Mustapha Al-Turk to Appeal UFC 99 Result Against Mirko Cro Cop
by Kid Nate on Jun 15, 2009 5:54 PM EDT
in News
55 comments
From Fighters Only:
Mostapha Al-Turk's management say they will be launching an appeal against the result of their client's fight with Mirko 'CroCop' Filipovic.
...
"We are going to appeal that, we don't think its right that it should be a TKO. The referee should have got onto the eye poke," said Al-Turk's agent Ken Pavia. "Look at Henderson v Franklin at UFC 93 in Dublin. Franklin got a timeout when he got eye-poked.
"With the fight taking place in Germany we aren't sure what the protocol is, but we will put our appeal in writing and see what we can do."
Anthony Johnson tried to appeal his eye poke loss to Kevin Burns at UFN 14 in 2008. The Nevada Athletic Commission infamously turned that down due "to lack of remedy."
Since there is no athletic commission in Germany the UFC will likely be in position to make that ruling. I imagine their decision could be influenced by the state of negotiations with Cro Cop.
HT Fightlinker
UPDATE: MMA Payout has this find from the UFC contract:
Any and all Bouts that occur in a jurisdiction or country without an Athletic Commission shall be conducted pursuant to the statutes, rules and regulations of the State of Nevada in effect at the time of the Bout, including, but not limited to, the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts (the "Nevada Rules"); for the protection of the health and safety of the Fighter, to promote fairness in the administration of the Bout, and to preserve the integrity of the sport of mixed martial arts. In its sole discretion, ZUFFA may utilize the Nevada Rules in the oversight of any Bouts that occur under this Subsection 4.7. Fighter may appeal any advisory opinion by ZUFFA regarding any violations of the Nevada Rules relating only to Bouts that occur in a jurisdiction or country without an official government mandated Athletic Commission to an independent third-party arbitrator or arbitration panel selected pursuant to the guidelines developed by the American Arbitration Association. All costs and fees associated with an appeal taken pursuant to this Section shall be the exclusive responsibility of the Fighter. Regardless of where a Bout occurs, in no event shall a Fighter have any right to appeal a decision by ZUFFA relating to the UFC Title or the UFC Championship belts.
The way I read this, the Anthony Johnson-Kevin Burns decision in which the Nevada State Athletic Commission decided there is nothing in their rules that would allow a fight to be overturned in these circumstances would seem to shut down Al-Turk's case pretty quick.
UPDATE 2: MMA Weekly reports:
Marc Ratner, UFC Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Monday told MMAWeekly.com an appeal was not possible.
"It's very simple," said Ratner. "By the unified rules... first of all the referee didn't see the foul. What you're asking is can we go to instant replay. You're saying now that the fight's over, can you take a look at it? If the referee had seen the finger and stopped the fight immediately, he could have given a stop for five minutes to recover, and then if (Al-Turk) couldn't have gone on, it would have been a no-contest."
...
"In any sport, a judgment call cannot be overturned," he continued. "It's one of those things that happens, but nobody saw it around the Octagon until the replay."
0 recs |
55 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Ken Pavia is also Anthony Johnson’s manager, he should know better.
by who me on Jun 15, 2009 6:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
More like Al-Turk and Johnson should know better…
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jun 15, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Johnson fight was completely different. He got poked in the eye on several occasions, with Burns being warned multiple times by the official. The final eye-poke was so blatant, the outcome was hideous. This was a case of Cro Cop dominating a fight, then landing an accidental eye-poke that basically just expedited the inevitable.
by Popetastic on Jun 15, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not referencing the eye pokes at all.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jun 15, 2009 9:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They might just be trying to keep Al Turk in the UFC – make a case that the eye poke made the fight unfair and justify giving him a third fight rather than just booting him now that he’s served his purpose.
by MMAEruption on Jun 15, 2009 6:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
From what I read, where there is no athletic commission, the rules applicable in Nevada apply…as such, sorry Al-Turk, a reversal is not in the cards
by mjw2e on Jun 15, 2009 6:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Keith Kizer was sitting cageside, but it’s not clear what jurisdiction they have other this.
by Luke Thomas on Jun 15, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If DREAM can screw Mayhem by declaring a legal move illegal
Then why can’t this happen?
by subo on Jun 15, 2009 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
what
If anything they screwed over Jacare out of a DQ win by calling an obviously intentional soccer kick unintentional.
by George Lucas on Jun 15, 2009 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it was a brain lapse on Mayhem’s part – it’s Japan, they allowed soccer kicks, it’s easy to confuse. Thought it should have been a DQ, I don’t think Mayhem meant to break the rules, he just forgot the kick was illegal, like a UFC fighter forgetting elbows aren’t universally accepted.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Jun 15, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whether or not Mayhem forgot the rules, he pretty obviously soccer kicked the head of a downed opponent with full intent.
by George Lucas on Jun 15, 2009 9:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea I don’t think the “I forgot the rules” defense is very effective.
