"Big" John McCarthy has been informed by the California State Athletic Commission that he will not be assigned to work UFC 104 this weekend.
HT: Sherdog
about 1 month ago
Scott Haber
94 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
the NSAC screws him and now this. No.. the UFC has no say in who works their events.
by stearnum on Oct 20, 2009 10:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, let’s see what everyone that was telling me the UFC doesn’t have that kind of pull and even if they did they wouldn’t use it to keep BJM out of the octagon has to say now.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Oct 20, 2009 10:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
wow
NSAC first tells him they don’t need any refs at the moment, and now his own state won’t assign THEE best and most known ref in MMA. Of course the UFC has no say in who works their shows =) not at all.
"Well... You're damned if you do, and You're damned if you don't."- Bart Simpson
by poundnground on Oct 20, 2009 10:50 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Who cares? He’s a terrible ref anyway, and the other ones have not made a SINGLE mistake over the last year or two.
BOOSH
by Farthammer on Oct 20, 2009 10:54 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
Lol, you’re silly.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Oct 20, 2009 10:56 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
None of them have made just one mistake.
I STILL poop rainbows.
by Blackout612 on Oct 20, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Terrible Ref?
lol must be for shock purposes…
by AfroSamurai on Oct 20, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, you made a funny!!!!
Everyone has a game plan, untell they get hit.
by mma is #1 on Oct 20, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You apparently watch a very limited and filtered selection of mixed-martial arts fights if you’re going to say that refs don’t make mistakes.
by Ahhhoki on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That they haven’t made mistakes recently*
by Ahhhoki on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think your sarcasm detector may be malfunctioning
by woooburn on Oct 21, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clearly a lot of people’s sarcasm detectors are on the fritz.
by Zack Gobie on Oct 21, 2009 7:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lol the answers.
UFC 104=> ben rothwell will UD the shit outta Velasquez.
by spectaa on Oct 21, 2009 7:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i guess you can’t dis zuffa and expect to have a job in mma
by naturalist on Oct 20, 2009 11:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You can’t dis zuffa and expect to have anything to do with them. You can replace zuffa with any other employer in the universe and it will be the same thing.
This whole thing is very petty, but i don’t understand why so many people expect an athletic commission to assign him to ref when Zuffa is so against it. It’s just easier for everyone if he stays away.
by Phildo on Oct 20, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats like saying you cant speak out against a restaurant and expect to keep your job as a health inspector. Its a govt position. Zuffa shouldnt have a say.
If this keeps up Big John wont need to ref because he will be living off his winnings in civil court.
by ryanwk628 on Oct 20, 2009 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
so dramatic.
If a health inspector, outside his duties as health inspector, talked shit about a restaurant, there’s no way he’d be inspecting that restaurant again. That’s what we’re talking about here. He’s not off the card because of something he did in his duties as a government employee, it’s the stuff he did and said outside of that position, and for him, like everyone else in the universe, there are consequences to his actions.
by Phildo on Oct 20, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, it’s like quitting your job as a government inspector, going to work for McDonald’s in the mist of a major war with Burger King, then deciding you want to go back to being an impartial inspector. Under these conditions, Burger King is well within their rights to ask for an inspector that hasn’t worked against them in the past.
by Jahbulon on Oct 20, 2009 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking it would be more like being a restaurant critic as opposed to the actual head fry chef at burger king, but it’s a similar thing.
by Phildo on Oct 20, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s actually like none of those things. Both a restaurant critic and a health inspector have the power to directly, negatively affect a restaurant. BJM is a referee; his actions inside the cage have, at most, an indirect effect on the UFC, and only a negative one if he fucks up in a big way, which he’s not exactly known for doing.
You guys are talking like there’s reason to believe he might sabotage the UFC from the inside or something.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the situation is ridiculous and everyone is acting like 5 year olds, but I understand the UFC’s position in this. They are pissed at McCarthy for stuff he said outside of his duties as a ref, they think that can impact the way he refs, so they have the right to do something about it.
