Point/Counterpoint: “Playing the Game” and Whether Selective Enforcement of the Rules is Good for MMA


(“No, God Damn it, we’re on the Y part of the song, not the A! Have you guys even heard The Village People before?!”

We’re only three weeks into the NFL regular season, yet fans all over the country have become infuriated with the league over the blown calls and inconsistency of the replacement referees who have been officiating games during the referee lockout. The fact that last night’s Seahawks vs. Packers game was literally decided by the poor interpretation of the league’s simultaneous catch rule has been the focus of water cooler discussions all over the country – even here. Yet this inconsistency is hardly unique to the replacement referees, or even professional football. As MMA fans, we see this all the time.

Case in point: During the main event of Saturday’s UFC 152, Vitor Belfort threw a kick at the head of a “downed” Jon Jones. Despite this being against the rules, “Big” John McCarthy simply said to Jon Jones “You wanted to play the game.” Is this selective enforcement of the rules good for our sport? Today George Shunick and Seth Falvo will make the arguments for and against this practice.

The Argument For, by George Shunick:

Let’s get this out of the way; the phrase “you’re playing the game” stems from a fundamental dissonance in the Unified Rules of professional Mixed Martial Arts. Namely, that stomps, soccer kicks and knees to the head of a downed opponent are maneuvers that should be allowed in accordance with the philosophy of the sport, but can’t due to certain political realities and, arguably, health and safety concerns. So certain situations arise, like Vitor Belfort throwing a head kick at a crouching Jon Jones, which defy the rules, but not the spirit of them.


(“No, God Damn it, we’re on the Y part of the song, not the A! Have you guys even heard The Village People before?!”

We’re only three weeks into the NFL regular season, yet fans all over the country have become infuriated with the league over the blown calls and inconsistency of the replacement referees who have been officiating games during the referee lockout. The fact that last night’s Seahawks vs. Packers game was literally decided by the poor interpretation of the league’s simultaneous catch rule has been the focus of water cooler discussions all over the country – even here. Yet this inconsistency is hardly unique to the replacement referees, or even professional football. As MMA fans, we see this all the time.

Case in point: During the main event of Saturday’s UFC 152, Vitor Belfort threw a kick at the head of a “downed” Jon Jones. Despite this being against the rules, ”Big” John McCarthy simply said to Jon Jones “You wanted to play the game.” Is this selective enforcement of the rules good for our sport? Today George Shunick and Seth Falvo will make the arguments for and against this practice.

The Argument For, by George Shunick:

Let’s get this out of the way; the phrase “you’re playing the game” stems from a fundamental dissonance in the Unified Rules of professional Mixed Martial Arts. Namely, that stomps, soccer kicks and knees to the head of a downed opponent are maneuvers that should be allowed in accordance with the philosophy of the sport, but can’t due to certain political realities and, arguably, health and safety concerns. So certain situations arise, like Vitor Belfort throwing a head kick at a crouching Jon Jones, which defy the rules, but not the spirit of them.

Even though it has its detriments, it’s because of this that “you’re playing the game” is an acceptable resolution to this dissonance. Its main problem is that there is a certain gray area that stems from it. Let’s concede that a legitimately wounded fighter, or a fighter who has been forced to an inferior position by his opponent, cannot be kneed in the head, stomped on or soccer kicked. That is, certainly, the intended effect of the rules as they are. However, certain fighters seek to exploit those loopholes in a manner that is arguably antithetical to the ideals of the sport – by removing an aspect of their opponent’s arsenal not through their own abilities, but by the manipulation of regulatory measures. Despite Rich Franklin’s advice, there just is something fundamentally wrong if the perfect defense in a combat sport for a head kick is actually making you more susceptible to them.

But where is the line? That’s a little more difficult to ascertain. However, there are incidents that unquestionably merit a stern “you’re playing the game.” One that springs to mind is Paul Buentello putting his hand on the mat while getting kneed by Cheick Kongo. Kongo had Buentello in a front headlock and began kneeing him in the head. Buentello, understandably less than thrilled about his situation, put his hand on the ground, legally declaring himself down and rendering any knees thrown to his head illegal. Kongo became enraged by this gesture and attempted to throw knees to Buentello’s groin, as Cheick Kongo is wont to do in these situations. He missed however, and hit Buentello three more times in the head. Herb Dean stopped the fight, but only to warn Buentello about “playing the game.”

