Sometimes people win championships illegally, unfairly, or under controversial circumstances. Officials then have to overturn that victory, and remove the title from the new champion. It might seem a cheap storyline twist, but does at least consolidate the legitimacy of WWE rules regarding their titles. The most recent example came when Daniel Bryan won the WWE Championship, only to have the decision be overturned. After defeating Randy Orton for the title, the match's referee Scott Armstrong admitted to doing a fast-count in Bryan's favour, meaning his victory and championship reign were illegal, and was subsequently nullified. Bryan was forced to hand over the championship belt, but his reign, however brief it was, is still counted. Chris Jericho also 'won' the WWE title on an episode of Raw in similar circumstances, getting a fast-count victory over Triple H. Triple H intimidated referee Earl Hebner into reversing the decision and Jericho had the title removed. Unlike Bryan though, Jericho was never recognised as holding the title at that time. The conditions surrounding titles being taken back are similar to having a title stripped, but usually come from a legitimate break of the rules rather than rivalries between wrestlers and authority figures. It makes logical sense, but watching someone win the title and have it removed due to a technicality isn't the greatest way to see them lose it.
