Press Row with Sherdog's Jordan Breen: Fixing the Officiating Crisis in MMA
Last night I was on Press Row with Jordan Breen on Sherdog.com to discuss problems with officiating and judging in MMA. It's an oft-discussed topic, but honestly, one I haven't written much about. Like most people, I've wailed and complained with each and every horribly rendered decision, late stoppage, or clear conflict of interest. But with Breen guiding the conversation, I've been able to piece together some thoughts about the problem, its history, and how we might fix it. Ten thoughts:
I. Officiating in the UFC has been a mess from the beginning. Who can forget the very first UFC with Joa Alberto Berreto not stopping the Royce Gracie- Ken Shamrock match despite Ken tapping the mat several times. And Barreto was a Helio Gracie blackbelt, a man who had been an instructor at the Gracie Academy with Carlos Gracie himself, a man who had been a Vale Tudo fighter, who had been an official before - it's not just ignorance or bad training. Sometimes people just freeze. And sometimes they are bad at their jobs.
II. In some ways it's a great thing for a small commission to bring in John McCarthy or Herb Dean. They have a ton of knowledge to share and it's one area a smaller commission, which is going to be overwhelmed, understaffed, and ill prepared, doesn't have to worry about. On the night of the fight, "Big John" can simply say 'Guys, I've got this.' And the commission can move on to other business. But I maintain, in the face of Breen's pragmatic reasoning, that there is too much potential for fraud if officials are counting on promoters to earn a paycheck. New Jersey told me their rule is simple. If you request an official it is guaranteed that official won't be assigned, because the prospects of collusion and impropriety are so strong. Not to question integrity - but it's inherently suspicious.
III. Keep in mind I'm not saying John McCarthy doesn't have the fighter's safety in mind. He, by all accounts, is a very good referee. But John McCarthy isn't an impartial person and John McCarthy doesn't always untangle the webs that cocoon him. And he hasn't always been clear about his preexisting biases and relationships.
Look, it was ludicrous for John McCarthy, starting at UFC 2, to officiate Royce Gracie matches. He was a Gracie student and was involved in their business, to my understanding, as an instructor. He also helped secure teaching gigs with the police department - I mean, when Gracie fought Keith Hackney or Kimo, or whoever, "Big John" clearly wasn't impartial. So he kind of started on the wrong foot for me, ethically.
IV. Here's another example of a time McCarthy might have been more proactive in removing himself from a potential conflict of interest - at UFC 8 in Puerto Rico, Tank Abbott got into a situation with Alan Goes in the crowd. John's wife Elaine said something to Tank's girlfriend and Tank ended up threatening her. Multiple sources told me John wanted to fight Tank Abbott that night. And they succeeded in getting him suspended for several shows. Yet when Tank returned, there was Big John....reffing seven more of Abbott's fights. The thought of recusing himself never crossed his mind. To me that's not a well defined sense of what is an isn't appropriate.
V. While I agree judging is a very important issue, I think officiating is even more important because of the safety issues. When a judge makes a bad decision, feelings are going to be hurt. When an official makes a mistake, bodies are going to be hurt. To me, that's a much more serious consequence, but generally refereeing in MMA seems to be well in hand. There are two officials, Dan Mirgliata and Steve Mazzagatti who are pretty conservative when it comes to stopping fights. In fights like Frank Mir-Shane Carwin or Jay Hieron-Georges St. Pierre, the ref can actively endanger fighters. And it's problematic to me that our two biggest celebrity refs, John McCarthy and Herb Dean, can't even agree on what the back of the head is. But for the most part, fighters are well taken care of inside the cage. That's my primary officiating concern and mixed martial arts is at a place where fighters can breathe easy, knowing that in the major leagues at least, they are in good hands.
Five more thoughts after the break
VI. We have the Unified Rules but they aren't enforced uniformly. And we don't have uniform training. What I'd like to see is a national program to teach judges and referees their trade. I don't mean one of these commercial products sold by a celebrity official - I'm talking about a real program designed by the Association of Boxing Commissions and mandatory before anyone ever sits cageside or gets inside the Octagon. Officials and judges should learn the sport from the same curriculum and to a national standard. Right now the ABC strongly suggests officials come to a seminar -but can't mandate it. And frankly that's not enough.
VII. I called Nick Lembo's office in New Jersey because they have what is in my opinion the best athletic commission in the country. And they are getting MMA right - 61 of 63 scorecards at UFC 128 were on point...so they are doing something right as far as looking at the same criteria and making the right calls. While identical scorecards doesn't mean the right decision is being made, it does point to judges understanding the criteria and analyzing the visual data the same way. That's a good start.
VIII. Some keys to New Jersey's success:
A. Separate the boxing and MMA operations.It seems obvious, but most people making important decisions on MMA cards are boxing refugees. That has to change.
B. Hire mixed martial artists. They have Ricardo Almeida joining them as a judge and Gasper Oliver is an up and coming ref who had amateur MMA experience and was a high school wrestler.
C. Walk before you run policy: start with a seminar, spend several shows as an assistant inspector, shadow amateur judges, judge amateur cards, shadow pro judges, judge lower level pro cards. By the time someone like Oliver is ready for a major card, he's been tested hundreds of times.
D. Courses are not enough. Thinking you know the sport - not enough. You have to prove it under fire. New Jersey requires it and it's important other states do the best they can to get officials substantive experience before they are assigned a meaningful bout.
IX: There are two wildy divergent positions about the state of MMA officiating and judging. I talked with Marc Ratner once after Machida-Rua I in Los Angeles and even in the face of that travesty, he was clear that there is no MMA judging crisis. Any system, any sport, under any rules, when something is close - there will be disagreement. That's almost a mantra for Ratner and his protege Keith Kizer in Nevada. Nick Lembo from New Jersey had the opposite view point. He doesn't believe MMA officiating is where it can or needs to be. Very different positions from the sport's two most respected regulators.