It was the right call; Buentello positioning had barely changed. If anything, he consciously made a decision to impede his own ability to defend himself in order to take advantage of the rulebook for his own benefit, a behavior which is antithetical to the idea of combat sports. This is, unquestionably, a correct application of “you’re playing the game.”

So what of Jones’ incident with Belfort? Well, Jones has used this crouching stance for a number of fights to get closer to his opponent, and backing them up towards the cage, without fear of being hit. If you watch his fight against “Rampage” Jackson, you’d think he’d discovered some ancient Buddhist unhittable stance, because punching someone who is 3 to 4 feet lower than you is actually fairly difficult and Rampage couldn’t really do anything before Jones got up and pushed him into the fence.

Of course, the opposite is true; Jones is quite hittable in that stance, because it’d be much easier to kick him in the face. It’s only because of the rules that he becomes virtually untouchable. And that’s what “you’re playing the game” is designed to be used for; when a fighter utilizes the rules to his own benefit and his opponent’s detriment in a manner that subverts the spirit of the sport and the very intention of the rule itself. This is exactly what Jones was doing, and it’s why John McCarthy’s use of the phrase was justified. Things would be very interesting if Belfort had actually connected with the kick, of course, but it seems McCarthy would not have chosen to punish him, which would be the correct call in this instance.

Certainly, there are scenarios where the line between “playing the game” and violating the rules becomes blurred. What happens if an opponent gets hit with a knee, and then drops to a knee to avoid more? It’s not as overt as planting your hand on the ground but it has the same effect. Then again, perhaps the positional detriment is deemed a sufficient sacrifice on the part of the fighter. It’s difficult, but then again, it’s not the only application of the rules that has a grey area. (The definition of the back of a fighter’s head seems to change with every referee, but this rule is rarely considered something that needs fixing.) MMA referees aren’t perfect, but they’ve historically done a good job of interpreting this rule. It’s not perfect, but it’s the best way the sport has to uphold its rules while living up to its standards.

The Argument Against, by Seth Falvo:

Like seemingly everyone else at this website, watching Jon Jones crawl at Vitor Belfort at the start of Saturday night’s main event infuriated me. It was amateurish. It was bush league. It had no business in our sport’s highest level of competition.

That being said, the only thing more infuriating to me was watching “Big” John McCarthy write off a blatant violation of the rules as one fighter “wanting to play the game” just seconds later. A referee ignoring the rules he’s supposed to enforce because he doesn’t like the fight he’s watching doesn’t even deserve to be dignified as bush league – that’s downright Memorial Day Softball Game territory.  If you ‘ve ever wondered why many people still regard MMA fans as mindless meatheads, just watch as nearly 17,000 people that night cheered when one of our sport’s most respected referees essentially said “Sure you broke a rule, but he deserved that kick!”

This isn’t to say that I necessarily blame the fans that night for cheering what essentially ended Jones’ crawling-at-Belfort nonsense. The fans wanted somebody – anybody– to stop Jon Jones from shamelessly avoiding the heavy hands of The Phenom, even if it took a creative interpretation of the rules to prevent this. Just as I’m sure many NHL fans wouldn’t have minded this being ruled a penalty, even though at the time it wasn’t against the rules:


Renowned smartass Sean Avery, partaking in the tom-foolery that would lead to the NHL creating The Sean Avery Rule.

It isn’t too far of a stretch to compare Jon Jones’ antics to those of Sean Avery during the infamous Rangers/Devils series in 2008, in the sense that both men effectively capitalized on a loophole in their respective sport’s existing rules. When Sean Avery turned his back to the play in order to distract the legendary Martin Brodeur, hockey fans were sickened by the display – especially since there was nothing that the league officials could do about it. Avery was innocent based on a technicality, so the NHL immediately enacted “The Sean Avery Rule” to outlaw such blatantly unsportsmanlike behavior from catching on.

Of course, here is where the comparison ultimately falls apart, and why MMA referees have no business ignoring blatant violations of the rules, even when one fighter is simply “playing the game” to avoid getting hit in the head: The Unified Rules of MMA don’t have to specifically outlaw putting a hand on the mat to avoid contact, because there’s already a foul that the referees could be calling. Observe:

Timidity (avoiding contact, consistent dropping of mouthpiece, or faking an injury).

This is what ultimately makes it so frustrating when referees justify an infraction with “Hey, you asked for it.” If the referee was doing his (or her, Kim Winslow) job in the first place, it wouldn’t be coming to this. All Big John had to do when he saw Jon Jones crawling at Vitor Belfort – or any of the referees in Bones’ previous fights, for that matter – was stop the fight and say something along the lines of “Jon, if you don’t want to risk getting kicked in the head, take up a different line of work. Next time I see you blatantly put your hand on the mat to avoid a kick, I’m docking you one point.” That’s it, problem solved.

Instead, Big John chose to make Jon Jones the scapegoat for his own refusal to do anything about the questionable technique, which makes about as much sense as Spiderman blaming the NYPD for failing to stop a bank robbery that he watched transpire. Selectively enforcing the rules in order to compensate for one fighter’s “creative interpretation” of them is a dangerous mentality that’s going to get someone badly injured.

And just think of the slippery slope here. What would have happened if, after watching Vitor Belfort pull guard in order to avoid getting hit, Jon Jones kicked The Phenom’s head? Does he disqualify Jones, even though he essentially allowed the same thing earlier on in the fight when Bones went to the ground to avoid a head kick? Does he allow it, because, hey, we all decided mid-fight that we’ll be ignoring that rule? For that matter, what would he have done if Vitor Belfort, frustrated by all of the damage he had taken throughout the fight, began crawling at Jones?

The bottom line here is that it’s never in the best interest of any sport to allow its referees to selectively enforce the rules. It’s confusing to the fans and fighters alike, and makes mixed martial arts in general look more like a circus sideshow than a legitimate competition. Which, you know, we don’t exactly need right now anyways.

Sylvia vs. Arlovski 4, Baroni vs. Ribeiro Marred by Confusing and Dangerous Rules at ‘One FC: Pride of a Nation’


(Hey, this just means One FC will rake in big bucks for “Sylvia vs. Arlovski 5: Please, God, Make It Stop”)

By Elias Cepeda

It’s a good thing the MMA world was so excited to see the fourth meeting of Tim Sylvia and Andrei Arlovski at One FC 5: Pride of a Nation today in the Philippines, because now it might just get a fifth. The two former UFC champions were set to clash Friday near the top of the Singapore-based organization’s card, and they did, but with an unsatisfying result for fighters and fans alike, thanks to One FC’s convoluted and dangerous rules regarding kicks to the head of downed opponents.

They are legal. Sort of.

Phil Baroni won his bout earlier in the evening after effectively using kicks to the head of his opponent Rodrigo Ribeiro. However, when Arlovski landed glancing kicks to the head of Sylvia after dropping him to the mat on all fours with a punch combination, the referee called the blows illegal and gave Sylvia time to recover. When Sylvia could not, the fight was ruled a no contest. You see, One FC allows kicks to the head of a downed opponent only after a fighter is given express, in-the-moment permission by the referee. What could possibly go wrong?

(Check out GIFs of the Baroni and Arlovski finishes — as well as full results from One FC 5 — at the bottom of this post.)

Besides giving referees a strange discretion that would seem to do nothing but open up new and exciting opportunities for oversight, slip ups, and corruption, such a rule necessarily stops the action in fights and gives fighters something else to think about other than the only two things they should be — attacking their opponent and defending themselves.


(Hey, this just means One FC will rake in big bucks for “Sylvia vs. Arlovski 5: Please, God, Make It Stop”)

By Elias Cepeda

It’s a good thing the MMA world was so excited to see the fourth meeting of Tim Sylvia and Andrei Arlovski at One FC 5: Pride of a Nation today in the Philippines, because now it might just get a fifth. The two former UFC champions were set to clash Friday near the top of the Singapore-based organization’s card, and they did, but with an unsatisfying result for fighters and fans alike, thanks to One FC’s convoluted and dangerous rules regarding kicks to the head of downed opponents.

They are legal. Sort of.

