Is it against the rules to Grease?

Underground
21

ChrisPayne - Additional Kizer said "the amount of Vaseline he saw applied didn't seem terribly excessive"


A)Something Kizer said to the media after his preliminary look at the situation does not necessarily bind the final decision of the commission as a whole.

B)It could be argued semantically that it is possible for something to be "excessive" but not "terribly excessive".

22

japetto - It doesn't say that you can't cover your body in feces either. 



LMFAO

23

Ah but if you covered yourself in Feces you would not look clean and tidy, so this important rule covers that problem

24

I agree that nothing Kizer has said is in any way binding. However it is also equally clear that you can put some level of grease on your body, and that there is no distinction between body and face.

It will of course remain to the board to decide if excessive levels of grease were used. I still think we need a more vigorous application of the clean and tidy rule.

25

It never explicitly stated that you CAN put some level of grease on your body, it just states that you CAN'T put an EXCESSIVE amount on. As I stated, the purpose of vaseline is to protect your face, and it could be argued that ANY applied directly to the body is not normal and unneeded (excessive).

26

catchascatchcant - Dictionary definition of "excessive" is "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal". Having grease applied to your body is not usual, proper,necessary, or normal.




Nor is it to your face. We're talking MMA here, not going out to head to the grocery store.

It is allowable to apply grease to your body per NSAC rules, just not an excessive amount. NSAC officials resolve excess water or grease between rounds by toweling off the fighter. This is what occurred.

27

This is the big confusion for me. People think Nurse should be banned, suspended, or fined. People are calling Jackson's camp cheaters.

The gif's clearly show Nurse wiping vasoline on GSP's face. Then maybe some residue on his neck, chest, and a point on his back. ASSUMING there was still ANY vasoline on Nurse's hands, the rules say there is nothing wrong with this.

The rule prohibits "excessive" use of vasoline. Many are complaining that "excessive" is never defined. That is not a problem in this instance. The NSAC addressed this on the spot. If the residue that Nurse puts on GSP's neck, chest, and back was "excessive", it was remedied when GSP was wiped down and deemed able to continue.

This seems to be a HUGE deal on the UG, but I really doubt this is anything to the real parties involved. By the letter of the law, this should be a complete non-issue.

28

catchascatchcant - It never explicitly stated that you CAN put some level of grease on your body, it just states that you CAN'T put an EXCESSIVE amount on. As I stated, the purpose of vaseline is to protect your face, and it could be argued that ANY applied directly to the body is not normal and unneeded (excessive).



Face and body are used in the same sentence in the rule. You can't use excessive amounts of either.

It would be absurd to suggest that the wording would mean that excessive means excessive for the face, but excessive actually means none whatsoever for the body.

29

I would argue that applying vaseline to your face IS "usual", and could therefore fit a definition of not being "excessive". I still don't see where you've proved that it is allowable to apply grease to your body per NSAC rules, because you can't prove that greasing the body is not considered by the commission to be an excessive usage of grease.

30


Face and body are used in the same sentence in the rule. You can't use excessive amounts of either.

It would be absurd to suggest that the wording would mean that excessive means excessive for the face, but excessive actually means none whatsoever for the body.


It's not absurd because you still haven't pointed out any logical flaws with my hypothetical interpretation of the word "excessive", and the commission is free to interpret that word however they want to. It is within their power to find him in violation of the rule.

31

bktwothree -If the residue that Nurse puts on GSP's neck, chest, and back was "excessive", it was remedied when GSP was wiped down and deemed able to continue.


It was not remedied at that point, because some was applied between rounds 1 and 2, and it was never wiped off until later in the fight. Wiping him off did not erase the changes in the fight that the grease could have made in round 2, or the implications those changes may have had in later rounds of the fight.

32

"As I stated, the purpose of Vaseline is to protect your face"

It is a bit of circular logic to state that the purpose of Vaseline is to protect your face, therefor it would be unusual to put in on your body, therefore it is illegal to put it any on your body.

The rules state "The excessive use of grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face or body of an unarmed combatant. The referees or the commission's representative in charge shall cause any excessive grease of foreign substance to be removed." With no mention of special treatment of the face vs the body or statements to the effect that the purpose of Vaseline is to protect the face.