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
by Day Man on Jun 15, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, and I agree that it should be a DQ win for Jacare – I’m just saying it’s not due to malice, for what it’s worth.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Jun 15, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously
you a) Don’t know the rules of DREAM, and b) Didn’t see the freaking geyser of blood coming of of Jacare’s face. It’s not like a Hari/ Bonjasky ending, where Remy could’ve potentially continued fighting; Jac tried to continue, but the cut kept bleeding.
Supporting all Las Vegas MMA. Xtreme Couture FTMFW.
'09 is the year of the FW's.
by ElliotMatheny on Jun 15, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He still could have fought – I don’t think it was in his eyes, but I might be wrong about that – anyway, UFC fighters have bled worse and kept going, and even won (Sherk, Struve, Dewees) – I think it was more Japanese TV being squeamish about showing it.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Jun 15, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lytle bled like a stuck pig and his fight with Koscheck was allowed to reach its logical terminus.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jun 15, 2009 8:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a scalp wound man, they don't stop bleeding.
It wouldav been like mud wrestling if they allowed it to continue except with bloody guys.
And in reply to subo, my understanding (and the way the previous matches were called) a knee to the head of a downed opponent is ok, just not a kick (which this clearly was).
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 9:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was wrong. Thought the PRIDE rules carried over. My bad.
by subo on Jun 15, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Learn the rules of the promotion before you comment on it.
=)
by MMASuPreMaCy on Jun 17, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the link Nate, as always it’s much appreciated.
Regarding the appeal, I think this ends up the same way as Johnson’s did. I definitely understand fighters wanting the result to be overturned, but if a call is botched in an NBA, NHL, NFL, or MLB game the result isn’t changed and I don’t think it should be in MMA either. Granted, there are review processes in each of those sports to one extent or another but MMA is a different animal where a missed call can result in a fighter being unable to continue from the foul itself or from what transpires afterward. All of the other sports can be corrected after a mistake, making the score correct, adjusting the clock, etc. but that’s often impossible in MMA.
The only simple alternative I can think of that might be feasible for MMA is to have officials watching replays to look out for eye pokes and fouls of that nature that should result in a 5-minute allowance and, if still unable to continue, a no contest or DQ victory (depending on the circumstances). If the referee misses a call the horn/‘bell’ could sound and the issue could be immediately addressed. This is far from optimal, but is the only way this problem could be addressed in MMA as I’m afraid allowing results to be overturned for a referee missing a foul is a dangerous road to go down as it could eventually be argued to include overturning fights for early stoppages, missed tapouts, etc.
If I was in the wronged fighters’ situation I can definitely understand wanting the result to be overturned, but crafting rules that would be specific enough to limit the circumstances under which a result could be altered would be nearly impossible.
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 7:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And the official ruling has just be delivered as expected: the result won’t be overturned
http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8979&zoneid=1
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 7:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeap.
"In any sport, a judgment call cannot be overturned," he continued. "It’s one of those things that happens, but nobody saw it around the Octagon until the replay."
by Nick Thomas on Jun 15, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bullshit.
I don’t think it would have changed the outcome (CC was getting the best of him anyway), but Miragliotta should have seen something was wrong when Al-Turk covered his face, not his whole head.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by themachiavellian on Jun 15, 2009 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only way the outcome would have been different is that crocop would have had a real knockout instead of one tarnished by the eyepoke. On that night he could have been in the running for knockout of the night.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
by MonkeyCHops on Jun 15, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can’t call the foul unless he actually sees the foul happen, a guy covering his face doesn’t cut it.
by who me on Jun 15, 2009 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our opinion is irrelevant it’s what the rules say. If refs started calling fouls they didn’t see happen then it would be very easy for fighters to just fake fouls by pretending they happened. If ref doesn’t actually see the foul then he can’t call the foul and that’s just how it is.
If you want to argue that athletic commissions should do something about missed calls after the fact then that is a completly different subject but for the ref in the ring they can only call things they see happen.
by who me on Jun 15, 2009 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Logically and scientifally speaking you don’t always need to visualize something in order to prove it happened. It is one of many considerations. Conversely, just because you see something (a finger close to an eye) doesn’t allow you to know with 100% certainty that an eye was damaged.
However, you make a very good point that “if refs started calling fouls they didn’t see happen then it would be very easy for fighters to just fake fouls.” This would be an area where instant replay could be very useful.
Lastly, I think that athletic commissions should do something about missed calls in cases such as this.