X. There are four systems that make sense when you start thinking about judging fights and declaring a winner:.
1. Fight to a finish (i.e. old UFC rules)
2. 10-9 Must System (i.e. boxing and unified rules)
3. Totality of the fight (i.e. Pride)
4. Nelson Hamilton's half point system.
I prefer the 10-9 must system, understanding that the modern sport doesn't allow a fight to the finish. The problem with 10-9 must is definitional. What is a 10-8 round? What is a 10-9 round? In Kalib Starnes vs. Nate Quarry, Starnes literally ran for much of three rounds. One judge scored 30-27 Nate and one scored it 30-24 Nate. There seems to be no consensus about what defines a 10-8 round. In boxing it is simple - a knockdown.With MMA everything is more complicated. Dominance and damage seem to be the main criteria. But what does that mean?
And that brings us back to training. A national standard, one that ensures every judge and official are on the same page when it matters most, is an important first step in getting things right.
143 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kalib Starnes/Nate Quarry*
"Unless you can’t think of something intelligent to say, don’t reply and make the world as dumb as you are appearing to be." - mabel4life
by lowellthehammer on Apr 20, 2011 11:08 AM EDT reply actions
guys named nate all look the same
http://fightdrinker.blogspot.com
by some schmuck in texas on Apr 20, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
More cheese, less whine
Seriously, comes off as “Wahhhh, wahh, Big John, wahhhhhhhh”
by AngryTwinkie on Apr 20, 2011 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it’s just me…but Jon doesn’t take a single shot at McCarthy. He says that it’s great for smaller promotions to use him to help them run things, but that it’s a bit of a conflict of interest (it is), he says that he shouldn’t have been the ref for his instructor’s bouts (he shouldn’t have) and he says that he shouldn’t have been the ref for those Tank bouts (he shouldn’t have). If anything Snowden is pointing out that the system is flawed, not that “Big John” did anything wrong.
Managing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 20, 2011 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
i agree
saying someone should not be reffing a bout because they have a conflict of interest is not the same as saying they are incapable of doing so, or did a bad job. jon never once says that.
the system has to not only be fair, it has to be seen to be fair. that’s the issue.
this is a great article, thanks jon. i think you are maybe too easy on the judges though, but i see you’re trying to be fair.
by Clifford J on Apr 20, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Disagree
Points 3 & 4 are criticisms and don’t establish a point.
by JAYGK95 on Apr 20, 2011 12:50 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Well, yeah. They’re not ten suggestions to clean up the system. Just ten bullet point thoughts.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
But it’s within the scope of fixing officiating. Not “fixing Big John”
The fact that it was UP to John is the issue
Managing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 20, 2011 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Can't agree with your view...
Within the context of fixing officiating, he makes a statement that argues Big John’s judgement and/or ethics are poor in deciding to officiate. That’s an almost offhanded criticism which may not have been the main thrust of the discussion, but it casts negativity on Big John for sure.
I think it comes off as him making a point that there’s potential conflicts of interests and then showing direct examples of a conflict of interest from the past. Big John just happens to be the one of the longest tenured and most well known refs, so it’s easier to find and point out situations like this.
I like most of these points. Officials in any sport disagree on some of the finer points of their sport, so I don’t think that’s really a problem in MMA. Big Jon and Herb Dean may disagree on what exactly constitutes the “back of the head” in much the same way umpires disagree on what constitutes a ball/strike.
It's a much bigger deal in MMA.
It’s a safety issue. Calling a ball a strike has never resulted in brain damage, at least not directly.
I missed the slash at first and read it as "ballstrike".
I immediately thought:

"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
That’s a lot of negatives surrounding Big John’s work, but what about what he actually did in the cage? You can say that he had a propensity toward a bias in a number of occasions, but did his performance actually show it?
@rask4p on Twitter
Keep in mind I’m not saying John McCarthy doesn’t have the fighter’s safety in mind. He, by all accounts, is a very good referee.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 20, 2011 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I think if a new ref were to have these kind back stage issues action should be taken. I would absolutely want that person taken off of any fight that they would have a strong cause for bias. When you bring up John McCarthy, it’s a different story because he earned his reputation when the sport was anything but mainstream. Given the state of the sport at the time, Big John represented the best choice for the sport even with the issues that came along with him. No one was really looking too hard at the ligitimacy of the ref when there had only been a few events that had judges.
The bottomline, while Big John may not have always been the right person to ref a fight on paper, he has built a very solid reputation based on his in cage performance. It would be tremendously unfair to judge him in the context of modern MMA when the environment that produced him was so different. He has proven himself and regardless of potential bias he has not displayed it in his performance.
@rask4p on Twitter
Past performance is not indicative of future behavior. Any time you see a commercial selling gold coins or collectibles of some sort, you see a similar statement. Saying “Hey, it doesn’t look like he was complicit in any ugly stuff before, I’m sure he never will then!” shouldn’t allow him to be grandfathered in to participate in a sort of activity that is actually illegal in boxing.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
What is ridiculous? That this is illegal to do in boxing? Even in crap commission states a promoter can’t just input his own ref. You can’t honestly believe that you can leave the door open on corruption and anticipate that no one will go through it.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
The statement that past performance is not indicative of future performance is ridiculous. It’s not a garentee, but it’s the best indicator of future performance we have. I mean gravity could reverse, but we don’t live our lives waiting in fear of the day that reverse gravity kills us all.
I know I ran on a bit in my previous post, but when I said
‘I think if a new ref were to have these kind back stage issues action should be taken. I would absolutely want that person taken off of any fight that they would have a strong cause for bias.’
I was making an agrument as to why this applies to new refs, not McCarthy as he was able to establish his reputation in a time when the sport accepted this type of behaviour. He has not shown a bias in the cage to my knowledge and that’s an important point.
@rask4p on Twitter
Things change, people change. Past performance isn’t an excuse for allowing a conflict of interest to exist. It’s not about BJM it’s about the fact that it shouldn’t exist for any official in the sport regardless of who they are, no one should get a pass on this one.
People do change and as I’ve said below the ref’s obligation starts and ends with whether or not they feel they can perform their job inside the ring. Managing outside expectations is the job of the commission. I do think that the ref has an obligation to disclose any potential conflict of interest to their commission, but if they feel they can be fair then there is no need to recuse themselves.
@rask4p on Twitter
That should be for the commission to decide not the ref (if a ref is planning on acting on a conflict of interest in his job then he isn’t going to honestly recuse himself from the position he’s just going to try and get away with it without being caught). If there is a conflict of interest then the commission should deal with it before there is any chance of it becoming an issue and not leave it in the ref’s hands to make a moral decision. Just assign the official to a different bout where the conflict of interest doesn’t exist.
Absolutely. A ref’s obligation is to make any potential conflict of interest, beyond that it’s the commission who has to weight the potential bias with the logistics, etc.
@rask4p on Twitter
that phrase
is most closely associated with super investor Warren Buffet who includes it in every memo he sends to his stock holders.
The philosopher David Hume proved the truth of the statement in the 1700s.
The past may be our only guide to the future but there is no reason to believe it has absolute predictive value.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
From a purely philosophical perspective it’s logical. So is suddenly having reverse gravity. When we hire people we ask for a resume for a reason.
@rask4p on Twitter
That has nothing to do with this issue though. Would you allow McCarthy to bet on fights he is about to ref? Hey he has a sterling reputation so why not?
Lots of places won’t allow relatives of managers to be hired even if that relative has a wonderful resume and manager has no history of favoritism towards relatives in the jobplace. There are lots of places that won’t allow a supervisor to date an employee that is directly under them and their past performance as a supervisor has nothing at all to do with the regulation against it. They don’t say “well since you don’t have a history of trading sex for promotions it’s alright for you to date your secretary”. Just because you have never robbed a bank before it doesn’t mean that the bank is going to let you hang out in the vault and fondle the money.
I think that’s a bit hyperbolic given that we’re not talking about such clear cut issues of bias. When there is an active persuit of bias on the part of the ref it becomes much more obvious that they should not be involved in the fight. If the bias is only potential it becomes more up to the discretion of the commission, etc.
@rask4p on Twitter
If one of the fighters has a beef with your wife...
it seems like it would be difficult to treat him fairly if you’re the ref.
Having direct business dealings with one of the fighters is a blatant clear cut conflict of interest. John McCarthy was a trainer for the Gracie’s at the time of the fights mentioned above. It’s a much more clear cut issue of a conflict of interest than the ones in my examples. The fact that he wanted to fight with Tank Abbott for threatening his wife is also pretty damn blatant.
The issue isn’t whether there was bais from the official during a bout because it should never get to the point where there is even a risk of that, if there is a conflict of interest then they should get another ref and avoid even the possibility of there being an issue. An official with a conflict of interest should never be assigned to a bout that put him in that kind of situation to start with, by the time you have to wonder if he acted on a bais or not during a bout the system has already completely failed.
That’s not ridiculous at all it’s how it should be. A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest regardless of the character of the official involved, present conflicts of interest should be avoided even by people which sterling past reputations.
It depends on the individual situation. It’s a ref’s obligation to recuse themself if they cannot perform their duty effectively (due to a bias in this case). If there is a percieved bias that the ref does not feel warrents recusing themself over, fighters can always lobby the powers that be. It would be different if we had some example of bias showing up in the cage, but these guys are innocent until proved guilty.
I agree that the outward perception of bias matters, I just think that’s something that needs to be managed by the commission or, in the worest case, by the promotion (if there is no commission). A ref’s job is to perform their duty inside the ring, regardless of outside perception.
@rask4p on Twitter
No the conflict of interest issue is supposed to be dealt with before an official is assigned not due to one fighter complaining after a fight. It’s not at all an individual situation it’s how things should be for every single official across the board. McCarthy isn’t special and he doesn’t deserve special treatment due to the fact that he hasn’t been caught taking advantage of a conflict of interest in the past, what goes for all officials goes for all officials. No official deserves special treatment to bypass what others are held accountable for.
I agree. I just don’t think that the ref has any obligation beyond disclosing potential conflicts to the commission and recusing himself if they feel unable to do their job without bias. When I said it’s an individual situation it was a poor choice of words, ‘It should be taken on a case by case basis’ would have been better.
@rask4p on Twitter
Bringing this back to the article, the implication that McCarthy should have recused himself in a number of occasions is off base imo.
@rask4p on Twitter
Are you saying this from a purely humanistic standpoint or what? I’m confused. Its not like there was oversight in the early days to prevent him from doing this.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is really
that if he hadn’t been a good guy, the system would have allowed him to exploit it.
Even if he wasn’t a good guy, the system can still be exploited. Plenty of bad eggs have rolled through combat sports in its regulated history in this country.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, when Gracie fought Keith Hackney or Kimo, or whoever, “Big John” clearly wasn’t impartial. So he kind of started on the wrong foot for me, ethically.
Care to expand on that, Jonathan?
I think he wrote a couple paragraphs explaining that.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ve read pretty much the whole thing; where does he say anything about how Big John clearly wasn’t impartial in fights involving Hackney or Kimo?
Someone can be biased towards someone (Gracie) and still be a professional and be impartial. Without concrete examples, what Jonathan wrote is just a bunch of words without meaning, IMO.
Now, if Jonathan meant that there shouldn’t be an apparence of bias, and that Big John shouldn’t have been refereeing any fight involving Gracie (or his wife’s enemy, or whatever), that’s another thing, and I might agree. But to say that Big John clearly wasn’t impartial without giving specifics, that’s just wrong.
