Machida-Rua called as it was seen (ESPN / Franklin McNeil)

by VikingPhotography on Oct 28, 2009 8:04 PM EDT Comment 34 comments

Over on the MMA section of ESPN.com, reporter Franklin McNeil (no relation) lays out a piece about the judges who scored the Machida - Rua bout at UFC 104 doing their jobs to the best of their ability. Here's a notable pullout from the article

"Where a judge is seated at a particular time during the action must be taken into account. Judges have the best seats in the house, but they don't always have a clear line of vision"

Now I've been sat next to judges whilst shooting UFC events - literally elbow-to-elbow with them - and have first hand experience of the issues that they face when trying to read a fight.

There have been a few occasions where I've thought a fight went in favour of one guy (based on my vantage point) only to be surprised when the scores came in.

If I've simply shooting a fight and thinking "Hey, this guy's got in it the bag" based on what I saw... well the same must hold true of the judges. How else to you explain split decisions or differences in how many rounds are scored for which fighter?

I'll tell you what it's not: it's not incompetence, it's not fight-fixing and it's not corruption.

Read the article, think a little and then hopefully it might clear up some of the trash talk that's been going on about the judges in the Machida - Rua fight.

Try doing their job from their vantage point. It ain't easy.

The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.

6 recs | Comment 34 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well said. I’ve sat ring/cage side at many an event covering them for this site. And when I’m there I tend to watch the action on the big screen many times throughout the fight to get a better angle. I can tell you that judges are told to watch the IN RING (or cage) action not the screens. And this CAN have an impact on judging.

Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.

by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 28, 2009 8:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I only know one judge...

that, when the action is at a bad angle for him, he’ll take a look at the big screens; the rest are fully zoned in on the action in front of them and only take their eyes away from the cage inbetween rounds to write out their scorecards.

When I’ve been elbow-to-elbow with judges, the first thing I tell them is that, if I’m in their way, they should simply nudge me aside and I won’t get bent out of shape about it; this is especially important as I’m deaf in my right ear so would not hear a judge on my right side asking me to move.

I’m toying with asking a few judges what their opinions are on this “controversy” when I’m at 105 in two week’s time.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 28, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is the one benefit from a ring. When you watch Affliction, the IFL, or PRIDE in a ring, you never have to look up at the screen to see the action, only for interviews or replays. Everything is pretty easy to see anywhere in the arena as long as you are not behind a corner with a camera man blocking your view at ringside.

Judges should seat further behind?

by MMASuPreMaCy on Oct 28, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

be seated

by MMASuPreMaCy on Oct 28, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't think they should be further back

1. There’s a physicality to being right next to the cage that can’t be accurately described; you can hear and feel the effort of the fighters; that speaks a lot towards aggression and dominance.

2. I’ve heard grounded fighters saying to the ref’s “I’m okay…” when stuck in submissions or defending a G&P assault. If I can hear it, the judge can hear it and again, that’s critically important. Seating further back from the cage might negate the judges from factoring for these indicators.

The idea of having three separate vantage points from which the action is scored is technically sound; in short it means that all bases are covered – no single viewpoint can tell the story of a fight (split decisions, anyone?); consider that versus “old school” judging where officials are all sat next to each other at a table at a common vantage point.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 28, 2009 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So jelous of you being up that close and getting to see the fights. =/

Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."

by xFenixKnightx on Oct 28, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another idea. What if they had 2 ringside judges and one judge backstage watching all the tv footage? I think this would be interesting, and kind of related to the video umpire in cricket and rugby. Can’t see it happening of course, perhaps better to have some sort of continuity with the judging for better or worse

by StevenGiles on Oct 28, 2009 8:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I can already here the conspiracies about Dana only showing the judges the angles that showed fighter x was winning.

by Phildo on Oct 28, 2009 8:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy Solution: 3 Tennis umpire type seats placed in a triangle sequence around the cage….=p

by MikeD32 on Oct 28, 2009 9:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

3,4,5 MSR

Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."

by xFenixKnightx on Oct 28, 2009 9:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

LIES

This shirt is "dry clean only", which means it's dirty.

by SamCupitt on Oct 28, 2009 10:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Apparently these guys dont agree:

by mmalogic on Oct 28, 2009 10:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOy5jUck_Ks

by mmalogic on Oct 28, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

funniest video Ive ever seen.

by mmalogic on Oct 28, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who the hell are those two very informed and completely unbaised people you found on that video..?

all 5 rounds….righttt…….

by Beren on Oct 28, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

saw it on the ug and realized this sport will never die.

by mmalogic on Oct 28, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I couldn’t tell if he approved, or fuckin’ dissapproved of the decision.

Spinning out solid gold, like Rumpelstiltskin.

by Heenan on Oct 28, 2009 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Epic

Is the only word to describe the vid. I think a little part of all of us want to make a youtube vid like that XD

by Hendo_One-Shot on Oct 29, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cecil Peoples cant ref either:

by mmalogic on Oct 28, 2009 10:20 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

lol god damn. The Sell/Quarry one was just as good.

This shirt is "dry clean only", which means it's dirty.

by SamCupitt on Oct 28, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that is good comedy, i can’t stop laughing.

by twotone on Oct 28, 2009 11:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i dont get it.

by JaTinkles on Oct 28, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is awesome.

This shirt is "dry clean only", which means it's dirty.

by SamCupitt on Oct 28, 2009 10:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Franklin McNeil is the best reporter in MMA.

Besides BloodyElbow’s people, of course.

by judonerd on Oct 29, 2009 1:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

uh no

they guy isn’t really that good…..

by rainmaker6 on Oct 29, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Watch espn much?

by judonerd on Oct 29, 2009 7:21 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Lets eliminate judges and go back to the old rules

No time limits. The fight is over when someone is unconscious

by HighNoon on Oct 29, 2009 7:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that’s a good idea. Under those rules, we’d still be waiting for Sylvia-Arlovski III and Shamrock-Taktarov to end.

Seriously, I find it baffling that the judges aren’t given better vantage points to the fights. Of all the people watching, they are the ones who most need to see everything that takes place – why on Earth are they stuck with seats they can’t see from?

by lhasafi on Oct 29, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They've got the best viewpoint of anyone

… but it’s still a limited viewpoint.

by VikingPhotography on Oct 29, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs

This is an awesome illustration of the point you’re making very well.

Judges 1 and 3 are potentially blocked from being able to see very well by the corner posts, camera guy, and ref, but they are close enough to probably be able to hear what’s going on. Judge 2 has a clear line of vision, but it’s all the way across the cage, so hearing and “feel” may be more limited. Rogan/Goldberg have perfect seats for this piece of action, and their view, feel, etc., is likely totally different than that of any of the three judges right there.

Very nicely done.

by Kierkegaard on Oct 29, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’ve always been of the opinion that the judges should be in separate rooms backstage watching the fight on tv with no audio. That way they all get clear views of everything going on and have no influence from the crowd. Even then it’s hard to see everything. If we want a perfectly judged fight we need to have the fights, then have the judges watch them (in slow motion in parts and multiple times if need be) and then have a decision rendered. It’s not like calling a “play” in a stick and ball sport. There was so much action in some of the exchanges in the Rua/Machida fight that I’m not surprised people missed some things.

"I will do nothing lightly. When I walk, I will walk heavily. When I fight, I will fight with conviction. When I speak, I will speak strongly. When I love, I will love with everything"

by dedstrk316 on Oct 29, 2009 7:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You realize that this kind of events have directors? People who decide from what angle you will see the fight? It’s not like there’s one camera man and you see action from one point of view.
Judge watching fight on a screen would be dependent on director. I’m not saying that someone would be screwing with judges and theirs perception of the fight, but seeing fight as it is with your own eyes eliminates third party that could influence you more than bunch of drunks.

by dancingChicken on Oct 31, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

third party:editor, director…
bunch of drunks: some people in the crowd…

by dancingChicken on Oct 31, 2009 10:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Easy way to fix this.

Have the judges write a few words on why they scored as they did. At least there’d be some accountability/insight.

Personally, having seen a card from where the b-level photographers are often sent at UFC events (IE: the light rigging), I think that’s about the best spot to be. Great view of just about everything up there. You miss some stuff way in tight, but how much of that influences a round score?

http://www.vancouversun.com/mma

by Ozzz on Oct 29, 2009 11:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs