Isn't it in the unified rules that spiking a fighter on their head is illegal?
Yet Griffin did it blatantly to Tavares and Fitch did it to Diego. Fitch even admitted in his after fight interview that he was trying to drop Diego on his head. He basically said, "I intentionally committed a foul right here".
What is it I'm not getting?
I often see people bitching about certain people being allowed to break certain rules in these big shows. I don't know about that but what I am seeing is a blatant disregard for the rules. I see numerous infractions of people geing able to grab the fence... then I see an immediate point deducted on the first infraction... then I see Diego being reprimanded for PUSHING OFF the fence, which is allowed and perfectly LEGAL. I see numerous fights stopped from multiple strikes to the back of the head because certain fighters lack the skill to finish any other way. They take the back and start flailing away wildly with total disregard to what the "back of the head" is hoping for a ref stoppage. Sadly, the refs don't know what "the back of the head" is, either. Not only do they not issue warnings or deduct points, they actually stop the fight and award the victory to the guy that just blatantly broke the rules.
What am I missing? Is there blatant favoritism in these shows? Are the refs really that bad and clueless? Are the rules just there to appease "the powers that be" and not really meant to be enforced?
Cam, if you watch the replay, Fitch very much AVOIDED spiking Diego on his head. If he wanted to do that, he could have sat down rather than throw himself back, which dropped Diego more on his back. No rule was broken. There was no spike to the top of the head, which is the rule.
Even if Griffin had gone straight forward and dropped Tavares on his face, that is not spiking. He did it to Guida and smacked Clay's face into the mat. It's a good back mount defense, and nothing illegal about it.
Fitch admitted in his after fight interview that he was trying to drop Diego on his head.
It all comes down to intent. Both instances both fighters were trying to drop the opponent on their head. No doubt about it. In both instances the reason the opponent was not dropped directly on the top of the head was because of the actions of the dropee, not the dropper. They were both trying to KO the opponent by dropping them on their head. I have reffed almost 600 fights and have been in the game for almost 13 years. I know what I'm looking at.
Cam, with all due respect, I think you are projecting on the Fitch thing. Watch it. It is obvious that he INTENTIONALLY leans back to drop rather than just sit down, which would have been a much more effective way to drop Diego on his head. It does NOT come down to intent. It comes down to execution. As a ref you should acknowledge that. You can't read a fighters mind, you are assuming. I am relating exactly what we saw, which was not an intentional spike to the top of the head, therefore perfectly legal.
Cam, you are really splitting hairs here. Ask Fitch if what he meant was "I tried to illegally spike him on top of his head." or if he meant "Diego was upside down, so dropping him pretty much means on his head". I don't know what point you are trying to make, but John's actions spoke louder than his after fight interview,IMO. He clearly did NOT try to perform an illegal spike. Other than that, he is free to legally "dump him on his head".
So basically, it's another arbitrary and unenforcable rule just like the spiking elbow thing...?
With the elbows it has to be PERFECTLY straight up and down to be illegal. The rule says "12 o clock to 6 o clock" so an elbow that is 12:01 to 6:01 is legal. It's a stupid, arbitrary and unenforcable rule unless the ref has a protractor in his pocket and can slo-mo the fight as it's happening to measure the angle.
Now this slamming the opponent on the head/NECK (notice it also has the term "neck in there", meaning it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the "top of the head") means only a person in the position (shall we also assume this 12 o clock to 6 oclock bullshit?) of straight up and down, with their feet DIRECTLY over their head cannot be dropped on their head?
If so, it's another stupid, arbitrary and unenforcable rule. Regardless it's dangerous because a person could be killed instantly, regardless of the 12 o clock or 12:01... When people are intentionally trying (and admitting to it) to drop their opponent directly on their head it doesn't matter what the angle of the drop is, the intent is the same.
Diego may have been 12:30 to 6:30 but he is lucky he turned his head because Fitch's intent was to KO him by spiking him. In Fitch's position there was no other reason to stand up and drop Diego like that. What did he expect to accomplish by "turning slightly and dropping him on his side"? Seems like a lot of wasted energy and a completely futile effort to stand up and drop him like that to accomplish absolutely nothing... unless he was hoping for a KO from a head spike.
Again, I've been doing this a LONG time and I know what I'm looking at. In all my years training and reffing and fighting I have never seen the technique of "let's waste a lot of energy standing up carrying the weight of our opponent and try to turn slightly and drop him on his "side" so we can achieve nothing". At the same time I am more than familiar with the "let's stand up and slam the opponent on his head and hope for a KO or at least to rock him really good".
If the rule does not cover that then they need to be more specific but it looked like I saw two incidents of blatant intentional head spiking tonight.
It's already been stated that the spike elbow rule was made just to appease a Jersey commissioner so it would not surprise me at all if this was a "dummy rule" also and was never meant to be enforced.
"If the rule does not cover that then they need to be more specific but it looked like I saw two incidents of blatant intentional head spiking tonight."
Your assumption that Fitch was trying to spike him is wrong. Plain wrong. I will say it again: It would have been MUCH easier for John to spike him by sitting straight down. He CLEARLY AVOIDED doing so by throwing himself back,actually ending up in a worse position as a result.
You did not see John try to spike Diego. I don't care how long you have been reffing. You are wrong.Watch it again and try to tell me Fitch didn't lean back to avoid the spike.
