Do Recent Appearances of Illegal Techniques Prove Mixed Martial Arts Referees Aren't Competent?
by Luke Thomas on Jun 10, 2008 7:14 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
A reader writes:
At UFC 84, Dong Hyun Kim did a Cradle Piledriver to Jason Tan. Nobody on the blogosphere even mentioned it.
At UFC 85 two weeks later, Nate Marquardt does a Gasno Bomb and he's the MMA antichirst.
What is going on?
My response:
Well, it's complicated. The rule isn't that you can't spike a fighter on his head, it's that you can't intentionally spike. Therefore, the intention to spike has to be clear. There's a strong case that Nate intentionally spiked Leites, but even then that's hard to "prove". How do we know he didn't try to flip him over and because Leites grabbed ahold of Nate's leg, Leites wound up landing the way he did? Unlikely, but possible.
As for Kim, the case is even weaker. Yes he picks him up, but it looks like it's for a turn and in the struggle loses positioning on his left leg. Moreover, he sets Tan down more than he spikes him. Again, a case can be made, but the intentionality of it complicates the issue.
Is this the reason those spikings haven't been enforced or is incompetence having a hand in matters?
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
At UFC 84, Dong Hyun Kim did a Cradle Piledriver to Jason Tan. Nobody on the blogosphere even mentioned it.At UFC 85 two weeks later, Nate Marquardt does a Gasno Bomb and he’s the MMA antichirst.
What is going on?
Nate’s “spike” gets more attention because
1. he committed a earlier illegal move that got him docked a point along with the phantom elbow to the back of the head. Therefore focus on it is magnified.
2. Tan-Kim was never shown on the the telecast so less people have seen it
As far as whether or not MMA refs are incompetent or not I think not.
I mean there hasn’t been some kind of spiking epidemic that’s been going on throughout MMA. And I’m sure pretty much every fighter knows that it’s illegal to do so intentionally.
I think in both situations, the “spikers” in question tried to go for throws and just didn’t have the energy for them. Maybe the refs saw it that way and decided to let it go.
I think in both situations, the "spikers" in question tried to go for throws and just didn’t have the energy for them.
I think this is particularly obvious in the Kim v. Tan gif shown above. Moreover, his knees hit the canvas the same time Tan’s head does. So the potential for injury is reduced (not eliminated, but reduced), and while not directly applicable, slams or throws in amateur wrestling are legal when the first body part to make contact with the mat is the knee of the person throwing his opponent (i.e. they’re illegal when any part of the throwee makes contact with the mat first). I’m not really sure if this bit of information really adds anything to the discussion, but I figured I’d throw it out there anyway.
Personally, I agree with Tonley’s rationale that the refs are competent.
Agree to the above. I think unless the fighter is outcold or shaken up, the ref won’t stop it.
By the way, did any see Dan Miragliotta mistake Jess Liaudin for Paul Taylor at the end of their fight? Lol. This guy has to be on something! lol
He was probably on the same page as me...
...and was expecting Jess to get announced as the winner.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison
by Brent Brookhouse on Jun 10, 2008 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Didn't see that other fight!
But… It didn’t look near as Nasty as when Nate did it! I think I remember a Faber fight where he kind of just sat down and spiked the opponents head. Not sure how it played out but, In Nate’s case, it didn’t look to me like he was trying to spike him right on his head, I think if he had, Herb would have DQ’d him with all the other controversy surrounding the Knee and Elbow!
I believe the refs do a pretty good job most of the time in the UFC and are completely competent. We shouldn’t hold them to any higher standard then we would hold ourselves, nobody’s perfect! They make bad calls! On my basketball team we weren’t allowed to blame the ref for a bad call, it’s pointless for one!
all you gotta do is...
WEC 29 - Jamie Varner vs Sherron Leggett (suplexed on to his head)
Jamie Varner suplexed Sherron Leggett on to his head and there was no stoppage for this (yes, for illegal elbows to the back of the head shortly after).
I was floored when this happened and at a recent TapOut episode, Sherron mentioned that he was pissed because of being slammed on to his head.
Check out 3:16 left in the round: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/wec-29-jamie-varner-vs-sherron-leggett/2519377654
Nates expression as he went for the piledriver was awesome. I dont give a fuck about the whiners. That shit was fun as hell to watch and made me more of a Nate fan that I already was.
If he meant...
...to basically use a “piledriver” then I’m not a fan at all. You don’t mess around with stuff that could break a guy’s neck. EVER…
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
"The reason a lot of people do not recognize opportunity is because it usually goes around wearing overalls and looking like hard work." -- Thomas Edison
by Brent Brookhouse on Jun 11, 2008 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Doesn't Say Intentional
First in the UFC rulebook it does not say intentional, just spiking being illegal. In the sport you must protect the spine at all costs. Secondly even if somewhere it did say intentional it would still call for a stoppage and let the fighter recover. Simular to a knee to the head of a downed opponent.
Intentional?
I’m curious where you’re getting the statement that “The rule isn’t that you can’t spike a fighter on his head, it’s that you can’t intentionally spike. Therefore, the intention to spike has to be clear.” Do you have a link to the rules that you’re reading that include that requirement?
On the NJ State Athletic Board’s website the rule against spiking is merely this:
13:46-24A.15 Fouls(a) The following are fouls and will result in penalties if committed:
. . .
25. Spiking an opponent to the canvas on his or her head or neck.
And then it also says
b) Disqualification occurs after any combination of three or the fouls listed in (a) above or after a referee determines that a foul was intentional and flagrant.
Similarly, the Nevada State Athletic Commission lists spiking as a foul and says the referee may deduct points “whether or not” the foul was intentional.
That seems to suggest that the spiking can be entirely accidental and it’s still a foul that merits a point deduction, and that if it is intentional then it merits disqualification. That seems far different than your interpreation that the rule only prohibits intentional spiking, however. Am I missing something?
Not to defend what he did, but I think the word “spike” implies intent, as opposed to “drop”.
“He spiked him on his head.” vs “He dropped him on his head.”. I would get the impression, when spike is used, that it was intentionally driven into the mat.
If that’s the case, then why would the rule allow for deducting points for “accidentally” doing it vs. disqualification for “intentionally” doing it? There’s nothing in the rules to suggest that “spiking” is to be treated any differently than any of the other 25 fouls listed, as would be required under your reading. In “legal” matters, like commission rules, legislation, etc., your reading would require listing spiking separately from the other fouls because it would be purely an intentional act, but they didn’t do that here.
by Kierkegaard on Jun 11, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions
That's correct
I misstated the rules a bit. You cannot spike someone on their head, which implies intentionality. It is not technically illegal to “drop” someone on their head, so to speak. But to spike – to purposely drive someone perpendicular into the canvas – is. How they prove the difference between dropping and spiking isn’t always going to be so clear, though.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 11, 2008 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Well...
could ‘21. Timidity (avoiding contact, or consistent dropping of mouthpiece, or faking an injury)’ or ‘24: Flagrant disregard of the referee’s instructions’ be accidental?
I think the “whether or not it was intentional’ is considered a catch all.
The rule is there to protect the fighter from permanent spine injury, not to decide if it was dropping or spiking the opponent. It should be inforced if it happens, intentional or not. To answer the question, to me it seems like a lack of knowing the rules. The refs get yelled at when the allow hitting to the back of the head, so even when they’re little rabbit punches they yell and warn the fighter. Sure it looks cooler to piledrive your opponent through the mat, but it can seriously hurt the fighter forever. For the safety of the fighter and the future of MMA they need to start monitering this and taking points or calling fights, depending on the severity of the move of course.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