I don’t think he would, but the refs actions can do more than indirectly effect the UFC. When a fight ends controversially it’s not good for anyone. I don’t have a reason to believe he’d do it, but if the UFC does, they have the right to do whatever they can to keep him out.
It’s just better off for everyone to keep him out of the Octagon until he and Dana make up. Could you imagine the shitstorm that would happen if he made a decision that is anything close to controversial in a UFC fight?
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
CSAC might be doing this to cover their own ass. If he refs and something controversial happens, people will talk about him not being impartial, which would reflect negatively on CSAC.
There is also the possibility that they really do have other refs in rotation for this event. They cannot show favoritism for a ref to be in an event.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Oct 21, 2009 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think JRN is right that our restaurant metaphors are a bit off. I don’t think anybody really believes he’d do something unethical inside the ring. The real issue is that the UFC made John famous (“the best in the business”), and he ended up using that fame, no matter how ineffectually, against them. I think John need to be back reffing the biggest fights, but the UFC also deserves some assurance that if they’re going to help him become even more famous, he’s not going turn around and use it against them. I think that John’s love of the spotlight is what led him to “retire”, and now it’s also what’s leading him back to reffing.
by Jahbulon on Oct 21, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that John’s love of the spotlight is what led him to "retire", and now it’s also what’s leading him back to reffing.
That, and the failure of Affliction.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Oct 21, 2009 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like the solution there would be to simply not hype him up any more than they do any other ref.
I don’t know that the UFC is pulling strings to keep McCarthy from working their events. But if they are, it’s indefensible.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You’re right – they should only assign referees to Zuffa events that are pro-Zuffa sycophants who would NEVER do anything that displeases them.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True, but jumping back and forth between being a referee and taking sides in promotional wars is also shaaaaaaaaaady.
by Jahbulon on Oct 20, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
But that had no effect on UFC’s promotion?
by bignerd on Oct 20, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, I think that the UFC, the athletic commissions, and John all need to work something so he can get back to doing what he does better than anyone else. However, you can’t dismiss what he did like it is no big deal. Big John doesn’t just want to be an anonymous ref, he has a brand that he wants to develop. If he goes back to the UFC and builds more brand equity though the UFC’s ever increasing popularity, what’s to stop him from turning around in a couple of years and lending that brand equity to one of the UFC’s rivals? Maybe John’s ethics are beyond reproach, but it’s not good for the sport to have a revolving door between being an ref and working for promotions. I want John to get back in, but the “ah shucks” casual way he’s trying to get back in and the casual way that the commissions have dismissed his attempts are both bullshit.
by Jahbulon on Oct 21, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is called a conflict of interest, and once you do that it is hard to go back to being impartial.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Oct 20, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Both Ways
It wasn’t but last week this site was praising the UFC for its efforts to influence the Virginia AC so that the many, many mistakes the commission allowed to occur a few weeks back could be avoided in the future.
Where is the line between commission and promoter? The line can’t change when we agree with what the promoter is influencing, but not when we disagree.
Not that the UFC should have any influence in ref assignments, but interesting to know where the line of influence should be drawn?
by pwrcartel on Oct 20, 2009 11:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This site was not praising the UFC for it's efforts to influence in VA
I was. The staff does not share the same opinions. That was my opinion. Please do not ascribe my opinion to the rest of the writers on staff. Let them speak for themselves.
by Luke Thomas on Oct 20, 2009 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Got to him before I could Luke. I haven’t seen any evidence of the UFC being involved at all, in regards to Virginia Athletic Commissions recent debaucle. Credit was being given to the writers on this site, and many others, that became vocal about an injustice in our sport.
I am blinded by a sea of green.
by bubbafat on Oct 20, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just to play devil's advocate for sec
there are plenty of companies and organizations in this country who aren’t hiring right now. what makes the nsac and csac any different?
by woooburn on Oct 20, 2009 11:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Are they paid a salary or per fight/event though?