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With the significance the result of a single fight can have, I think there needs to be some new precedent set with things like this. I mean, immediately after the end of the fight, everybody knew it was unfair, yet the result stands. I dunno, video replays….god knows what, but any loss that, even with hindsight, can be proven to be brought about by an illegal move or strike should be ruled a NC. I know its rife with drama, but Al Turk losing the way he did just doesnt sit well with me.
by GeeDub on Jun 16, 2009 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know how no one saw that, I thought it was pretty obvious.
My friend even pointed out that Crocop was throwing open handed punches and predicted an eyepoke right at the start of the fight.
Its silly to compare it to other sports cus its not the same.
The fact is that fights would be better and results would be better if there was someone watching a feed somewhere with the ability to quickly review the replay and overturn the call.
I dislike Matt Hughes.
by MonkeyCHops on Jun 15, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I mentioned above a comparison with other sports is hard because MMA is so unique, but I was just mentioning them to present how unique a replay would have to be in MMA. Replay could be done with someone reviewing a feed but like the other sports there’d need to be strict rules regarding when and how it’s implemented.
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replay is an interesting idea
but in this case (and i think most cases) it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Off the top of my head, times when it might make a difference:
1) A fighter lets go of a submission b/c his opponent was tapping out but the ref doesn’t see it and the opponent denies it.
2) A fighter gets KOed by a kick to the head as he is standing up but it is unclear if he was completely standing or still on a knee.
Can you think of others b/c I can’t.
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, I don’t think it mattered as it appeared Cro Cop was on his way to a knockout before the eye gouge.
Not exactly along the same lines as your examples, but replay could also be used when a foul is improperly called such as when a fighter sells a foul to get the 5 minutes to recover when no foul was actually committed. For example, shots to the back of the head are called but not actually to the back of the head or a groin shot is called but it’s to the leg or stomach instead. In most cases you have to trust a fighter when they say they’ve been hit in the groin, etc. as replay is likely to be inconclusive but video could help in some instances.
Owner and Editor, MMAFrenzy.com
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes no sense. Fair enough it was a judgement call, but it was still wrong, if the referee had seen the eye poke he would have given al Turk time to recover. If someone gets hit with a low blow and the referee doesn’t see it, then KO’d when they drop their hands surely the end of the fight would be overturned no?
In football(soccer) decisions are made after matches have taken place if the referee admits they missed an incident. If the referee makes a call during the match, nothing is done afterwards. So if a player punches someone during the match, they will get a ban as long as the referee missed it. Why can something similar not happen in a situation like this? The ref missed the eye poke so make it an NC.
Just saying that it was a judgement call that can’t be overturned is bullshit.
by StevenGiles on Jun 15, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks man
always happy to link to good info.
"the spirit of your average dumbass with more overblown rhetoric" OR "the self-appointed savior of MMA"
by Kid Nate on Jun 15, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess Crocop should appeal Kongo’s ball slaughter as well.
by grein on Jun 15, 2009 8:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I can’t help but agree with Al Turk. His loss should be appealed.
by goodbones on Jun 15, 2009 8:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Did the fight go long enough to go to the scorecards after an unintentional foul?
If not, then this decision should be changed to a no contest. We are setting a dangerous precedent.
But what bothers me the most is that Miragliotta’s incompetence (i do not use this word lightly) is excused as a “judgment call” and something that “nobody saw… until the replay.”
WTF???? Are you kidding me? You don’t have to see Cro Cop’s finger going into Al Turk’s cornea to know that something was amiss. Fighters simply do not react to a punch like that (unless it broke their eye socket but then the match shouldav been stopped.)
Granted, I don’t expect the drunk casual fan to be able to pick up on this in a split second but I demand referees be able to: That is their job. Miragliotta clearly failed to protect a defenseless Al Turk and it seems that nobody cares.
Although I am furious at Miragliotta, I do not want to scapegoat him because the problem is bigger than him; it is a systems issue that needs fixing.
Do refereeing have any oversight? Any training? Any standards? Any conferences to discuss mistakes? Does anybody know? And if not, isn’t that a lack of transparency and a problem in and of itself?
Based on the number of times we talk about referees fuckin up, I am willing to say the answers to my questions is a big NO. It is mind boggling. They have the fighter’s safety in their hands but don’t seem to know what they are doing. I can think of no other professional group that is allowed to act in this way.
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 8:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
No it didn’t go long enough. In order to be scored a three round fight has to be in the third round before the foul and the scoring is for all three rounds (two full + one partial. For a five-rounder it must happen in the fourth or fifth to go to the scorecards, otherwise it’s a no contest.
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nevada rules ftl.
There must be at least one athletic commission that does allow post-fight corrections. If there isn’t that’s sad with all the instant replay going around in sports.
