3 controversial booking decisions at Backlash and why they were justified

The second PPV after Wrestlemania: Backlash concluded and unfortunately for the fans, it was quite a dud. Other than the phenomenal opening match featuring Seth Rollins and The Miz, nothing on the card was able to deliver.

The card suffered from 101 booking and it looked seemed like a very standard show with nothing really standing out. There were not many controversial decisions to begin with, but there certainly were some booking decisions by the WWE which had the WWE Universe upset.

Here are 3 controversial decisions taken by WWE and why I think they were justified:

#3 Carmella defeats Charlotte Flair clean

In a battle of "The Queens", most people expected that Charlotte would be regaining the championship she lost when Carmella cashed in her MITB contract.

Carmella bested Flair after the former 4-time Women's Champion had just come out of possibly her biggest win against Asuka at Wrestlemania 34-- when she brought an end to Asuka's fabled undefeated streak. This was the reason that many people were surprised when The Queen lost her SmackDown Women's Championship to Carmella.

However, Carmella had won the belt in a fashion that did not hamper the credibility of Charlotte, unlike at Backlash where she picked up a clean win.

I think this was the correct call by WWE as it lends momentum to Carmella, who after having won the MITB, faded into irrelevance until she won the Championship, and having her take a loss to Charlotte would have been the final nail in her coffin.

Carmella, who is now the Women's Champion, is not taken very seriously and hardly features in a conversation with her peers like Sasha Banks, Bayley, Charlotte Flair or Becky Lynch. So having her go over Flair - who is the undisputed Queen of the Women's roster, will legitimize Carmella as a threat to be taken seriously.

#2 Roman Reigns vs Samoa Joe ends the show

To be honest, I was as surprised as the next person when the AJ Styles vs Shinsuke Nakamura vignette started playing with two more matches left on the card.

It is a WWE Championship match, after all, that too with an added No DQ stipulation so why shouldn't it have gone on last?

But as soon as the match ended, the answer was clear. The WWE had taken the decision to end the match in a no contest, and it is never a wise decision to end a PPV with an inconclusive result-- which explains why Reigns vs Joe closed the show.

Another reason could be to keep the spotlight firmly on Roman Reigns regardless of whether or not the fans are interested in him and going on to establish that The Big Dog is indeed more important than any World Championship.

I, personally, would like to believe the first of the two options as the second one, if true, will go to show the unwillingness of WWE creative to pay heed to what the "WWE Universe" actually wants.

#1 Not enough weapons were used during the No DQ match

When Paige added the no disqualification stipulation to the third installment of AJ Styles vs Shinsuke Nakamura, many fans envisioned a violent match with heavy use of weapons, dives off of ladders and breaking of tables. This sentiment was also resonated by the live audience who were seen chanting "we want tables" during the match.

However, this match was never going to be about weapons and violence; it was about low-blows and methodical storytelling.

As per old school pro-wrestling, weapons should be used few and far between even in a no-DQ match as it adds to the anticipation and makes the weapon used look legitimate. While we have seen hardcore matches where people go through tables, only to get up after taking a bump making the use of the table merely a visual spectacle.

This is the reason, the brief part of the match involving a chair seemed like a big deal and had the people invested. The usage of weapons and high-risk sports would have taken away from the story which primarily revolved around the low-blows.