He’s saying that Big John was effectively a guy with a direct business connect with the man in the cage fighting Hackney and Kimo. I don’t see how difficult that it to understand.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it’s just me, but I think there’s a big difference between having a personal bias towards someone and actually be biased in how you act professionally.
Let me put it this way, if you didn’t know that Big John had trained under Gracie’s, would you have guess it based on his performances as a referee for the UFC? Did he do anything that would make you believe he’s not being completely impartial?
that's not the point
Big John had a clear conflict of interest in those fights — ie his employers and business partners stood to make much more money from a Royce win than a Royce loss.
Judges recuse themselves from trials everyday for much less than that.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
by Nate Wilcox on Apr 20, 2011 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s fine, and I understand that.
But did Big John ever do anything to suggest he wasn’t being impartial in a fight?
I think it’s just the way Snowden worded it.
I mean, when Gracie fought Keith Hackney or Kimo, or whoever, "Big John" clearly wasn’t impartial.
I read it as: He wasn’t clearly biased in his actions (at least as far as I could tell), but his history/association with the Gracies clearly demonstrated a bias.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
There was every reason to believe that BJM had the potential for bias in any Royce Gracie fight in any tournament he reffed that included him in the pre-SEG takeover days (UFC 1-4). I don’t see what’s difficult to understand that or that it is a genuinely bad thing to continue having today.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Just because he was a good guy and didn’t take advantage of the situation (again, as far as I could tell) doesn’t mean that (a) he can’t change his mind and do so in the future, or (b) you can continue with the same practices and hope that everyone else is as nice as BJM.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
It doesn’t matter, Shnak. What we’re talking about is precisely why, it should be noted, Big John didn’t get licensed in Nevada for a long, long time.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions
?
Big John never had trouble in Nevada over those issues. His licensing problems started after he quit reffing and started talking publicly about his disagreements with the NSAC.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
And also publicly revealed his biases and opinions about fighters and fights. That is troublesome – an official shouldn’t share their opinions about fighters publicly and McCarthy opened that can of worms with the Fight Network.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 20, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
He was still not an impartial official whether he acted on his bias or not. It’s not his personal credibility at question it’s the credibility of a system that would allow anyone with a conflict of interest like that officiate to start with. Even if BJM rose above that inherant partiality and acted in an impartial manner as a official it doesn’t change anything at all about the situation that allowed him to be in there to start with.
But in the "wild west" days
When it was a Gracie run event, and Gracies were fighting, and Gracies were paying the Ref, even The Jesus himself would have had a conflict of interest due to the setup.
SOMEBODY had to get in there and Ref the fight. That same somebody got paid by the Gracies/Promotion.
by hardlyworking on Apr 20, 2011 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right. The entire early days of the UFC were arguably a colossal combination of conflict of interest that exploited laws intended to protect only boxers and not martial arts competition in poor commission states. Does it make it any better though that McCarthy was under every day payroll for the Gracies?
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
And they needed someone who knew what BJJ was… can you imagine having a boxing referee in there with a “deer caught in the headlights” look everytime a guy was about to get a limb broken or choked to death?
If ESPN told you in advance of an NBA playoff game tonight that the refereeing crew for that game had just agreed to a dead with the home team to participate in some sort of community outreach program for a significant sum of money, would you say, “Hey, that doesn’t matter unless it changes the way they ref the game”? No. Of course not. Royce won those two contests fair and square, but who knows how it might have gone if Kimo had beat him up more, or if Hackney had been more successful in powering out of submissions like he had for the early part of the fight.
The point he’s making is that it looked bad then (because it was) and it still looks bad now. At the time that the UFC’s early shows happened, you should have seen the refutations out there on the internet about how the Gracies were stacking it in a manner so that they could win the tourneys and were intentionally ducking having amateur wrestlers of note enter the tournaments. You can go on USENET’s archives on Google Groups and sort through posts on rec.martial-arts if you want.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions
as my boss says
“we cannot even have the appearance of a potential conflict of interest”
by stiffUpperLip on Apr 20, 2011 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
One time at a grappling tournament I heard a dad dressing down his 6 year old with this gem: “I told you not to leave it in the hands of the judges.”—very nice.
by casey manrique on Apr 20, 2011 12:06 PM EDT reply actions
I think Lembo
is spot on and not just about judging. No matter what you do in life if your opinion is “It’s fine, we don’t need to get better” (Kizer) then you fucking suck at your life. Even if judging and reffing were MUCH MUCH better and nobody was calling for an overhaul that right answer would ALWAYS be “There can be improvements and can get better and we continue to endeavor to do so”.
Why I never joined a frat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KNVrZaN8M
"Don’t quote old fucks to me" – Brent Brookhouse
"A samurai would bite your cock off if you tried that shit on the battlefield." - Kid Nate
by Chris Barton on Apr 20, 2011 12:06 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Agree with most of this, however...
I think the problem of using McCarthy during the early UFCs is to assume that the initial UFCs were run from a neutral standpoint. They were set up largely to promote Gracie jiu-jitsu as you yourself have written about. It wasn’t necessarily ethical to have Big John referee, but then the ideology behind the UFC wasn’t necessarily ethical to begin with.
A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do.
by Obviously5Believers on Apr 20, 2011 12:20 PM EDT reply actions
There were a few voices in the wilderness complaining about McCarthy not having a spot with NSAC for years and years. I’ll be the first to admit I wasn’t one of those guys because, honestly, I think that when he’s on, he’s the best referee in the business. But yeah, there’s some definite conflicts of interest going on. Its part of a greater issue with the structure of MMA in the US.
MMA Junkie also had an article up yesterday about Lembo arguing that the lack of a real amateur system in MMA hurts the ability to bring up judges. Of course, he’s right, but the average internet goon doesn’t give a damn about amateur bouts, creating a unified amateur system, protecting amateur MMA fighters, or anything else related to MMA outside that which is presented by big promoters. Unless the UFC wants to involve themselves in that, it won’t change either.
