WWE Attempts To Clarify The Finish Of Hell In A Cell's Main Event
Operative word is “attempts”…
Once in a while the ending of a WWE pay-per-view provokes a tidal wave of outrage from the fans who watched it, whatever the reason may be.
In the case of Sunday's Hell in a Cell pay-per-view, the finish to the Universal title match between Seth Rollins and The Fiend inside Hell in a Cell produced swift anger from all corners immediately.
It looked for all the world like Rollins had been disqualified for going to town on The Fiend with a litany of weapons, most notably a sledgehammer.
Not only did the idea of a DQ inside a Cell match, where anything goes (ask Mick Foley), spark displeasure and confusion from viewers (including Sean Waltman), but that the DQ happened after The Fiend used a mallet earlier on seemed quite hypocritical.
WWE has since "clarified" the result to say that it was *not* a disqualification ending, but rather "a match-stoppage ruling that led to Rollins retaining the title", which is a lot of words for "no contest".
That notion is problematic as well, since it implies that The Fiend could not continue due to being rendered unconscious or disabled. One could ask why, if The Fiend was incapacitated, that Rollins wouldn't just be permitted to simply pin him and win (or be declared the winner outright, due to Fiend's inability to continue), but that's a whole other can of worms.
In the case of Sunday's Hell in a Cell pay-per-view, the finish to the Universal title match between Seth Rollins and The Fiend inside Hell in a Cell produced swift anger from all corners immediately.
It looked for all the world like Rollins had been disqualified for going to town on The Fiend with a litany of weapons, most notably a sledgehammer.
Not only did the idea of a DQ inside a Cell match, where anything goes (ask Mick Foley), spark displeasure and confusion from viewers (including Sean Waltman), but that the DQ happened after The Fiend used a mallet earlier on seemed quite hypocritical.
WWE has since "clarified" the result to say that it was *not* a disqualification ending, but rather "a match-stoppage ruling that led to Rollins retaining the title", which is a lot of words for "no contest".
That notion is problematic as well, since it implies that The Fiend could not continue due to being rendered unconscious or disabled. One could ask why, if The Fiend was incapacitated, that Rollins wouldn't just be permitted to simply pin him and win (or be declared the winner outright, due to Fiend's inability to continue), but that's a whole other can of worms.
Written by Justin Henry
In addition to writing lists and commentaries for Cultaholic, Justin is also a features writer and interviewer for Fighting Spirit Magazine, and is co-author of the WWE-related book Titan Screwed: Lost Smiles, Stunners, and Screwjobs.