Phil Baroni won his bout earlier in the evening after effectively using kicks to the head of his opponent Rodrigo Ribeiro. However, when Arlovski landed glancing kicks to the head of Sylvia after dropping him to the mat on all fours with a punch combination, the referee called the blows illegal and gave Sylvia time to recover. When Sylvia could not, the fight was ruled a no contest. You see, One FC allows kicks to the head of a downed opponent only after a fighter is given express, in-the-moment permission by the referee. What could possibly go wrong?

(Check out GIFs of the Baroni and Arlovski finishes — as well as full results from One FC 5 — at the bottom of this post.)

Besides giving referees a strange discretion that would seem to do nothing but open up new and exciting opportunities for oversight, slip ups, and corruption, such a rule necessarily stops the action in fights and gives fighters something else to think about other than the only two things they should be — attacking their opponent and defending themselves.

Rules like this are also going to be needlessly open to uneven application and enforcement. For example, Baroni won his fight and didn’t appear to look for nor receive permission to kick the head of the dropped Ribeiro, prior to striking. Neither did Arlovski. But Baroni won, Ribeiro lost, and Arlovski walked away with a no-contest despite convincingly beating his rival.

One FC put together a solid card with some great mixed martial arts competitors for their fifth event. Unfortunately, what will be most remembered is how the organization’s confused and unorganized rules left their referees, athletes, and spectators confused as well.

We don’t need an accounting from the organization as to what rationale led to their strange rule-set. They simply need to recognize the damage that they have done and abandon them.

Allow kicks and knees to the head of downed opponents, or don’t. One FC has to choose.

GIF of Baroni’s win:

GIF of Arlovski and Sylvia’s no contest:

GIFs courtesy of BloodyElbow

“One FC 5: Pride of a Nation” results
Bibiano Fernandes def. Gustavo Falciroli via unanimous decision
– Eduard Folayang def. Felipe Enomoto via unanimous decision
– Andrei Arlovski vs. Tim Sylvia ended in a no contest (illegal kicks)
– Eric Kelly def. Jens Pulver via TKO, 1:46 of round 2
Rolles Gracie def. Tony Bonello via submission (rear-naked choke), 1:33 of round 3
– Jung Hwan Cha def. Igor Gracie via TKO, 1:03 of round 3
– Soo Chul Kim def. Kevin Belingon via unanimous decision
– Gregor Gracie def. Nicholas Mann via submission (armbar), 3:38 of round 1
– Phil Baroni def. Rodrigo Ribeiro via TKO, 1:00 of round 1
– Shannon Wiratchai def. Mitch Chilson via KO, 3:02 of round 2
– Honorio Banario def. Andrew Benibe via KO, 3:47 of round 3

The Association Of Boxing Commissions Makes some Big Changes to MMA Judging Criteria


“THE ABC IS CHANGING….oh…the MMA judging…No, no, that’s cool too…”

As some of you may know, I am working towards my master’s degree when I’m not writing for Cage Potato and currently preparing to defend my thesis. Because of this, I have been dragged into more semantics arguments than a person should ever admit to. I’ve had to defend every little “a” that could have been a “the” with Griffinesque tenacity – and I haven’t even defended the damn thing yet. Anyone who has ever attended graduate school can sympathize.

So when The Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) announced their newest revisions to the MMA Judging criteria at their annual conference, I read the document with skepticism. The fact that one of the new revisions removed the word “damage” from the scoring criteria partially so that opponents of MMA sanctioning can no longer point to the rulebook and say “LOOK, DAMAGING YOUR OPPONENT IS A RULE!” didn’t exactly help matters. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that some of the rule changes are actually pretty damn important.


“THE ABC IS CHANGING….oh…the MMA judging…No, no, that’s cool too…”

As some of you may know, I am working towards my master’s degree when I’m not writing for Cage Potato and currently preparing to defend my thesis. Because of this, I have been dragged into more semantics arguments than a person should ever admit to. I’ve had to defend every little “a” that could have been a “the” with Griffinesque tenacity – and I haven’t even defended the damn thing yet. Anyone who has ever attended graduate school can sympathize.