Or maybe it would make you happier if they outlawed slamming or dropping your opponent altogether? Then no one would get hit on the head or neck. Maybe we could make a list of all the fighters who have received major neck/head injuries from the rules as they are. What's that? No list of such fighters? Oh well.
There is no penalty for "intent". There is only a penalty if there is an actual foul. Just becasue Fitch "meant to drop him on his head", doesn't mean shit simply because he didn't actually do it.
If a fighter says "I wanted to kill him", should that fighter be charged with "attempted murder"?
This isn't about me, stop trying to make it as such. It's about the rules and the amiguity and inconsistency of how they are enforced.
Look at it this way...
Rules are there for the safety of the fighters. The spike elbow rule is a great example. If the opponent is standing straight up he isn't allowed to drop spike elbows straight down on his opponent. BUT... if he is on his back in guard or mounted he is allowed to throw the exact same strike to the exact same target. The relative positioning of a fighter's body to the horizon line does not make that strike any safer. So if the rule is not for safety, then what's it for? Why does it even exist?
Dropping someone on their head/neck can be potentially fatal or possibly paralyze someone. It doesn't have to be directly up or down and addiing an arc to the slam whether it be 1 degree or 20 degress does not lessen the treat of make it more safe. So again, why is the rule even there?
It's like saying "it's OK to strike the throat or spine as long as it's between the hours of noon and 5 pm". That is not any safer during those hours so why would that even be a rule, especially when UFCs take place later in the evening so it would never even apply or be enforcable.
Again, and we can just agree to disagree... but there was absolutely no reason for Fitch to waste all that energy doing what he did with the sole intention of accomplishing nothing. Same with Griffin. Their intention was to impact the head and KO the opponent or rock them enough to make a difference. Whether or not that falls directly under the ambiguous rule or not is subjective, but it doesn't make it any safer. I'm not against slams and I don't think they should be taken away. I have nothing against banging a guy's head off the floor for a KO. But dropping a guy on his head with his body weight above it is dangerous, regardless of the degree of arc and if there is going to be a rule about it, make it black and whit and not ambiguous. With these ambiguous rules there will always be an outlet for controversy. If the rules are more black and white there is less room for controversy.
And for all you toolbags trying to make this out to be about me, I guess you all really like it that some fighters are allowed to grab the fence multiple times, some fighters get automatically penalized and some fighters aren't even allowed to push off the fence...? Do you guys really like that kind of inconsistency? If so, more power to you. I don't get it... I'm trying to bring up an issue and maybe help force a positive change in the way things are done and I get attacked by a bunch of TUF noobs.
It's like Rogan said, MMA is no longer a new sport and we should no longer have to be under the heavy influence of the boxing paradigm. It's time to re-evaluate the scoring and the criteria and it's also time to re-evaluate some of these stupid and arbitrary rules and the consistency with which they are enforced.
Wow, this place has really gone to hell over the past year or so. 100 people can make a post about this subject and nothing is said but if I make one, because I am a ref, it must be all about me. I remember when you could come to this forum and get some good objective opinions from people that cared about the sport (Thanks Racer) but this place has really just gone to hell.
"What makes it even worse is the pathetic fuck doesn't even know the wording of the rule he's complaining about."
I do know the wording. That's the problem. It's ambiguous and arbitrary and left wide open, therefore unenforcable.
"It's like saying "it's OK to strike the throat or spine as long as it's between the hours of noon and 5 pm".
No Cam, it is in no way like that. Time of day is not a safety issue.
The spike rule is because of the danger of spinal compression injury or some kind of cranial deflection on impact injury, obviously. The way Fitch dropped with Diego clearly avoided this.
I agree with WPB, I think you are a good ref, you're just not going to convince me that Fitch/Sanchez was any kind of example of a foul or near foul.
As far as the elbow thing, of course gravity and the leverage of having your weight behind a 12 to 6 elbow explains why that,and only that strike is outlawed.
Y'know guys, Cam is an mma supporter who is offering his opinion on the subject of fighter safety. You can disagree with him, but SHUT THE FUCK UP if all you are going to do is throw childish insults.
An open debate on a subject like this is what this forum is all about.
Seriously, add something to the conversation or SHUT THE FUCK UP.
"Have you ever heard of a thing called gravity? Do you realize the difference in momentum of a strike thrown standing vs. a strike thrown off your back? That is why."
Ok, Dr. Oleg2004, (you are a physicist, right?), can you please give us the breakdown of exactly what the difference in force is when generated in that exact same strike from the two different positions? (we're talking about a spike elbow to the side of the head). Yes, I understand the difference in the two positions when throwing regular punches, but that's not what we're talking about here.
I think if you really look at the physics of it, the distance travelled is so short and the velocity will be relatively the same and the mass is the same, then the difference in force generated is not going to be significant at all, if a difference in force even exists. I suppose you believe in the Dim Mak, also...?
And besides... the rule still states that it's legal unless the fighter is throwing it directly downward at 90 degrees. It can be thrown from standing at 89 degrees and be perfectly legal, so no differential in force generated there. I can't believe I let you troll me like that.... but I bit. You got me, Dr. Oleg.
Cam, you're going to make it hard to defend this as a conversation if you are going to stoop to the petty insults as well.
Simple test for the physics of the gravity assisted elbow:
Imagine a one handed pushup position and the amount of pressure(mass+gravity)on the hand. Now stand facing a wall with your feet parallel to the wall and push on it with the same hand. You cannot generate the same force without moving yourself back. It's a crude and argueable example, but I hope you see what I'm saying.