Let's play "what if?" for a moment. Imagine Frankie Edgar doesn't land the uppercut that sent Gray Maynard stumbling back toward the fence. The round ends with Edgar taking his third decisive round. Maynard, after hearing an earful from his corner about his offensive output, comes out spirited in the final frame and wins the round. Ruh roh, right?

Nope. The above image is the scorecards from last night's main event. While Douglas Crosby correctly scored the first round 10-8 for Gray Maynard, judges Nelson Hamilton and Cecil Peoples both awarded Maynard a 10-9. Had the above scenario played out, Edgar would have won a majority decision, with Crosby holding the dissenting draw card.

UFC President Dana White announced that the promotion would move on from Edgar-Maynard regardless of the result. But it makes one wonder what would have happened had Edgar won an undeserved decision.

And, of course, shame on Hamilton and Peoples. I've railed against the half-point system since its inception, and this is precisely why. If we can't trust judges to correctly award a 10-8 round, what makes us believe they'll be able to implement finer gradients? (And one only needs to look at the Jimmo-Sokoudjou MFC fight on Friday for further proof that the half-point must system isn't going to fix bad decisions.)