So when The Association Of Boxing Commissions (ABC) announced their newest revisions to the MMA Judging criteria at their annual conference, I read the document with skepticism. The fact that one of the new revisions removed the word “damage” from the scoring criteria partially so that opponents of MMA sanctioning can no longer point to the rulebook and say “LOOK, DAMAGING YOUR OPPONENT IS A RULE!” didn’t exactly help matters. Needless to say, I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that some of the rule changes are actually pretty damn important.

For starters, those of you who complain about guys backpedaling their ways to victory (I’m looking directly at you, Nick Diaz fans) will be happy to know that  ”effective defense” has been removed as a criterion for scoring a round. While Kalib Starnes would be pretty bummed about this one if he was still competing, I say good riddance. Honestly, I doubt many of you reading this even knew what “effective defense” meant in the first place. Frankly, I doubt anyone – judges included – agreed on whether it was more important than “aggression” when deciding which fighter won the round, or whether “effective defense” was part of “cage control” or not. It was far too open for debate to begin with, so taking it out of the rules should help judges make more consistent decisions.

Most importantly, striking and grappling are now given equal weight. I think we can all agree that it’s about time for this one. In theory, this means no more decisions like Johnson vs. Torres where the guy on top wins the round, regardless of how many submission attempts he’s trying to defend against. In theory, this puts effective striking and effective grappling on the same level. In theory, this may be the most significant rule change since the implementation of weight classes.

There’s just one problem that I see:


Too obvious?

This criteria is still in the hands of judges who, let’s face it, don’t always know what they’re even looking for in the first place. Take Cecil Peoples’ infamous “Leg kicks don’t finish fights” monstrosity: How do any of these rule changes change the fact that a person who is allowed to judge our sport doesn’t consider a leg kick to be an effective strike? They don’t. While the rule changes are a welcomed improvement when in the hands of judges who know what they’re looking for, they’re still pretty meaningless in the hands of judges who simply aren’t qualified.

In fairness though, the new revisions also clarify what constitutes effective striking, grappling, aggression and cage control. Likewise, the new revisions also tell judges how to score rounds as well (i.e. what warrants a 10-10 round; etc.), so perhaps we’ll start to see some more consistency in that department as well.

Time will tell how these rule changes actually affect the outcomes of fights, but there’s reason to be both optimistic and cynical as an MMA fan. The question now is, what side are you on?

@SethFalvo

CagePotato Roundtable #5: If You Could Make One Change to the Unified Rules of MMA, What Would It Be?


(“From now on, all preliminary card fighters will be required to slam four shots of tequila before the start of each round.”)

After a one-week resting period, the CagePotato Roundtable is back up in that ass with another spirited debate. Today’s topic is “If you could make one change to the Unified Rules of MMA, what would it be?” Sitting in this week is Potato Nation comment-section all-star Nathan Smith (aka The12ozCurls) — and since it’s his first time, we’ll make the new guy go first. If you have a topic-suggestion for a future Roundtable column, please send it to [email protected], and shoot us your own MMA rule-change suggestions in the comments section…

Nathan “The12OzCurls” Smith
One of the reasons we love the sport of MMA is the absolute reality that a fight can end in the blink of an eye. We have all held off taking a leak or grabbing another beer until the end of a round because we all know that in the 30-90 seconds that we step away from the screen, the fight could be over. It has happened to all of us. You figure the last minute of the round is going to be uneventful just like the four minutes prior. You get up to snag another High Life and then you hear the collective “OOOOOHHHHHHHHH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” from the roomful of friends that have gathered in your man-cave garage to watch the latest UFC.

So I ask: How could it get better? Answer: By adding another way to win a fight in the blink of an eye, that is more painful than a Paul Harris ankle lock and more powerful than a 2005 Iceman overhand right.

I would change the rule that states that it is illegal to “intentionally throw your opponent out of the cage/ring.” Now let me preface this by saying it has to be a cage because pushing somebody over the top rope is for guys like Brock and Hillbilly Jim. Not only would I make chucking your opponent out of the Octagon legal, I would propose that you automatically win if you are able to successfully achieve that feat.


(“From now on, all preliminary card fighters will be required to slam four shots of tequila before the start of each round.”)

