Fining fighters for ignoring ref stoppages

by thetakeover on May 31, 2009 11:28 AM EDT

In scotty33's fanpost discussing Yves Lavigne's role in the Bradley-Nover debacle, it became clear that Yves was trying to stop Bradley, who ignored him, so Yves had to back off to avoid an upkick, at which point Bradley realized he should have quit while he was ahead and appealed to Yves for the stoppage.

There was even some suggestion that Yves should only be allowed to ref welterweight or below, since he's not strong enough to stop a fighter physically larger than himself.

I say it's time to put the responsibility back where it belongs: on the athletes.

Bradley should be fined.

Rampage should be fined x2.

Babalu should be banned from the UFC for life.

Unfortunately, I don't have the skillz to make these GIFs, so I just took them out of the aforementioned post/comments from Scotty33. If anybody has any other GIFs of fighters refusing to stop when the ref jumps in, post them in the comments.

Also, I understand that sometimes a fighter may be in the act of throwing a punch when the ref tries to stop it, so there is definitely some discretion. I'm talking about the second or third shot, or the choke for two or three extra seconds.

Poll

Should fighters be fined for delivering additional violence after a ref stoppage?

Yes

59 votes

No

7 votes

66 votes | Poll has closed

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 35 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Another would be BJ/Pulver

So i’m onboard with the banning for life, ;)

by Storeo on May 31, 2009 12:03 PM EDT reply actions

rampage – i think the first punch can qualify as one that was started before the ref called it, second one was way late

by starvin on May 31, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions

How about Sokodjou at DREAM?

by ufc4 on May 31, 2009 1:32 PM EDT reply actions

So he’d be banned from the UFC but not Strikeforce?

The UFC loses in that situation, if they had actually wanted to retain Babalu.

by bigweeze on May 31, 2009 1:43 PM EDT reply actions

I disagree, no way Babalu makes as much fighting in Strikeforce (or anywhere else) as he would in the UFC.

by ufc4 on May 31, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Babalu made 90k (60k/30k) for two separate Affliction shows, his previous contract called for 25k/25k vs. David Heath.

Banning a fighter from a specific promotion to create some sense of justice is just a ridiculous idea on many levels.

by bigweeze on May 31, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

And on which show do you think he made more in sponsorships? Plus the UFC deal was 2 years ago, if he was still fighting with them he most likely would have gotten a raise by now. Not to mention Affliction salaries are just so wildly out of line that they really can’t be used for comparisons against other promotions. The UFC has held over 100 events, Affliction has held 2 and their next one will most likely be there last so he won’t be making that kind of dough with them again.

by ufc4 on May 31, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Try and come up with a system, I guarantee it will be riddled with holes.

by bigweeze on May 31, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions

How about AC suspensions for that shit?

A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.

by iiowyn on May 31, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Banning Babalu is a bit extreme, methinks, otherwise this is a great idea. A punch or two while the ref is pulling a fighter off is fine, it takes some time to switch fight mode off, but struggling with the ref to continue the punishment is unacceptable.

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

by Scott C. Broussard on May 31, 2009 1:48 PM EDT reply actions

Frank Shamrock

held his choke on Baroni for a few extra seconds ala Penn-Pulver II and Babalu-Heath. There’s a gif of that floating around somewhere.

by Scott Haber on May 31, 2009 2:52 PM EDT reply actions

Percentage of purse deductions could also be worked into contracts.

by nitro on May 31, 2009 3:09 PM EDT reply actions

Babalu was fined $25,000.

by ufc4 on May 31, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Was that money given to David Heath?

by GeeDub on May 31, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions

It was just withheld

It was supposed to be his win bonus.

AWmusic - mp3 blog on independent music..

by achengy on May 31, 2009 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions

$25k seems an appropriate fine. In retrospect, I was too casual about banning for life. That should be withheld for someone who attacks the ref or brings an uzi into the cage.

A wise man told me don't argue with fools
Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who

by thetakeover on May 31, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Yup. Banning is excessive punishment for a first offense, unless it is some crazy 15 punch combo, push the ref away continue wailing away type post win assault. The offending fighter should be made to give up 25%-50% of his purse to his opponent as well as any win bonus. That would be a sufficient punishment.

by GeeDub on May 31, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions

Forget that

Babalu jeopardized every inch of progress MMA has made with that stupidity. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: if you want to threaten the growth of the sport and give ammunition to the forces that would like to see MMA banished back to the Dark Ages just to prove a fucking point, then do it in someone else’s cage.

by Derek Suboticki on May 31, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions

What I never understood is why it wasn’t stopped when Babalu elbowed half of Heath’s face off. He wasn’t fighting back, he bloodied half the floor, and barely defending himself. There was no real reason for it to get to the choke in the first place.

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

by Scott C. Broussard on May 31, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions

So you want Rampage banned for life? Or just Babalu?

by GeeDub on May 31, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions

If you truly can’t see the difference between the two acts, I can’t help you.

by Derek Suboticki on May 31, 2009 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions

Ill assume just babalu then, shall I?

by GeeDub on May 31, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions

It’s almost like you somehow know a) there’s a difference and b) which was worse.

by Derek Suboticki on May 31, 2009 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions

You’re confusing the hell outta me dude. I just asked if you think Rampages strikes after the ref stopped the fight warranted a banning or only Babalu’s choke being held to long. Pretty straight forward question I though. Apparently not.

by GeeDub on Jun 1, 2009 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions

Yeah. Only Babalu’s choke. Holding a submission after the guy has tapped/gone limp and the ref is ripping your arms away from his neck is a little different than being lost in the moment after a huge KO and hitting the guy once or twice after the ref has touched you.

by Derek Suboticki on Jun 1, 2009 4:34 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree with tougher sanctions for holding chokes too long, but I dont know what life bannings achieve for a first offense. Those kinda things happen so infrequently that there really isnt cause for legitimate concern that its gonna happen again, so banning isnt gonna be used to prevent it. The other reason would be to ease public criticism or promote and image of intolerance to such dangerous practices. I think serious fines and perhaps even suspensions would achieve the same thing as a banning in the eyes of the media and the majority of the viewing public. Whatever it is though, it needs to be made clear that fighters stop when the ref ends the fight and excessive punishment is better than a slap on the wrist.

by GeeDub on Jun 1, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Which is more dangerous?

I guess the question is: Which is more dangerous, an extra bunch or depriving an unconscious body of oxygen for an additional four seconds?

The other part is that Babalu holding the joke for an extra 1 … 2 … 3 … seems somehow more willful because the punching motion can be a combo whereas the choke is a very deliberate act.

A wise man told me don't argue with fools
Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who

by thetakeover on May 31, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

That last punch from Rampage was absolutely willful and deliberate and unquestionably after the ref stopped the fight. Neither one was likely to do permanent damage, but if I had to bet on one I’d say punching the already concussed guy in the head again has a slightly greater chance.

by FRANKIE on Jun 1, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Not a bad idea for deliberate cases. There might be some trouble working it into contracts, though. I’m sure some fighters would be nervous that it would be a controversial rule.

This is probably my last BE post until I get back from Lebanon (probably towards the end of July). See you handsome bastards then..

I poop rainbows.

by Charles Awad on May 31, 2009 3:27 PM EDT reply actions