This is a little late I realize but was the eye poke by Lauzon on Sotiropolus actually an eye poke? Looked like he just punched him in the eye in which case the fight doesn't stop, correct?
It bothered me that Sot called "time out" which I hate fighters doing and expecting the ref and the other fighter to just stop. Joe should have kept at it until the ref stopped it in my opinion especially since it looked like it was just a legit punch and Sot got time to recover which he shouldn't have if I understand the rules correctly.
yeah I hate when they try to call time out
Yeah Simpson got smashed by a knuckle. It's the refs job to see that and call off Simpsons request for timeout. 
Fighters can not call time out!
I don't remember an eye poke
In the case of Munoz - Simpson there was a thumb.
Punches to the eye are totally legal.......
if you stop fighting because of it, the fight should be called
I don't think replays would solve anything because at that point the punchers' momentum has already been ruined by the break.
It could potentially cost someone a really big fight
even a punch to the eye deserves a break imo. its an accident that can change a fight. same as an accidental finger in the eye to me
Let them call their time out and I think replay would fix it. If it's an accidental poke to the eye, there would be up to 5 minutes to recover anyways, right? And if they call time and the replay reveals it was a legit punch, the fight is called as a TKO, like a body shot that cripples a guy would.
As a referee it can be a no win situation. Often times all signs can point to an eye poke even if you diddn't see the finger go in the eye. If you stop the bout in the interest of safety, you may give a guy an unfair advantage in recovery time. If you tell the guy to keep fighting and that the "poke" came from a legal strike, you'd better hope the camera doesn't prove you wrong!
I don't see how a ref can possibly distinguish a knuckle into the eye and a normal punch that lands in the eye area and I don't see how landing a knuckle with a closed fist into the eye is illegal in the first place. It's different than an eye poke where fingers into the eye can be easier seen. Other than potentially changing the design of the gloves, I don't see what else can be done.
The ref was also on the opposite side of the landed punch in the Sot case so he couldn't tell. Being that alot of these fighters are also excellent actors ( ie Koscheck) he took Sot's word for it. It's better for the ref to stop it and see the replay then to let it continue in the event that it really is a foul and some fighter is getting pummeled after taking a nut shot eye poke.
Incidental shots sucks when you get them. A knuckle in the eye can feel like a thumb or a finger and its weak sauce to jump on a fighter when he obviously can't see.
I like to see guys who are gentlemen and give the other fighter a second to gain his sight again before they continue. A great fighter has the confidence in his ability to win that he doesn't need to jump on a guy who can't see from a shot to the eye.
However, to answer the question, I believe if you follow the rule to the letter...................a fight can be called a TKO victory if the other fighter stops fighting and doesn't continue to fight when the ref asks him if he wants to continue. Either way, who wants to win like that?
Its true that a fighter cant call time out, but there is just no way a ref is going to see that. Every once in a while maybe, but its one finger while a lot of fists are flying. Instant replay is the only answer I suppose.
maxmain -The Sultan - Incidental shots sucks when you get them. A knuckle in the eye can feel like a thumb or a finger and its weak sauce to jump on a fighter when he obviously can't see.
I like to see guys who are gentlemen and give the other fighter a second to gain his sight again before they continue. A great fighter has the confidence in his ability to win that he doesn't need to jump on a guy who can't see from a shot to the eye.
However, to answer the question, I believe if you follow the rule to the letter...................a fight can be called a TKO victory if the other fighter stops fighting and doesn't continue to fight when the ref asks him if he wants to continue. Either way, who wants to win like that?
Posts like this is the reason Saldana has become one of my fav green namers
sweet bro.
Have a happy thanksgiving this week.
I wouldn't want a fighter jumping on someone that can't see, but you also have fighters that fake or milk groin strikes, eye pokes and etc to get a break or point deductions. It would be nice to see all fighters acknowledge their own fouls and fight clean, but it's not realistic to expect that to happen.
Okay, i think i'm clear on the rules and the difficulty the ref has judging if it was legit. Makes sense and I'm not saying you want to win by TKO due to eye noogie.
But I'm wondering what is the difference between pouncing on a guy from a fist to the eye and pouncing after clipping him on the chin or say a stunning liver shot? Why do the latter and not the former? Assuming you are certain you didn't eye poke that is.
Geez we're getting some real prima donnas in this sport lately. People wanting adjusted rules for PUNCHES in the eye, acting irate for barely missed illegal attacks and calling timeout as if they're the ref.
This is going to turn into soccer at this point.
C'mon, son.
This is still a fight. I can understand blatant fouls, but a punch in the eye is just the same as a shot to the liver. Its legitimate, its disruptive, damaging and is SUPPOSED to create an advantage.
What- soon we'll have rules against face shots w/ malicious intent?
fighters shouldnt be able to call timeouts. that is the ref job. refs need to be trained better. and there should be an official watching cageside on monitor so he cana make revew the slit second decisions that a ref faces
and a punch to the eye should be fight ender if the guy calls timeout or turns away. If you connect with a legal strike and the fighter calls timeout or turns away then he obviously is not intelligently defending himself.
wierd how some fighters come out guns blazin and fight better after a foul like a nutshot.
At a UFN not too long ago brazillian guy got kicked in the balls in the third, came out with a big double leg slam spun around to the back during a scramble, got a body lock on when the guy stood up and got the choke. took like 15 seconds.
i wanna say the guy that lost was efrain escudero but not sure. forget the other guys name
it is difficult, often times, for the ref to actually see a poke, especially a thumb. this happens all the time. what they do see is how the fighter reacts. this has to be the most difficult position a ref can face. if he doesnt know what happened, does he take a TO (which means it was a poke), or does he not intervene and then stop it (TKO) if the fighter does not defend? there is nothing wrong with the ref admitting that he didnt see a poke or not. the irvin/sak fight is a good example: i think josh did the right thing by taking a TO, but at the time he did it, did he know what happened? if he knew it was a punch, he would have waved it off rigtht away, no TO necessary. he took the TO for irvin's safety, checked him, and must have glanced up at the monitor to see it was a punch. irvin couldnt continue. he took his time, and made the right call; it was his call.
the burns/AJ fight is an uncommon case; mazzagatti didnt see the poke, and johnson collapsed to the canvas unable to defend. what was mazzagatti to do? he didnt see the poke and the fighter goes down defenseless. at the time, mazzagatti could not look at replay, he had to make the call. now they can, if there is a fight ending situation where the referee is not sure what happened. i think that was a very valuable and fair step that NV took.
mario believed that Kos was fouled by a knee, just like everyone else who didnt see slow mo replay; turns out it was a poke from a thumb. these things are not easy to see.