If it’s the latter, it doesn’t matter how many refs they have “hired,” since there’s still the same amount of fights to pay for. And, if it’s the former, he’s already being paid by CSAC, so they could use him.
That said, I agree with the idea that Big John, as good as he is as a ref, damaged his own ability to appear impartial. Do I think he’s still going to do the best job in the cage? Yes. But his actions in the past leave the door open for a fighter to make a case if they think they got screwed, even if it’s not true.
by kid_eh on Oct 21, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we’re supposed to believe that these commissions are acting completely outside of the UFC’s influence? Big John works most of the big events in CA. We see him doing Strikeforce, Affliction, etc.
When we question whether or not it’s a personal vendetta against McCarthy from the UFC in Nevada, we’re always told that the commission there is solely responsible for banning him, not the UFC. As though the NSAC is somehow beyond reproach? Yet, despite the fact that Big John does tons of work in CA, and is widely regarded as the best ref in the business, the CSAC somehow just skips over his name for UFC 104?
It doesn’t add up.
I specializes in grammar fail.
by a tommy point on Oct 21, 2009 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
anyone saying the UFC doesn’t have influence is kidding themselves.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly. The UFC’s events bring in big money for the commissions, whether the influence is direct or indirect, it’s there.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why should Big John automatically be there? Other refs have to work as well, and favoritism towards a ref is just as bad as favoritism towards a promotion.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Oct 21, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big John should be there because he is the most qualified person on this side of the planet to competently officiate an event of that magnitude.
The job the referee does reflects on the athletic commission as a whole. Simply because there are other, lesser, referees who may be in need of work is not a sound reason for excluding Big John from the event entirely and thus increasing the chance of human error. You can apply your line reasoning to other areas of life and see where it fails.
I specializes in grammar fail.
by a tommy point on Oct 21, 2009 3:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has also shown a breach in impartiality, which would not make him the most qualified person, and in fact one of the least qualified. Once you break that, it is almost impossible to get it back.
If even the tiniest little thing goes wrong with BJM as the ref at the UFC event, the word corruption might start getting thrown around and you better believe that CSAC has no desire whatsoever for that scenario.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Oct 21, 2009 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if he was dumb enough to be as petty as the UFC is being to him and make a corrupt decision, he’d most likely wind up in jail.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only person in this situation who has clearly show petty self interest...
is BJM. Everything else is something being inferred.
by Razreshat on Oct 21, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn’t really matter, he can do it by accident.
Any stand up, point deduction, or stoppage he makes is going to be questioned. I think the NBA is stupid for letting Joey Crawford near a game Tim Duncan is involved in after that incident, and if he ever gives Duncan a Technical Foul again, deserved or not, there’s going to be a shitstorm. This is a similar situation.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Shitstorm”?
About 2% of the fans watching even know about this while “situation”, everyone is overreacting to these potential consequences. It’s a petty play by Dana and the boys and that’s all it is.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any stand up, point deduction, or stoppage he makes is going to be questioned.
And this is opposed to pretty much every stand-up, point deduction and stoppage that peole will definitely be questioning with the current incompetent corps of Maz, Mirg, Mario and Yves? LOL
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When it comes down to it, the UFC may just not want to ever help BJM make money again.
Simply because he used the name recognition he got reffing in the UFC to try and help a new competitor gain credibility all while saying some bad things about the UFC.
I can’t say I blame Dana and the boys and if everyone here was being honest, they probably wouldn’t either.
Someone explain to me why the UFC should let BJM continue to build his reputation as a ref within the UFC considering what he did with that reputation last time?
by Razreshat on Oct 21, 2009 9:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I just think they should sit down like adults – say their sorry’s, hammer out a compromise – and have the best ref in the sport reffing their big fights.
It’s probably too much to ask and since BJM doesn’t make them $$$, like say Tito or Randy, I don’t see it happening.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The annoying thing here is that we, the blogging fans, don't know what steps have been taken..
by either Dana or BJM, but most people see to love to assume that the evil overlord Dana is punishing the poor blameless Johnny Mc.
I shouldn’t have to remind anyone that BJM took the first steps in creating this situation, if he hasn’t been the first to reach out to Dana and the UFC…then he should.
by Razreshat on Oct 21, 2009 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s my point in the whole situation.
Do I think dana is acting like a baby? Yes. That doesn’t change the fact that BJM quit, and burned a lot of bridges on the way out the door. Then his new job blows up in his face and he wants to come back and everyone has to roll out the red carpet and bend over backwards to accommodate someone who has already bailed for greener grasses once?
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
everyone has to roll out the red carpet and bend over backwards
Who’s suggesting they do this? People (like me) are suggesting that the UFC refrain from illegally (or at least extra-legally) influencing the athletic commission referee selection process. I fail to see how that equates to “rolling out the red carpet.”
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, though, it’s pure speculation at this point that the UFC is actually doing anything to blackball BJM. Gotta make that clear.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that automatically giving BJM a shot at the UFC fights, and forcing the NSAC to fire someone or have more refs than they want, plus skipping him over the entire list of applicants they already have would be rolling out the red carpet.
I don’t know (or care) if the UFC is doing anything to influence the commission, but if they are, it certainly isn’t illegal (did anyone cry when the “influenced” texas to do drug tests at 103?).
There is an appearance of a conflict of interest. It’s in Zuffa’s and the athletic commission’s best interest to avoid that, and the easiest way is to keep him out of the octagon until that conflict is resolved. If a ref in any other sport retired and started doing commentary on tv and blogged about his favorite fighters and said negative things about the league and a team (like John did about zuffa and the NSAC) they’d never be able to ref for that league again. I’m not going to get upset over BJM getting treated like everyoen else.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the theory is that they’re blackballing him specifically. Obviously there’s no reason to shoot him to the top of list, but there’s also no good reason to keep him off the list either. (This “there’s a conflict of interest” idea makes no sense.)
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s said the people running the NSAC don’t know what they’re doing, why should they hire them.
He’s said who his favorite fighters are, he trains fighters, he’s said negative things about the UFC, why would there not be a conflict of interest?
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then the UFC, given their shadowy influence in these matters, loses the right to complain about referees to the extent that they do. Dana wants to say that Mazz is the worst referee to every step foot into a ring/cage and that there is a crisis of horrible officiating plaguing the sport? Well, then, perhaps he should drop the vendetta against someone who is widely regarded as the best referee alive and do what he can to remedy the situation with Big John.
I specializes in grammar fail.
by a tommy point on Oct 21, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True enough. I guess I just gave him the benefit of the doubt that he’d done something to mend fences, but you’re right, I haven’t seen any indication that he’s made any attempts to reach out to Zuffa.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It will be more than usual, and the UFC will be doing a lot of the questioning, it’s one of those situations that it’s just best to avoid.
Yes, Dana is acting like a 5 year old, but what happens when 5 year olds get in an argument over a game of football? the kid with the football wins. Dana has the football, dana wins.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 9:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Truth.
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
by The_Gaijin on Oct 21, 2009 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Especially when the other 5 year old
tried to get everyone to come to a different backyard football game that then failed and now wants back in on the original football game.
by Razreshat on Oct 21, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because he is arguably the best at the said job. I don’t know how they do their selection, if it was random selection then, ok, but obviously it’s not, referees are always the same for each ufc (dean, mazagatti, etc…).
I don’t know if the UFC is pulling any strings that’s not really my concern, but if the commission’s purpose is to hire the best referees , Big John should be on top of the list. But he isn’t even on it.
UFC 104=> ben rothwell will UD the shit outta Velasquez.
by spectaa on Oct 21, 2009 7:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So say the top car designer at Ford left to start his own car company and talked mad shit on Ford to the media when he left. A year later his car company fails and he comes crawling back to Ford, should they just take him back because he’s the best and have no repercussions?
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Oct 21, 2009 10:04 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
It’s actually worse than that as responsibilities of a Ref is far from an employees. A fighter can talj smack and come back but for a Ref it becomes very dicey.
by mmalogic on Oct 21, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why, you say? The fact that even after a couple of years off, he’s still the most experienced official out there, aside from Kokuda.
I am blinded by a sea of green.
by bubbafat on Oct 21, 2009 12:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m surprised a tinfoil hat hasn’t thought up a conspiracy that Dana only bashes Mazzagatti in public to make it look like they have no control over the AC referee appointments so that they can keep McCarthy out.
Seriously, regardless of whether it’s the fault of the UFC, the athletic commissions or maybe even Big John himself preventing his octagon return the petty, childish shit needs to stop. Even if there is too many referees in Nevada or if there’s a potential conflict of interest due to comments he’s made as a journalist you find a way around it for someone as good at his job as McCathy. Zuffa employs the vast majority of the best fighters in the world and it totally sucks for them to have their careers harmed or even ruined by incompetent refereeing because stupid grudges are keeping better referees away.
by rabrown on Oct 21, 2009 3:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Conflict of interest needs to be taken into account when evaluating how good someone is at their job.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Oct 21, 2009 8:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How could this “conflict of interest” plausibly come into play in how he referees?
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How did Tim Donaghy’s bets come into play in the games he reffed?
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What financial interest could BJM have in favoring one fighter over another that he couldn’t have had when he was regularly working UFC events before?
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could create a bad/controverial decision or stoppage that would help a fighter or an organization that has paid him.
He could do something controversial to gain more popularity for the next time he decides to retire and go do somethign else.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He could create a bad/controverial decision or stoppage that would help a fighter or an organization that has paid him.
He could do something controversial to gain more popularity for the next time he decides to retire and go do somethign else.
Gee, who are the conspiracy theorists here again? There’s just no good reason to assume that anything like this remotely plausible. He didn’t fuck up a call or “do something controversial” (whatever that means) before the retired the last time. This is really reaching.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not reaching, it’s the way the world works.
Refs are supposed to be impartial. They can’t be 100% impartial, everyone has opinions, but once you air those opinions in public, you can’t be a ref anymore. That’s just the way it is.
The only time refs should be talking is when they are explaining rules or decisions that happened in the game/match/fight/whatever. once they get paid to give their opinion on other stuff in the sport, they are out.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But he’s not being paid to give his opinion anymore. Affliction and the Fight Network are done with. If “he’s out,” then why is anyone licensing him?
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, for one it appears that BJM still runs a gym that trains fighters...
by Razreshat on Oct 21, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t he open the gym while he was still working UFC events?
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And even if he didn’t, he could just recuse himself from matches involving those fighters. That’s not a justification for keeping him out entirely (if that is indeed what’s happening).
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s not out entirely, so I’m not sure what you’re going on about.
He’s out of a card being put on by an organization that he has spoken negatively about publicly. He’s out of a state where he has said the commission is unfair to fighters.
As for this card, Josh Neer is fighting, he has said he’d pay money to see him fight. So he can’t ref that fight. How many refs should they have do the card? Why handicap themselves by bringing a ref who can’t ref one of the fights, for whatever reason.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t see what saying he’d pay to watch Josh Neer fight has to do with his objectivity. He didn’t say he’d bet on Josh Neer. He didn’t say he liked Josh Neer as a person. He indicated that he likes the way Josh Neer fights, as a fan. I don’t think that’s a good reason to believe he’d treat Neer any differently. I’d imagine BJM likes a lot of fighters.
How many refs should they have do the card? Why handicap themselves by bringing a ref who can’t ref one of the fights, for whatever reason.
I don’t know, why didn’t they ditch him when he opened his gym in 2006? Why don’t they ditch Mario Yamasaki, who runs a BJJ school? I suspect it’s because these guys are assets, because they’re good at their jobs. Imagine that.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s not out entirely, so I’m not sure what you’re going on about.
Again, I’m referring to the idea that the UFC is pulling strings to keep him from refereeing their events. If this is just a ref being passed over a few times by coincidence, then it’s a non issue. But that’s not what the discussion is about.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which comes back to the whole original point. Why would the UFC want to have a guy who has spoken negatively about them inside their octagon or having any input on their fights?
Why would the commission put that person into that position?
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because there is no good reason to believe they have anything to be afraid of. BJM is a good referee. His officiating record is basically spotless, and any shenanigans he might conceivably pull in the ring (especially with the scrutiny he’d be under) would conflict with his own interests more than anyone else’s.
by JRN on Oct 21, 2009 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone have a link to what he said?
by ryanwk628 on Oct 21, 2009 8:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I love the conspiracy theorist here.
First off, John created this situation completely by himself. I feel no sympathy for him. Additionally, the UFC hasn’t been to CA a lot lately, could it possibly be that the CSAC just wants to keep the UFC happy and bringing that revenue back to their state, so the are keeping away the ref they know the UFC has a legit beef with?
I don’t question BJM’s ref skills, but I do think we shouldn’t be sympathetic to his situation considering his attempt to cash in on the brand equity he built WITH the UFC with one of their competitors…who was also cashing in brand equity built with the UFC.
Affliction and BJM were practicing dirty tactics first, I don’t blame the UFC and Dana for holding a grudge. Perhaps BJM should call Tom Atencio and find out how much ass he had to kiss to get back into the fold.
by Razreshat on Oct 21, 2009 8:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah and people arent seeing the situation the commission is in… why would they put themselves in a position by placing an official in a promotional event where there has been a clear breach of interest by that official? why would the CSAC take a risk like that?
People need to see deeper than 2 degrees. Dana could want big John with a passion and it still would be stupid for anyone invloved – including Big John – to put themselves in this situation.
Mcarthy thought he was gonna be a millionaire and said some really stupid things… Now everyone’s got to live with it.
by mmalogic on Oct 21, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is his own fault- he should of never retired
by DJ Soma on Oct 21, 2009 10:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There Is No Conspiracy
Some of you “fans” really do go out of your way to explain away an issue that is obvious political BS and detrimental to the sport. OK, so its Big Johns fault…thanks for pointing that out. Does that make his replacement suck less in the cage or ring?
Of course Dana is still pissed at him for “retiring” and then going over to Affliction. It’s a personal grudge. Big John is not going to try and sabotage fights. That’s laughable.
Dana has pull w/the commissions. Stop acting like he doesn’t. The NSAC is pissed at Big John for saying they sucked. Oh, they don’t have any spots open right now? Yea right!
Why won’t you guys just admit this stuff and stop w/the ‘these are not the droids you are looking for" comments. BJM is one of the best refs in MMA. You guys sit around every event and complain about how bad the refs suck YET you try and rationalize why it makes perfect sense that Big John can’t ref UFC events or events in Nevada. Some of you need to get off the Zuffa/NSAC/CSAC payroll unless you really ARE on the payroll.
"It would appear that the strain was more than he could bear".- Doc Holliday
by MyFistYourFace on Oct 21, 2009 11:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Everthing you said is true except the parts about John needs to be reffing. Everything you said are the reasons he is not reffing.
It is petty bullshit, but that’s the way the world works, why the hell should BJM get special treatment? He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it.
by Phildo on Oct 21, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dave Doyle article, from a while back, kind of sums it
by The Bronzeville Bully on Oct 21, 2009 11:53 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
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 © 2009 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.