To be fair, Big John reffed Royce’s fight with Matt Hughes. He showed zero favoritism twards Royce and reffed the fight just like any other.
There are definetly some awful ref’s out there, and probably some shady ones too. But I don’t think McCarthy is one of those. I don’t agree with a lot of the things he says/does, but that’s neither here nor there. He’s one of the very few ref’s I’ve ever heard admit to a mistake. That ranks very highly in my book.
Larry Landless is still the worst ref I’ve ever seen, followed closely by Jon Shorely.
In the clearing stands a boxer And a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of ev'ry glove that layed him down Or cut him till he cried out In his anger and his shame "I am leaving, I am leaving" But the fighter still remains
Larry Landless is still the worst ref I’ve ever seen, followed closely by Jon Shorely.
Those guys are awful, but they are nowhere near the worst refs I have ever seen.
The worst refs I have ever seen are the ones at local MMA shows who can’t tell the difference between the scarf position and a legit choke, or a guy actively working to improve his position and a guy catching a few Z’s while in his opponent’s guard, or any of a thousand other mistakes that endanger fighter safety out of sheer ignorance.
That goes without saying. There’s always been local shows where the ref has no idea what’s going on. I was reffering to ref’s in “the big show”, where you would expect them to at least be, you know, competent.
In the clearing stands a boxer And a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of ev'ry glove that layed him down Or cut him till he cried out In his anger and his shame "I am leaving, I am leaving" But the fighter still remains
I agree that local level shows are the ones I am most concerned about from a safety perspective.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 20, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
And it shouldn’t be suprising that two of the people who were killed in MMA fights were both on small local shows.
In the clearing stands a boxer And a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of ev'ry glove that layed him down Or cut him till he cried out In his anger and his shame "I am leaving, I am leaving" But the fighter still remains
If a referee/judge can’t participate in a fight because he has direct relationships with the family of one of the fighters, what about those that come from a specific wrestling/boxing/bjj background? Should a judge from a boxing background be juding a fight where one of the fighter clearly prefers to keep it standing? Wouldn’t that judge have a bias towards the stand up fighter? Or what about a guy like Almeida, can he judge a fight between a BJJ guy and a stand up guy? How do we know he won’t be biased against the stand up guy?
Its a completely worthy subject given how often ex-kickboxer Cecil Peoples likes to stand up fighters from the ground and how he scores bouts. But it is not nearly the kind of direct business conflict of interest that is represented by BJM’s participation in UFC 2-4 or even comparable to a “celebrity ref” being paid $5K and getting a suite at the casino hotel to referee fights for a particular promoter.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 12:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Bias is bias. Apparently, we can’t have bias, at all. It’ll be hard to find referees and judges completely without bias, IMO.
Of course. Everyone will have some level of bias. Having a level of bias and having a financial stake in the winner are two different things though.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Beat me to it.
This.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
I’m not sure why this is hard for some people to understand. BJM didn’t have a problem because he liked BJJ or was a fan of Royce it was an issue because he actually was in business with the Gracie family and had a financial interest in them looking good. It would be almost like McCarthy placing a bet on the fight before going out to officiate it.
Who else could’ve reffed those fights, though? They needed someone who knew BJJ to understand what the heck is going on. We have judges in 2011 who have no clue what’s going on once a fight hits the floor, can you imagine how little BJJ as known back in 1993??
A guy with a background in judo could have just as easily done it. Bart Vale could have done it. I could come up with more names.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions
But why both doing that when the early UFC were specifically designed to showcase BJJ over other martial arts?
This is the heart of the conflict of interest re: BJM reffing those first few UFCs
When I'm on the mic it goes down, CINTRON
-Joell Ortiz
by The Lethal Haze on Apr 20, 2011 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
McCarthy ref’d Gracie vs Hughes fight too, this isn’t just an issue from the wild west days of the sport it’s something that happened in 2006 too.
And why not? By then, McCarthy had more than proven that he was an unbiased referee and that he was the best referee available.
To be fair, the business aspect of that relationship had changed at that point.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 20, 2011 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Because if something is wrong for an official to do then it’s wrong for every official to do, McCarthy shouldn’t get special treatment in being imune to conflict of interest situations just because he is Big John McCarthy. Would you allow such conflicts of interest with a ref that wasn’t BJM? I don’t give a rats ass about BJM he isn’t the issue he’s just an example of something that shouldn’t be allowed for any official of any standing in any sport (and isn’t allowed for anyone in most sports). If your argument here is that McCarthy is somehow special or above the rules that everyone else is supposed to follow then that’s just moronic.
Oh I agree on the promotion picking and choosing their referees and judges, something’s not right about that…
But if we’re saying Big John shouldn’t have refereed fights involving Royce, then I don’t think Almeida should ever judge a fight that involves a primarily BJJ guy. Fair is fair.
Big John’s job as a BJJ instructor was predicated on Royce looking good because Royce was his boss, dude. They’re not even close.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
And I think people can be professional enough in doing their job. And BJM clearly was professional enough. As I said earlier, he wasn’t the judge of those fights, he was the referee. The referee doesn’t decide who wins or loses, he makes sure both fighters are safe and obey the rules.
The referee doesn’t decide who wins or loses, he makes sure both fighters are safe and obey the rules.
Who stops the fight on a TKO? Who stops the fight if someone taps? The referee definitely decides who wins or loses.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
That is stupid.
All the referee does is follow the rules, that’s it. If a guy taps, referee stops the fight. If a guy is getting ground and pounded and can’t get out of it, the referee stops the fight. In both cases, the fighters themselves decided who won.
If a ref misses a tap (intentionally or otherwise), it totally changes the outcome of the fight.
If a ref decides a fighter is or isn’t doing enough to intelligently defend himself, that totally changes the outcome of the fight.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
A different referee
And Shane Carwin is HW champ.