After a one-week resting period, the CagePotato Roundtable is back up in that ass with another spirited debate. Today’s topic is “If you could make one change to the Unified Rules of MMA, what would it be?” Sitting in this week is Potato Nation comment-section all-star Nathan Smith (aka The12ozCurls) — and since it’s his first time, we’ll make the new guy go first. If you have a topic-suggestion for a future Roundtable column, please send it to [email protected], and shoot us your own MMA rule-change suggestions in the comments section…

Nathan “The12OzCurls” Smith
One of the reasons we love the sport of MMA is the absolute reality that a fight can end in the blink of an eye. We have all held off taking a leak or grabbing another beer until the end of a round because we all know that in the 30-90 seconds that we step away from the screen, the fight could be over. It has happened to all of us. You figure the last minute of the round is going to be uneventful just like the four minutes prior. You get up to snag another High Life and then you hear the collective “OOOOOHHHHHHHHH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” from the roomful of friends that have gathered in your man-cave garage to watch the latest UFC.

So I ask: How could it get better? Answer: By adding another way to win a fight in the blink of an eye, that is more painful than a Paul Harris ankle lock and more powerful than a 2005 Iceman overhand right.

I would change the rule that states that it is illegal to “intentionally throw your opponent out of the cage/ring.” Now let me preface this by saying it has to be a cage because pushing somebody over the top rope is for guys like Brock and Hillbilly Jim. Not only would I make chucking your opponent out of the Octagon legal, I would propose that you automatically win if you are able to successfully achieve that feat.

I understand why this rule was implemented back in the stone ages of MMA: A) Because of the “open weight” format where dudes were typically outweighed by 50 to 500 lbs (see Keith Hackney vs. Emanuel Yarborough @ UFC 3), and B) because there were huge dudes with little to no training that were just plain batshit crazy (see Scott Ferrozzo @ UFC 8, 11 & 12).

Tank Abbott actually tried it back in 1996 at Ultimate Ultimate when the scrappy Cal Worsham was actually getting the better of the stand-up action during the opening seconds of their quarterfinal bout. Once Tank was able to get a hold of Worsham, he picked him up over his head and literally tried to heave him into the 3rd row of Birmingham, Alabama mouth-breathers in what appeared to be a bingo hall. But alas, Worsham held on to Tank’s head and the potential for the most awesome highlight in MMA history was thwarted.

Now that there are weight classes and the two fighters are at least similar in size — unless your opponent is Anthony Johnson — the feasibility of a guy actually heaving another man out of the cage has all but disappeared. (Though you can tell that Matt Hughes’s mind was heading in that direction against Carlos Newton.) So if it is damn near impossible to actually pull off, why not abolish the rule and give the fighters and the audience one more option for potential fireworks? We live for the “Holy Shit” moments of MMA, and what could possibly compare to a title changing hands when the champion is muscled overhead and Frisbee-d out of the Octagon?

I’m sure the rule will never change and even if it did, it’s hard to see it ever being put to use. But what if…what if?

“OOOOOOOOOOOOOH SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

You would have to watch every UFC wearing an adult diaper with a full cooler beside you because you would never get up during a fight ever again.

Doug “ReX13” Richardson

If I could change one thing about the Unified Rules, it would be to get rid of the senseless “12 to 6″ elbow rule. The strike is no more damaging than one from another angle and it’s hard to officiate consistently, so what’s the argument for having such a rule?

Long, long ago (UFC 8), Gary “Big Daddy” Goodridge murdered a poor, gentle soul named Paul Herrera with a succession of elbows so terrifyingly violent that white people everywhere shut the fuck up about rap music and started being afraid of ultimate fighting. Herrera had tried a fireman’s carry, but wound up trapped in a Goodridge crucifix that surprised everyone involved. Goodridge paused a moment before unleashing a string of twelve billion of the angriest elbow strikes you’ve ever seen in the space of four seconds, scrambling Herrera’s emotional cortex and his ability to roll his Rs (a fate worse than death for a guy named “Herrera”).

The Association of Boxing Commissions (average age: dirt) saw this fight and soiled their Depends, and not even that nice boy Jon Jones can change their minds about the danger of elbows coming “from the ceiling to the floor.” Jones, of course, suffered a disqualification loss to Matt Hamill at the TUF 10 Finale, due to a combination of the silly 12-6 rule and the power of Steve “The ‘Stache” Mazzagatti to fuck up any fight, any time (but Mazz is a story for a different time).