From Kizer himself on the Anthony Johnson case:
Based on advice from the Nevada Attorney General’s office, the appeal was rejected due to lack of remedy
Changing the bout to a NC??? That would make too much sense!
So in other words Mustapha you’re up shit creek, without a paddle, listening to Cher, while you get stabbed in the eyes. Tough luck.
by Sokonojudo on Jun 15, 2009 9:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
From what I understand, it is mainly due to betting.
A man should never waste an opportunity to keep his mouth shut.
by iiowyn on Jun 15, 2009 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So how does Vegas deal with a win changed to a NC
due to something like a post fight steroid test?
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the fight is ruled a NC at the time of the fight then everyone gets their $ back. If it’s later overturned (steroids, diaz pot,etc.) then w.e the original decision was stays. I THINK that’s what happens.
by Sokonojudo on Jun 15, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, the decision made on the night of the fight is all that matters for bets. If it’s later overturned it doesn’t matter for betting purposes.
For example, when Karo Parisyan won over Dong Hyun Kim people who made bets on Parisyan collected. Even though it was later changed to NC there was nothing that could be done.
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nevada allows post-fight result changes, but only in very specific circumstances. Here’s the rules (from a comment left on my Anthony Johnson linked in the above post):
NAC 467.770 Change of decision after contest or exhibition; factors considered by Commission. (NRS 467.030) The Commission will not change a decision rendered at the end of any contest or exhibition unless:
1. The Commission determines that there was collusion affecting the result of the contest or exhibition;
2. The compilation of the scorecards of the judges discloses an error which shows that the decision was given to the wrong unarmed combatant; or
3. As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.
NAC 467.850 Administration or use of alcohol, stimulants, drugs or injections; urinalysis or chemical tests; disciplinary action. (NRS 467.030)
6. A licensee who violates any provision of this section is subject to disciplinary action by the Commission. In addition to any other disciplinary action by the Commission, if an unarmed combatant who won or drew a contest or exhibition is found to have violated the provisions of this section, the Commission may, in its sole discretion, change the result of that contest or exhibition to a no decision.
Those are the only four ways the result of a fight is changed to a no contest. At present missed fouls don’t matter, according to the NSAC rules.
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a lawyer but I'd like to think that this would fit under #3
and what are #4 and #5 anyway.
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 10:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s my understanding that #3 would apply if, say, the referee didn’t know eye gouges were illegal and allowed them to be used freely to win a fight by, lets say, verbal submission. This shouldn’t have occurred because the strikes were to have been illegal and the result could be changed.
In this situation Dan Miragliotta knew an eye gouge should have resulted in a temporary stoppage or no contest depending on the severity of the injury but simply didn’t see it. Rule #3 would apply if he had seen the eye gouge (not knowing it was illegal) and allowed the fight to continue and Cro Cop to get the TKO. This rule would allow the result to be changed to an NC, but doesn’t apply to what actually happened because the rules were understood, the foul was just missed.
Rules 1, 2, and 3 are from one section on changing results while 6 is from a section on drug testing, which is why I separated them but hopefully this clears that up.
You can read the MMA rules for Nevada in their entirety here:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nac/NAC-467.html
Owner and Editor, MMAFrenzy.com
by kriskarkoski on Jun 15, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for the clarification. very helpful. apparently, i have a problem with the rules.
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 16, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do you think is going to happen
when every foul is declared unintentional and when there is no post fight remedy. That’s right, fighters will start to take the rules lightly. For example, instead of thinking “hey maybe i should make a fist so I don’t accidentaly deliver an eye poke and get in trouble” they will not care. Is there no deterrent?
I could also see a fighter who is being dominated try to fight dirty knowing that even if he gets caught multiple times, there will likely be no repercussion.
I really don’t want to see this sport go down that route.
by fuzzy wuzzy on Jun 15, 2009 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely. Right now we have at least two very clear examples of fighters eye poking their way to victory. There is no logical reason (“those are the rules” is not logical) for this to happen when we have cameras everywhere.
by koroshiya on Jun 16, 2009 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What needs to happen is to have a way for a fighter to signal to the ref that something like an eye poke has happened. Covering your face and turning around isn’t the right answer – that just looked like his nose was hurt or something.
Don't believe a word I say, I don't train BJJ. -- TangleBones
by jemaleddin on Jun 16, 2009 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I just don’t understand why the ref didn’t see the eye poke. It was blatantly obvious. He didn’t take a significant blow and the way he was covering up it was obvoiusly an eye poke. This should definitely be overturned as an NC. Same with the Johnson fight, although we saw what happened with that whole situation, it’s total BS.
by GetItOn on Jun 17, 2009 3:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 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.