33

ChrisPayne - "As I stated, the purpose of Vaseline is to protect your face"

It is a bit of circular logic to state that the purpose of Vaseline is to protect your face, therefor it would be unusual to put in on your body, therefore it is illegal to put it any on your body.

The rules state "The excessive use of grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face or body of an unarmed combatant. The referees or the commission's representative in charge shall cause any excessive grease of foreign substance to be removed." With no mention of special treatment of the face vs the body or statements to the effect that the purpose of Vaseline is to protect the face.


I'm not saying my argument proves that he violated the rule, I'm saying that because they don't operate like a court of law, they could POTENTIALLY use a similar argument find him in violation of that rule. Just look at how commissions have run things for their steroid trials, they can pretty much do what they feel like.

34

Chest and shoulder hair = not tidy, Arlovski knows best :o)

35

This is true, however they could just as easily find that Clay Guida did not look clean and tidy with that long hair, and have his fight ruled a no contest. There I think they would have a firmer basis for the ruling since he really did not look clean and tidy.

To say that the commission was attempting to ban all Vaseline use on the body, and so wrote the following provision

"the excessive use of grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face or body of an unarmed combatant. The referees or the commission's representative in charge shall cause any excessive grease of foreign substance to be removed"

seems a little odd, if you wanted to ban all Vaseline use on the body would you not write

"the excessive use of grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face and no amount of grease or other foreign substance may be used on the body of an unarmed combatant. The referees or the commission's representative in charge shall cause any excessive grease of foreign substance to be removed"

36

I agree, but there are a LOT of things that seem odd about their rules. As I posted earlier, I think they need a major overhaul. The current rules as they are suck, but I feel that they have the power to potentially find him in violation if they so choose even with the rules they have now. I actually care much more about them changing the rules for the better, and not so much for them issuing a punishment in this case. Clearly, only the cutman should be able to use vaseline, and only on the face. Just as clear is that many of the rules as they are now are not written as well as they could be.

37

catchascatchcant - 

Face and body are used in the same sentence in the rule. You can't use excessive amounts of either.

It would be absurd to suggest that the wording would mean that excessive means excessive for the face, but excessive actually means none whatsoever for the body.


It's not absurd because you still haven't pointed out any logical flaws with my hypothetical interpretation of the word "excessive", and the commission is free to interpret that word however they want to. It is within their power to find him in violation of the rule.



The "logic" you use is circular, and is based upon the NSAC not having to use logic and thus can come up with any ruling they want. In that case, any fight that's ever taken place can be overturned at the whim of the NSAC, who isn't bound by logical interpretation of the rules they've published.

38

Hardcharger - 
catchascatchcant - 

Face and body are used in the same sentence in the rule. You can't use excessive amounts of either.

It would be absurd to suggest that the wording would mean that excessive means excessive for the face, but excessive actually means none whatsoever for the body.


It's not absurd because you still haven't pointed out any logical flaws with my hypothetical interpretation of the word "excessive", and the commission is free to interpret that word however they want to. It is within their power to find him in violation of the rule.



The "logic" you use is circular, and is based upon the NSAC not having to use logic and thus can come up with any ruling they want. In that case, any fight that's ever taken place can be overturned at the whim of the NSAC, who isn't bound by logical interpretation of the rules they've published.



The only thing that might be considered circular that I can see is that I said "the purpose of vaseline is to protect your face". It's clear that's the purpose of it in fights, and I don't know if they could find some sort of drafting document or meeting minutes to accurately prove that that is the purpose of vaseline or not.


However, to interpret it as excessive, it would only have to meet ONE of the definitions for excessive, not all potential definitions. So they could find putting it on the body to not be "usual", and therefore not "excessive". There's nothing circular about that logic.

39

Should say therefore "excessive", not therefore "not 'excessive'", but I can't edit it because it would destroy the spacing and quotes (sucks being a mudnamer)

40

 Common sense says if there is  a rule prohibiting "excessive" grease on the body, then grease on the body in and of itself is not necessarily a violation. If that was not the intention then they need to have someone who is not retarded write up the rules.