Contributor at cagepages.com Come check us out.
Head Kick Legend
by Neil Manich on Apr 20, 2011 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
With a bad referee, sure.
Lesnar was nowhere done, most of Carwin’s punched landed on his arms, and only 3-4 shots landed flush on Lesnar, including a big elbow, and Lesnar never seemed out of it.
I know having a 280 pounds guy swing away at another guy can be impressive, but if all he’s doing is hitting the other guy’s arms, the fight shouldn’t be stopped.
The referee doesn’t decide who wins or loses
Bullshit, a ref has the ability to stop a fight or let them go, they very much have that ability.
Did Shane Carwin beat Brock Lesnar? Would he of beaten Lesnar if there had been a different ref? The ref is who makes the decision when it’s time to stop a fight and when to let them go and that decisision has been proven time and time again to affect who actually wins the fight.
Same goes with submissions.
See: Chael Sonnen’s verbal submission to Filho, the Bustamante-Lindland fight mentioned below, or the supposed tap in the 2nd round of Coenen-Carmouche.

"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
FWIW, I’ve never thought Chael verbally submited in the first Filho fight. He let out a yelp of pain, which wasn’t uncommon for him – he flat out screamed when Babalu had him in an ankle lock, yet didn’t tap and survived until the following round.
I didn’t have a particular problem with Rosenthal stopping the fight, but I also don’t believe Chael verbally submitted. It was a technical submission in my eyes – Rosenthal was saving Chael from getting his arm broken.
In the clearing stands a boxer And a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of ev'ry glove that layed him down Or cut him till he cried out In his anger and his shame "I am leaving, I am leaving" But the fighter still remains
I've never actually seen the fight in its entirety.
I’ve seen bits here and there and read about it, but from what I gather it’s a controversial stoppage in that Chael claimed afterward that he didn’t submit. Plenty of what-ifs after that, but it just points out that refs have a great deal of influence on how a fight ends.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
The real issue was that Chael claims he wanted to continue but the ref made the judgement to stop the fight. The ref did decide who the winner was (although the criteria was most likely to save Chael from physical damage). Ref’s decide who wins and who loses fights all the time.
Another example is Werdum vs Vera. Werdum had Vera mounted and Vera decided that he wasn’t getting hurt and to just ride out to the end of the round but the ref decided that he wasn’t doing enough and ended the fight. That ref stopped the fight and decided who the winner was on his own judgement of what he was seeing where-as another ref may of let Vera ride it out till the end of the round.
Another one just occurred to me.
Sakuraba-Silveira.
And what you said, re: physical damage, even that’s subjective. Look at the GSP-Hardy submissions – the ref could’ve stopped the fight in the name of fighter safety to prevent Hardy from having his arm broken, but he didn’t. Granted, GSP won anyway, but again – what if?
Beating a dead horse at this point. Behind the fighters themselves, I’d say the person with the most influence over the winner/loser of a fight is the ref.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
Why would anyone believe Chael?
“Sonnen after the meeting wrote me a long e-mail and he told me he wasn’t honest with people after the (Paulo) Filho fight (in the WEC) and he had verbally submitted” -Kizer
Chael is a lying bitch.
“Sonnen after the meeting wrote me a long e-mail and he told me he wasn’t honest with people after the (Paulo) Filho fight (in the WEC) and he had verbally submitted” -Kizer
Wow,
I saw that fight but didn’t notice the tap there. That’s nuts. Good for Coenen that she ended up winning anyways.
Xtreme Couture- The best never rest!
"I swear it upon Zeus an outstanding runner cannot be the equal of an average wrestler."
-Socrates
by ElliotMatheny on Apr 21, 2011 6:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Nice Write up... the one time clearly that I've seen Big John mess up..Big time
was at UFC37 High Impact in the main event.. 1st round Murillo has a tight arm-bar on Matt Linland..Linland taps… Big John.. tells Murillo to let go.. then Lanland said he didn’t tap.. Big John stands them up.. tells them to fight again.. THANK GOD! Murillo choked him the 3rd round.. he basically had to go out and beat Linland 2x that night to keep his 185lb UFC belt. ( When I met Big John in NYC.. I told him that was the only time that I saw him mess up.. he looked at me.. and said .. yep ) In a MMA world filled with white belt refs.. at least Big John got his black belt as a ref.. + Herb Dean and Yamasaki..
Everytime Big John talks about fights he “screwed up”, the Bustamante-Lindland fight is the first one he mentions. Says he feels horrible as he forced Bustamante to win twice that night.
In the clearing stands a boxer And a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of ev'ry glove that layed him down Or cut him till he cried out In his anger and his shame "I am leaving, I am leaving" But the fighter still remains
by Brian Mayes on Apr 20, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Any system, any sport, under any rules, when something is close – there will be disagreement.
While I fully agree with this statement it doesn’t mean that there isn’t real room for improvement. No matter what they do with officiating in MMA when a fight is close there will be controversy(particularly on the internet). That doesn’t excuse some of the absolutely nutty judges cards (like Douglas Crosby’s 50-45 score from the first Penn vs Edgar fight or the more recent Chuck Wolfe 30-27 card for Joe Warren) or the fact that basic rule interpretations differ from ref to ref. The idea of national training and making sure everyone has a common understanding of the system is a great start for fixing a lot of these issues.
I give him props.. out of all the times he's ref'd a fight
to have one mess up like that.. that I can remember. .is a pretty good track record.. we’re human.. at least he’s not a stupid human.. In that fight I will forever be a Murilo Bustamante fan! That’s a champion.. and Dana’s favorite BJJ UFC guy ever.
This is a talk I had with him.. I believe around the begining of 2009.. I asked him.. what was up with that Roy Nelson / AA fight?? Whats up with that ref Roy Nelson in side control.. attacking an arm.. going to mount and you stand them back up?!?!?!!? We both agreed that was a DUMB call.
And knowing what we do now about how many promoters apparently favor bringing in their own refs, here’s a question: Who appointed NJ ref Dan Mirgliotta to work a fight in FL for EXC? Was he licensed in that state and simply got the call asking to participate on that card due to his experience on big shows? Or did EXC/Affliction fly him down and pay for him to specifically referee that fight? Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 20, 2011 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Never thought i'd say this
I agree with every point you made Jon, well said. (no offense)
Breen seems to have a very clear and legit stance on these issues as well from what i’ve read.
I'm Don Frye and you're not - Don Frye
IMO
1. Reffing and judging are two separate issues, and one is much worse than the other. I wouldn’t even come close to listing BJM as a top ref anymore. Rosenthal, Herb Dean, and Jason Herzog are money
2. Most reffing issues come down to standardization, just like judging. When do you give a warning vs. taking a point for fence grabbing or striking a downed opponent? MMA will always be plagued by standard-issues because every state will have to agree and implement an official law in accordance with one another. That’s why the unified rules are a fallacy. There are NOT unified. Even in the last Strikeforce, the broadcast said the unified rules were in effect, but CA has a very different twist on them.
3. Doug Crosby is probably the best judge in MMA. Let’s say his score for Edgar x Penn 1 was the worst in MMA history and not even debate it. That’s 1 controversial score out of about 100 fights in 10 years. He’s got a 99% accuracy rate (but only the 1% is what people remember).
4. The Half Point is a joke and provides absolutely nothing the Ten Point doesn’t. It’s like handing a judge who can’t use a hacksaw a laser-sighted electric Skil saw. The Ten Point has NEVER even been used properly. 10-10 and 10-8 are hardly ever used, and we wonder why the system fails when we ignore certain critical functions of it.
5. Snowden nailed it with simply defining 10-10, 10-8, and 10-7 rounds and using them. It’s that simple.
6. MMA already has an “overtime round”. It’s the 3rd. Once the score is straightened out, fighters and their corners should have a fairly logical idea of what the score is or could be (worst case scenario) leading into the last round. They should know if they have to finish the fight or not based on the first two rounds.
7. I strongly disagree that fighters are the answer to proper judging. Anyone who understands MMA and the scoring system is what we need; if that’s fighters, great, but it doesn’t have to be. I asked Edgar and Penn before their second fight at the press conference about who they each thought won the control portion of their first fight. Both flat out admitted they had no idea what control was or how it was scored, and they were the #1 and #2 LW’s in the entire universe at the time.
8. Scoring grappling is easy. Almost every controversial MMA fight has taken place mostly on the feet, so the stand-up portion of MMA is by far the most difficult to score. The measures are broad and subjective (higher volume and effectiveness of strikes plus dictating the pace and location) vs. grappling and clinch measures having very tangible and inarguable definitions (passing guard, advancing position, threatening with subs, reversing, sweeping, etc.)
I have written volumes and babbled endlessly in many different articles, and also interviewed Ratner, George Dodd, Keith Kizer, and Nick Lembo many times if anyone is interested.
Formerly known as Leonard Washington, as in: "I smell your Light Saber."
by Dallas Winston on Apr 20, 2011 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
That was actually a lunch-time break rant
So forgive the spelling and grammar errors.
Formerly known as Leonard Washington, as in: "I smell your Light Saber."
by Dallas Winston on Apr 20, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Links
Doug Crosby’s Judging Record on MMA Decisions.com
http://www.mmadecisions.com/judge.jsp?id=39
California’s twist on scoring MMA rounds (George Dodd Interview):
http://thegarv.com/George-Dodd-Clarifies-California-s-MMA-Round-Scoring.html
Why Wrestling Dominates the Scoring Criteria
http://thegarv.com/Wrestling-Dominance-In-the-Cage-In-the-Rules.html
How Almost Every Controversial MMA Fight Took Place Standing
How the Ten Point Has Never Been Used Correctly
Formerly known as Leonard Washington, as in: "I smell your Light Saber."
by Dallas Winston on Apr 20, 2011 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Thanks
Kid Nate
Formerly known as Leonard Washington, as in: "I smell your Light Saber."
by Dallas Winston on Apr 20, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Good write up DGW.. One thing I can't stand in scoring..
It kills everytime I hear Joe Rogan.. say " That takedown just won him the round ".. regardless if the takedown comes and goes no where.. what gets me too.. is when a fighter doesn’t want to fight standing or on the ground.. just goes in and out.. scores a takedown.. doesn’t nothing with it.. to me that’s being timid.. your not willing to engage too much in any one facet of the fight.. to trry and end the fight.
Ah, yah ... on board
I hate to needle commentators for every little thing, but that does drive me crazy. For example, I think it would be more proactive for Joe Rogan to share his opinion on how that one single takedown that led to zero offense should not outweigh the rest of the round, rather than make it a “roll of the dice” kinda thing.
I credit the Bellator guy for scoring Warren-Galvao correctly. There was one fight where Shlemenko was owning someone from his guard, and I remember thinking it was a very clear example of how you could still win a round from your back, but then he said “tough one to score because the judges love that top position”. Not a big deal, because commentators catch shit anytime they express an opinion, but it’s just a little thing that irks me.
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Apr 21, 2011 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions
Wasn't that...
Grabowski? Unless Schlemenko did it too. If so, I missed the fight.
"I am going to punch faces." --Wanderlei Silva
War Miller Bros.
Dodd/Mousasi/Jardine
I enjoyed the article, though I have one qualm. Only one judge gave Jardine the 1st round. Abe Belardo gave Jardine the second round, not the first, which therefore decided the draw… and which is crazy.
"I am going to punch faces." --Wanderlei Silva
War Miller Bros.
Without getting into specific round scores
he is correct in that Mousasi would have won if he didn’t foul.
The thing that I found most controversial about that fight was the immediate point deduction for a fairly timid foul, and mostly, the announcers riding Mousasi’s jock too hard.
