillingness to continue because of a claim of a low blow foul, the boxing match shall be terminated and the referee shall award the boxing match to the opponent.
There is also an ‘off the books’ regulation which is used in the promoter-fighter contract which essentially states that contestants put their faith in their protective equipment - in this case a cup - and agree that no strike should be able to penetrate the protective properties of the equipment.
6. (1) The Contestant agrees to equip himself/herself with a foul-proof guard/chest protector of his/her own choosing.
(2) It is expressly understood that this contest is not to be terminated by a low blow, as any foul- proof guard selected by the Contestant is, in the Contestant’s opinion, sufficient protection to withstand any so-called low blow that might otherwise incapacitate the Contestant.
As pointed out in Magraken's piece, it is more likely that the Unified Rules of MMA would be allowed to supersede the Province's unusual regulations should a low blow force a fighter out of a contest on Sunday night.
But it's certainly an interesting quirk to point out.Explore more on these topics: