"Illegal Strikes" can result in "No Contest"

by Matthew7 on Dec 8, 2009 7:12 PM EST

It seems to be taken for granted that “illegal strikes” that end a fight results in a DQ for the offender. The fact is that’s not true, as per the NSAC Rules:

If the referee determines that a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts may not continue because of an injury suffered as the result of an accidental foul, the contest or exhibition must be declared a no contest if the foul occurs during:

(a) The first two rounds of a contest or exhibition that is scheduled for three rounds or les

The point is made by Jon Jones Management that the qualifer “accidental” or “intentional” should be brought in to the discussion (emphasis mine):

"The rules state that an intentional foul and that the fighter cannot continue based on injury sustained from the foul. Hamill could not continue due to a broken shoulder."

"Jon should have been deducted a point for the accidental illegal blow [….]”

The NSAC Executive Director backs up that assessment:

"The only time you have a no contest is if it's an accidental foul."

Jon Jones own words indicate that the foul was accidental:

"I was just hitting him so hard with legal shots, and I didn't realize that it was an illegal shot that I was hitting him with toward the end."

I think the confusion we saw on his face when the fight was stopped backs that up:

(Photo by Dave Mandel of Sherdog)

Arguments could be made either way whether the elbow was deliberate. MMA fans need to accept a certain degree of subjectivity in the sport, though I don’t feel Mazzagatti’s ruling should be viewed as clear-cut and without controversy.

(My first FanPost, any comments/criticisms?)

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

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thanks for lookin this up

Whatever happens will hinge upon if the decision of “Accidental” or “Intentional”. Is something accidental if you do it on purpose, but don’t know the rules? Or is it strictly like when you throw a punch at someone’s temple, they turn and it hits them in the back of the head.

I really don’t like the subjectivity in all this

We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.

by Anthony Pace on Dec 8, 2009 7:17 PM EST reply actions

The problem here is it’s harder (in my opinion) to say a 6 to 12 elbow is “accidental” even if Jones didn’t consciously think “I feel like throwing an illegal strike right now.”

I would assume the rule is mostly meant to cover things like eye pokes and groin strikes, which can occur more naturally, while throwing legal strikes.

I agree with RD sr though, it’s too subjective.

by Andy R on Dec 8, 2009 7:22 PM EST reply actions

This.

It’s an accidental groin strike if you are trying to knee the thigh and hit the groin. There are various ways to accidentally poke someone in the eye in a fight. You can accidentally knee a downed opponent in the head if they are in the process of getting up or going down.

I can’t think of a way to accidentally throw a 12-6 elbow.

by Phildo on Dec 8, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions

If you kick a grounded opponent in the head because you didn’t know the rules it isn’t considered an accident. Jones went through the motions and performed an illegal strike. Groin shots are usually accidental when intending to perform a legal strike and simply missed the target. Some kicks to the head of a grounded opponent can be accidental if the kick was in motion and the target drop to a knee when it landed. It has happened when someone has shot for a takedown while the other guy was kicking to the body.

I do think that Jones should get a no contest based on the Hamil chose not to continue because of his shoulder and not because of the cut or damage to the face.

by YoungGun on Dec 10, 2009 12:25 AM EST up reply actions

That would make sense if Hamil decided not to continue. that’s just not true, Mazz stopped the fight. He can say he stopped it because of the cut, and that’s why it’s not going to change.

If the fight was stopped because of the shoulder it should be a TKO. The foul was intentional, there is no way that this fight should be a NC.

by Phildo on Dec 10, 2009 8:17 AM EST up reply actions

Even if they decided the shoulder is what stopped the fight I don’t think the NSAC can change it to a TKO.

by Chris Barton on Dec 10, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

You don’t accidentally “twelve to six” someone as many times as Jones did Hamill. Jones admitted he didn’t really understand the rules, that’s on him, he deserves the DQ loss.

by CSKit on Dec 8, 2009 7:37 PM EST reply actions

It's not subjective

No one intentionally eye pokes or strikes to the groin. Jones intended to throw the downward elbow. He didn’t know they were illegal, but they were still intentional.

by dumbwhiteguy on Dec 8, 2009 7:48 PM EST reply actions

Do you really think that Kongo's groin strikes against al-Turk were unintentional?

An errant low-blow usually results in the offender apologizing profusely. Kongo just had murder in his eyes. Considering al-Turk had accidentally kneed Kongo, it makes sense he’d want revenge, and I wouldn’t put it past him to get it.

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett

by Scott C. Broussard on Dec 8, 2009 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

Regardless of whether they were intentional

It’s a matter of whether the referees rules them intentional or not, sort of referee’s discretion.

by Trysdor on Dec 8, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah, when I saw that, I thought it was completely intentional.

Welcome to the Machida Error.

by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 8, 2009 11:18 PM EST up reply actions

Even Randy Couture says that he doesn’t understand the 12-6 rule.

Keep firing Assholes!

Fedor has accomplished nothing until he fights Kimbo.

by Ubernoober on Dec 8, 2009 8:08 PM EST reply actions

That must make it wrong!

Even if it is a weird rule, it’s still a rule, as professionals fighters have an obligation to follow it.

by CSKit on Dec 8, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions

he understands what the rule is he just doesn’t understand why it isn’t allowed when other elbow strikes are.

by YoungGun on Dec 10, 2009 12:27 AM EST up reply actions

The ruling was legit

it’s the rule itself (no downward/ 12-6 elbows allowed) that’s sketch.

But even if Jon didn’t understand that the strike was illegal, he intentionally threw the elbow that way. He may not have thought to himself “i’m going to throw this illegal downward elbow, and act confused about if after”, but he definitely threw the elbow that way on purpose.

However, Jake Rossen from Sherdog brings up a good point- are 12-6 elbows really necessary? Jones’ GnP is already absolutely vicious, does it need to be even more vicious, to the point where it could potentially seriously injure his opponent? The initial reason behind banning them (the whole ice block breaking demonstration thing) may sound quirky, but 12-6 elbows very well could be dangerous.

Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.

'09 is the year of the FW's.

by ElliotMatheny on Dec 8, 2009 9:02 PM EST reply actions

Here’s a quote from his management in which they argue their case for a DQ. Randy said, while commentating with Rogan, that he thought you could drop the bows if they had an arc on the downward motion. The statement from Jones’ team correlates with this.

Welcome to the Machida Error.

by slapjaw ackrite on Dec 8, 2009 11:39 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

That's how Big John explains it

He said if there is ANY arc on the elbow strike it becomes legal. Since it’s nearly impossible to throw an un-arced elbow from that position I’m not sure how that works.

by Chris Barton on Dec 9, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

If you don’t know how it works just look at how Jones threw it.

by YoungGun on Dec 10, 2009 12:31 AM EST up reply actions

There was a slight arc on all of those elbows. Per Big Johns explanation, which isn’t always correct, it would be legal.

by Chris Barton on Dec 10, 2009 12:01 PM EST up reply actions

I wish everyone would stop saying the fight was stopped because of the shoulder that is bs i think it should be a NC but Hamill was flinging is arms up to protect himself . If he wouldnt have hit him with the illegal blows then the fight wouldnt have been stopped unitl it was stopped for a TKO or if Hamill tapped and neither of those happened it was stopped after the elbows now is Hamill smart for following the rules and getting the W no he isnt.

by jks9202 on Dec 9, 2009 8:16 AM EST reply actions

That's idiotic.

Jones’s downward elbow was clearly intentional.

Whether he intended to break the rules is irrelevant. A fighter could avoid that easily by simply not knowing the rules. Jones clearly intended to throw the downward elbow – he threw it several times in an attempt to get past Hamill’s protective cower – and that makes it an intentional foul.

Yes, Hamill couldn’t continue because of the shoulder, but he arguably also couldn’t continue because of the elbow. Mazzagatti needed to make that call pretty quickly, and it was in Hamill’s interest to be non-communicative to help Mazzagatti along to that conclusion.

It was an intentional foul, so all those remakrs about accidental fouls don’t apply. Jones didn’t accidentally reposition his arm to throw downward elbows.

I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.

by Llewdor on Dec 9, 2009 2:43 PM EST reply actions