Jardine controlled the first 3 minutes of the fight, and the first time Mousasi actually put together a combo that landed and Jardine backed off, Gus Johnson was all “Jardine IS EXHAUSTED!!! He’s just trying TO SURVIVE!!!”
"A philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind; as a spirit of daring and experiment that has already lost its way once in every labyrinth of the future; as a soothsayer-bird spirit who looks back when relating what will come." -Nietzsche
by Dallas Winston on Apr 21, 2011 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I do agree
With most all of your points. The foul was pretty lame. Jardine was completely fine until the ref stepped in. I was trying to ignore all the commentary; The whole event had terrible commentary. Though really, Jardine was running a whole lot in the fight. Either way, it was officially the second round that was scored for Jardine on Abe Belardo’s scorecard and which made it a draw… That’s insane. (Disclaimer: I’m a fan of both guys, I usually root for Jardine in his fights.)
"I am going to punch faces." --Wanderlei Silva
War Miller Bros.
Simple solution-- minimize the subjective element from judging!
MMA is made up of component disciplines that pretty much all have quantifiable criteria in their own incarnation. Jiu-jitsu and wrestling have detailed, highly defined point systems (as does karate, judo, and any other of the ‘secondary’ disciplines that make up the sport). Boxing and kickboxing have their ten point must systems and variants of such that clearly define what makes up an effective attack (and, indeed, olympic boxing computerizes it).
So, I mean, how hard would it be to first educate judges on the criteria for the component martial arts, then develop a system that attempts to equalize them across the disciplines.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Apr 20, 2011 1:38 PM EDT reply actions
So, I mean, how hard would it be to first educate judges on the criteria for the component martial arts, then develop a system that attempts to equalize them across the disciplines.
Extremely. While each of the component systems has its own judging criteria, how do you weigh them against one another? That in and of itself is very subjective. How many punches equal one takedown? And within those punches, how many jabs equal one power punch? How do you rate a power punch vs. a leg kick vs. a slam vs. a guillotine attempt vs. a guard pass? Trying to put numbers to a sport like this with so many variables is nearly impossible.
Not that they shouldn’t try to be clearer regarding judging criteria, but removing subjectivity is unrealistic.
"Ellismania is, along with the black President, a symbol of the future." - Mayhem Miller
Tweeter!
i said minimize subjectivity. you can do this by first defining precisely what is a scoring move in each component discipline, which conveniently enough has already been done by the disciplines themselves. so for grappling, for instance, achieving and maintaining mount is a major scoring move. in boxing, a knockdown is a major scoring move. so it wouldn’t be that hard to roughly equate effective moves across disciplines. you could make a rough effectiveness scale for each, in terms of what that discipline defines.
take boxing:
1. FINISHING MOVES— knockout or tko
2. DAMAGING MOVES— knockdown or shots that would cause a standing 8 count
3. EFFECTIVE MOVES— power punches, volume punches
4. PRODUCTIVE MOVES— jabs, smart defense, ring control
the same could be applied to jiu-jitsu:
1. FINISHING MOVES— submission or tko
2. DAMAGING MOVES— dominant position such as mount or knee on belly, near-submission
3. EFFECTIVE MOVES— advancing position from guard to side control, etc, sweeps & reversals
4. PRODUCTIVE MOVES— takedowns, maintaining position
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Apr 20, 2011 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions
minimize the subjective element = fight metric
It’s just not possible to judge a fight completely objectively. “Judging” in and of itself is a subjective action.
judging is the act of applying a certain criteria (“judicial” judges apply the law, etc.). it’s not subjective in the sense that it’s just based on the whims of the judge. even beauty contests have well-defined criteria for beauty that the judges must apply. some judges are better at applying criteria than other, and subjectivity does come into play when you talk about interpreting gray areas, but fundamentally judging should not be nearly as subjective as it is in mma.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Apr 20, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmmm
- if all it takes to get an official to NOT be assigned is to request that official, then the UFC can get rid of all the guys it doesn’t want. Specifically request Cecil Peoples for every UFC event, please!
by Arca MMA on Apr 20, 2011 3:27 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Jordan Breen's Press Row...
is the best MMA meta-analysis on the web. MMA is uniquely open to this level of dissection due to the gray areas presented by having a promotion in place of a league’s body, having the participants considered “independent contractors” and having officiating handled by ill-informed and underfunded government agencies. Having entire articles or fan discussions in other sports about proposed content for competition committee meetings and the like are rare, and what makes communities such as Bloody Elbow so great, especially when compared to the stereotypical “Just Bleed”-Affliction wearing set.
Good job Snowden- this episode was an awesome listen.
by John Danaher's Hair on Apr 20, 2011 4:01 PM EDT reply actions
One of your best articles
Snowden, I usually don’t like your writing (no offense), but I found this article useful and cogent. Thanks for the insight. Great points on the old UFC issues and bias. I hadn’t thought about that aspect of the issue.
My biggest issue is having just one referee
I liked that Pride had refs outside the ring where they could see fouls, taps, etc that the ring ref could not see. the Unified Rules would do well to adopt the addition of another referee as part of the officiating team…also NCAA collegiate wrestling championships use 2 refs.
Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja moves from the government?
"That dude was legit, ponytails are a sign of nobility." TheFilt™
why do you say that?
As an audience, we can see what is happening on this side of the cage but the referee can’t. I’m talking about ‘against the cage’ situations when a referee can’t see all the angles, on things such as submissions (like the Anthony Lapsley – Jay Heiron fight), or fouls that a ref unfortunately can’t see from their vantage point (grabbing the cage, grabbing the shorts). An outside the cage ref can point out these things to the main cage official.
Who's the only one here who knows illegal ninja moves from the government?
"That dude was legit, ponytails are a sign of nobility." TheFilt™

by 
























