5 most confusing rules in WWE

Professional Wrestling has a complex relationship with reality. While we all know that the world of kayfabe is an illusion and nothing we see should be taken completely seriously, there is still an onus on the members of the roster and the commentators to keep the facade at least a little in tact.

This means that a struggle has formed over the years between following the rules of the 'sport' of professional wrestling and telling a good entertaining story. If the company decided to constantly keep on top of its regulations, they would keep writing themselves into corners and spend most of their time working out how to get out of them.

That doesn't stop the more eagle eyed fan from pointing out when companies like the WWE break their own rules, even if we know it's not going to make any difference. Here are 5 of the most difficult to follow rules in WWE:

#1 The closed fist

One of the most under-enforced rules in professional wrestling, particularly when it comes to the WWE, is the ban on a closed fist. Basically, this is designed to outlaw the use of closed fists when superstars strike their opponent. You might have heard commentators mention it over the years, particularly in the 80s with guys like Jesse Ventura and Gorilla Monsoon point out that the referee is letting it go despite being required to call the perpetrator out.

The origins of the rule date back to the days when kayfabe was more strictly adhered to. Before Vince McMahon officially declared that wrestling was scripted, superstars were obliged to keep the facade going. If fans saw that a wrestler's face was unscathed after numerous blows from closed fists it would have ruined the illusion completely. Interestingly, this is what led to other ways of hitting people in a wrestling ring such as chops, slaps and knee strikes.

Over the years, and with the relaxation of kayfabe, referees no longer appear to enforce the rule and commentators rarely mention it. In fact, many of WWE's biggest superstars explicitly use the closed fist to execute their signature moves. Guys like Roman Reigns and Big Show, for example, would not have been allowed to use the Superman Punch or WMD back in the 30s.

John Cena is also somebody who would lose a major part of his arsenal if the rule was fully enforced. His 'Five Knuckle Shuffle' is technically done with a closed fist brought out against an opponent's forehead. Whatever the reason for the change in attitude concerning it, the closed fist rule is something we will continue to see violated and nobody will bat an eyelid.

#2 How long both members of a tag team can be in the ring

When it comes to tag team wrestling, it is not always clear what the rule is concerning how long both members of a tag team can be in the ring at the same time. The official ruling seems to be 10 seconds. If someone tags their partner, they should be back on the apron in this time or risk disqualification.

However, as tag team wrestling became more complex and intricate in its style with teams like The Rockers in the 80s, the 10-second rule has become less and less adhered to over the years. Sometimes the very identity of a tag team depends on the kinds of tandem moves the pair put together, and these moves often take more than 10 seconds to put together.

Also, in companies like NJPW, tag team matches are often used more as exhibitions to kick off a card. Teams like The Young Bucks and Riponge Vice will take much longer than 10 seconds to demonstrate their tandem manoeuvres. If the rule was followed correctly, most Bucks matches would be over after a few minutes due to a Disqualification.

You could explain this with the concept of 'referee's discretion'. Perhaps an official will not disqualify the team because he has the right to allow them enough time to execute their move set effectively. But if this is the case, then there doesn't seem to be any standard definition of what constitutes acceptable discretion. It's fine for The Usos to be allowed to perform their double superkick and frog splash to win a match, but what about The Young Bucks who essentially spend most of their time in or outside the ring together?

And also, shouldn't there be stricter oversight over referee discretion? Otherwise what is going to stop a crooked referee allowing one team to basically turn the bout into a Tornado match?

#3 Having to defend a championship within 30-days

It's no secret that professional wrestling used to enjoy brighter days back in the late 90s and early 00s. As a result, today's roster often has to rely on big-name returns to help boost interest in the current product and this occasionally means some of the main event stars, like Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar, operate on a part-time basis.

For Brock Lesnar in particular, his hands-off approach to full-time competition has proven difficult when it comes to the 30-day rule governing how much time a champion has to defend his belt. Brock is still somebody that Vince wishes to see at the top of the roster, but when he holds either the WWE or Universal Championship he is not often around long enough to defend it within the allocated time slot.

All this would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that in some cases the WWE still decides to enforce the ruling. Naomi and Daniel Bryan have been recent examples of people having to give up their belt due to injury. Surely if storylines are still being built on this concept, the same should apply to Brock Lesnar or any other part-timer who doesn't defend the title in 30-days.

Whether or not this rule should be scrapped entirely rests on how long the WWE expect to be relying on part-time talent. Once Brock has decided to fully move on from the company, maybe the rule will become consistent again. That being said, wrestling fans don't tend to like having their intelligence insulted and will often speak out when Lesnar gets away with this when some of their other favourite superstars don't.

#4 The Freebird Rule

Three person tag teams in professional wrestling date back to the days of The Freebirds and the first incarnation of D-Generation X. They have become more prominent in recent years with teams like The Shield, The Wyatt Family, 3MB and The New Day all gracing our screens. They serve a purpose in the tag-team division and offer something different to the norm.

Because the WWE has not yet embraced an official three-man division like NJPW, the company operates on an arrangement known as the 'Freebird Rule' where any two members of a team can wrestle for the tag-team championships. For example, considering The New Day are the current Smackdown Live tag-team champions, they can decide to defend their belts using any combination of Kofi, Big E and Xavier Woods.

While this rule looks simple enough on paper, the implications of it are a little more complex. Firstly, unless there is some application process fans are not made aware of, there doesn't seem to be an official way to declare who is in a team. We just become used to seeing three or more people together and call them by a particular name. The Wyatt Family, for example, have had numerous members over the years including Braun Strowman and Daniel Bryan but we still called them The Wyatt Family.

Based on this, what is stopping a tag team deciding to add a new member just before a championship match in order to compete for or defend the championships? When a member of a tag team becomes injured in real life, usually the match is called off, but wouldn't it make sense for the healthy competitor to just quickly find a replacement, win the belts and abide by the Freebird rule until their partner is back?

Also, does the rule only apply to three-person teams? What about multi-man factions like Evolution or The Nexus? While Heath Slater and Justin Gabriel held the championships back in 2010, were any of the other 5 members able to compete for the belts? If not, then the rule becomes a little more difficult to follow.

#5 Over-turning decisions after the match

One rule that has never quite been clarified over the years is whether match decisions can actually be over turned after the referee has made a decision. Whether or not a reverse decision is allowed appears to rest solely on what kind of storyline the writers are trying to tell, which has led to much confusion over the years.

If a heel wins a match by underhand tactics, this can be a great way for that individual to build some effective heel heat. Giving his opponent a low-blow and rolling him up for the victory, or simply using a foreign object that your manager throws into the ring - all of this can make the babyface look strong and sympathetic in defeat. But if a referee didn't originally see the violation that led to the dirty victory, normally this means the heel gets away without any comeuppance and the loser has to wait until the next time of asking to get his or her own back.

There have been a few occasions, however, when the result of a match was brought to the attention of the referee after he called for the bell and the decision was overturned. Think back to that time when Alex Riley helped The Miz be victorious in a Championship match by hitting his opponent in the head with the belt. The Miz was declared the winner only for the referee to spot the belt and order the match to continue.

A reverse decision doesn't always have to come at the expense of a heel either. Remember when Shawn Michaels was declared the winner in a match against Triple H on RAW? Eric Bishoff came to the ring afterwards and played a replay showing that Shawn's shoulders were also down when he made the pinfall meaning the match was declared a draw. But surely if the rule was consistent, the referee wouldn't have been able to overturn the decision, even if he did make a bad call.

Obviously, the WWE believe that story telling is more important than following the rules of professional wrestling consistently, but it would be nice to have some official clarification on whether a decision can be overturned - at least for us wrestling nerds who need to know these things.

Send us news tips at [email protected]

Edited by anirudh.b