Triple H, Undertaker fined for chairshot at WWE WrestleMania XXVII

Triple H vs. The Undertaker - WrestleMania 27
Triple H vs. The Undertaker - WrestleMania 27

Even if WWE’s brand of sports entertainment has loosened its restrictions on PG content by using “bad words” and showing bloody lips and noses, they are still cracking down – and rightfully so – on chair shots.

Specifically, WWE has fined Triple H and The Undertaker for an undisclosed sum regarding the chair shot from their WrestleMania 27 match.

PWinsider picked up on the press release sent out by WWE:

Pursuant to WWE’s Concussion policy, the stunt of using a folded metal chair shot to the head is prohibited. Triple H and The Undertaker have both been fined for violating this policy at WrestleMania XXVII. ¬†WWE penalizes through fine and/or suspension for violation of this policy, which is unchanged and still in effect.

Since WWE and TNA both have cracked down on protected and unprotected chair shots to the head, I thought this made Triple H look even more desperate to try to break The Undertaker’s streak. For that reason, both of these veterans might have just said, “Screw it,” and did it anyway, knowing what the consequences would be.

On the other hand, you could argue Triple H and The Undertaker should be role models for the younger generation. Doing this is a blatant act of defiance against the rule.

This past winter, J Nicholas Autumn and I debated chair shots in professional wrestling – or sports entertainment. Autumn was for chair shots for the realism they bring to the story, and I was against them for the inherent dangers involved.

What do you think – should WWE have fined these future Hall of Famers? Or should Triple H and The Undertaker play by the rules, just like everybody else?

By Adam Bockler

Adam Bockler is a B2B marketing professional, a black belt martial arts instructor, DDP Yoga instructor, and a personal trainer.


  1. Fine ’em. You break a rule, you get fined; otherwise there isn’t much point to the rule. Also, I’m not sure about this “should be role models for the younger generation” bit. Maybe you think they would be, but “should” implies that there’s good reason for them to be — I don’t see an illegal chair shot to the head as as good cause for rolemodeldom.

  2. By younger generation, I mean the guys working their way up the ranks now. If the veterans aren’t setting the example for who will eventually become their replacements, what does that mean for the younger guys? Should they take risks like that? Triple H and Taker are just about the last of the breed from the 90s that are still active and can still draw money.

    Of course, you can also take that “younger generation” means children who the product is marketed toward. There are cases, such as with Lionel Tate, where kids have performed the moves they saw on TV and wound up injuring or killing their partner. As a 21-year-old who attends many live events, the majority of the audience is children. I’d hate to know that by modeling what they saw on TV, a fan wound up paralyzed or dead.

    Just a thought.

Comments are closed.