View RSS Feed


Breaking the Rules

Rate this Entry
Hello everyone. I have come to here to discuss a very important issue in the WWE. Have any of you noticed how WWE constantly changes and breaks their own rules? They just happen to change/break it when that situation comes in play. Let's get started.

So in order to be disqualified someone must have some outside help by either a person or weapon of some kind. Personally if someone interferes, I think it should just be a no contest. Anyways, I want to focus more on the weapons. You are not allowed to use any weapon of any sort to help yourself win a singles match-up. However, I continually see people use the barricades; announce table, and steel steps as an offensive maneuver by ramming them into it. How is that not a disqualification? Let me get this straight, if I smack someone with a kendo stick, I would disqualified, but if my opponent rammed me through steel steps, that isn't? WWE just happens to break the rules in this category.

No DQ/No DQ No Count Out/No Holds Barred Matches
What is the difference between these matches besides the name? There is none. Well until WWE changed their rule on No DQ matches back to having count out based on the John Cena vs Curtis Axel match. Formerly though, WWE changed a No DQ Match to have no count out and have had No DQ No Count Out Matches. No DQ Matches are supposed to have count outs in them. And saying a No DQ No Count Out Match is just a mouthful (I know they have not had one for a long time but still they use it). No DQ and No Count Out should just be the settings for No Holds Barred, not a match. And No DQ should stick to having count out. So props to WWE changing it back. Just keep it that way.

Street Fight/Falls Count Anywhere/Extreme Rules Matches
Again, can use all sorts of weapons and can pin/submit anyone anywhere. These matches do not seem so unique when you have 3 matches exactly the same as another. I know the names of the matches are really just supposed to express the rivalry two superstars are in, but they need to make the rules different. Why not have a Street Fight where you win by knockout? That way it adds some uniqueness to the match. Not really sure what to do to make the Falls Count Anywhere and Extreme Rules matches different, but I am sure someone can think of something. I just do not like the concept of matches that have different names but are exactly the same.

Defending a Championship once every 30 days
This is where it gets juicy. This was a rule in the WWE where if someone was the champion, they had to defend their title once every 30 days or at least once a month. This rule has been poorly enforced as I have seen many times where a superstar did not even defend their title for the longest time. For ex. Kaitlyn defended her title last at Elimination Chamber. That is nearly 3 months without a title defense. Another example for those who do not care about divas: When Wade Barret won the Intercontinental Title from Kofi and beat him in his rematch clause (which was on the first Smackdown of this year) he was supposed to go on to face Bo Dallas for the title at Elimination Chamber. However, due to WWE's terrible booking, he did not. Wade Barret would finally defend his title against Y2J and the Miz in a Triple Threat Match on Raw. That is over 2 months with no title defense. That is not good booking for a champion. Why have a belt if it is not defended? At least defend the title once a month.

Unscheduled Matches
This makes the WWE look so unorganized. Why is it at the beginning of the show they determine whoever is out there arguing to be in the main event? It makes it look like you had nothing planned. WWE should already have matches scheduled. And what is with WWE superstars determining who they face? They just randomly walk backstage, say, "Hey, you and me, one on one tonight?!" And the other guy will be like, "Okay, let's do this." What? Is it or is it not the General Manager who makes the matches? NFL players do not have the authority to choose who they face in a football game; it is already scheduled FOR THEM. Just like WWE should already should have scheduled matches. Besides, it is pretty obvious when the General Manager comes out, sees two-three, etc., people bickering, what the match is going to be.

Earning a Title Shot
So really the rules of earning a title shot were either by beating the current champion for the title shot you desire, winning a Number One Contender's Match, or having a potent win/loss record. Nowadays, all you have to do is be mad at the champion. For example, all Ryback did to earn his title shot at Extreme Rules was attack John Cena the night after WrestleMania. No PPV wins, no beating the champion, no Number One Contender's Match. All he did was attack the champion. What is with that?! It hurts the earnings of getting a title match and thus the title itself. Wins and losses SHOULD matter. It just makes logical sense. Otherwise, wins/losses mean nothing meaning matches do not mean anything. Why should I watch a match if wins/losses do not mean anything? Why should I watch football, basketball, soccer, and whatever other sports' games out there if winning and losing did not mean anything for getting to the finals? Truth is I shouldn't. That is why plenty of the time when I watch a match that means nothing, I skip it.

Steel Cage
Sometimes this match has pinfall/submissions, sometimes it doesn't. For me, personally, I like the concept of pinfall/submissions inside the cage. It adds more dynamics to the match.

Announcing an Outcome
The outcome of a match should always be announced. This is supposed to be professional wrestling. So let's make it professional. When I watch a match, I want the winner or outcome to always be announced, even if it is by forfeit or even a draw. UFC keeps it legitimate. They announce who won and how whether knockout, submission, or the score cards. Therefore, announce the outcome of the match when it is over, that way, the star that won, can actually have recognition for being victorious. I know this may not seem like a WWE rule, but it is a rule of business.

So, that is my blog. I cannot really think of anything else so I am going to go with what I have. Comment below for thoughts, opinions, and any rules I may have missed. Thanks for reading this blog too. I appreciate it. Have a blessed day, and remember the Cross, especially who died on it.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
-John 3:17

Submit "Breaking the Rules" to Digg Submit "Breaking the Rules" to Submit "Breaking the Rules" to StumbleUpon Submit "Breaking the Rules" to Google

Tags: wwe rules
Thoughts and Opinions


  1. blink's Avatar
    I don't think throwing someone into the steps or barricade is breaking the rules. Its part of the environment and is really no different than whipping someone into the turnbuckle/ring post.
  2. Kajmere's Avatar
    ^^ I literally was going to write the 'part of the environment' line as I read that paragraph, right on.
  3. Cross's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by blink
    I don't think throwing someone into the steps or barricade is breaking the rules. Its part of the environment and is really no different than whipping someone into the turnbuckle/ring post.
    The thing is it causes a lot more damage than smacking someone with a steel chair. So in my eyes it does not seem fair, but I respect your opinion on the matter.
  4. BECCA_IS_AWESOME's Avatar
    Yes I agree with the above that it is just part of the environment tho it does more damage that's just the way it has always been and i think if they change it the wwe would get some real well deserved backlash over it

© 2011 eWrestlingNews, All Rights Reserved.