Perhaps the best argument against the rule is that I’m still not quite sure what exactly is the wrong way to elbow somebody: Is it literally “ceiling to floor”, meaning an elbow is illegal if it follows the path of gravity straight down? Or is it 12-6 relative to the fighter throwing the elbow — from head to toes? Even watching fighters get warned or disqualified doesn’t help; it seems referees themselves don’t agree on how this rule should be interpreted.

Do we really need a rule so arbitrary, so capricious? No. So yeah, I’d definitely 86 the 12-6 elbow rule if I could change the Unified Rules.

Plus I’d move to allow knees on the ground. And add a cruiserweight division.

And whatever it was that Nick Diaz tested positive for, legalize that.

Fuck it, soccer kicks too.

“Suga” Chris Colemon

19. “The use of abusive language in the fighting area”

There are so many things to love about talking shit, but one of my favorite aspects of this unheralded art is the way it hurts people’s feelings.

I realize that MMA is a sport, not a soap opera, and that at the end of the day the most important factor in a fight is the skill of the combatants involved in the scrap, but all things being equal I’ll take a side of animosity to go with my ground-and-pound.

Why they ever forebade in-cage smack talk is beyond me. We’ve refined and restricted the act of fighting into a neatly packaged spectator sport, but when you boil things down there’s still a lot of emotion that goes into a fist fight. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the professional demeanor of your GSP’s and Couture’s, but if I have to choose between 15 minutes of bowing and bro-hugs or watching two rabid, snarling fighters baring their teeth, I’m going with the dog fight all day.

Every fighter believes in his skills, but to tell your opponent that you’re going to fuck him up mid-fight and dare him to stop you really ups the ante. Succeed and you come off looking like a boss; fail and you come off looking like a tool. So I implore you, athletic commissions, let the fighters jaw all they want; their fists end up doing the real talking anyway.

Jared Jones

I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with the preferential treatment wrestlers receive in the sport of MMA. Not only are takedowns ranked next to Godliness as far as the judging criteria goes, but these sons of bitches are completely protected from a maneuver that is nothing short of dog shit in the real world. I’m talking about dropping to your knee, people. Sexual connotations aside, dropping to your knee or knees gets you killed in the streets, and the fact that wrestlers are allowed to use this flaw in the rules as a means for stalling fight after fight drives me fucking bananas. If a fighter has the fear of getting kneed into oblivion by his opponent while attempting their billionth sloppy takedown, then perhaps he would be a little more hesitant to essentially take the fight out of fighting. Hell, we might even see guys like Jon Fitch and Jake Shields try to engage on the feet, but perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the grappling aspect of MMA as much as the next guy, unless the next guy is Melvin Guillard of course, but this “no knees to a downed opponent” nonsense is about as blatant a case of nepotism in the MMA rule book as I have ever seen. If fighters were allowed to knee the head of a downed opponent, matches like Munoz/Okami, Hughes/Serra, and Brookins/Koch would have played out a lot differently. Mainly, they wouldn’t have sucked ass.

It’s as simple as this; mixed martial arts competition, at least in my opinion, is supposed to be held on a level playing field. Each form of fighting has its upsides and its pitfalls, which is why a given fighter must have more than one tool in his arsenal if he is to succeed in the sport nowadays. And allowing wrestlers to shoot for a takedown from halfway across the cage then intentionally hit the deck with no fear of a counter-attack inherently destroys that concept. Imagine not being able to punch Rousimar Palhares while he was diving for a life-shattering leglock, and you’d begin to understand how bullshit this rule is.

“No knees to a downed opponent” puts forth the notion that a given fighter doesn’t need to have even half-decent standup as long as they can hug their opponent for three rounds and take home a decision based on some warped idea of “octagon control.” Tito Ortiz will tell you the downside of having shit standup, and if that isn’t proof enough, just rewatch the TUF 15 preliminary fight between James Vick and Dakota Cochrane and tell me that that fight wouldn’t have ended within the first minute if Vick was allowed to throw some knees. The fear of God back needs to be put into these takedown artists, these lay-n-prayers, and these flip-floppers once and for all, and there’s only one way to do it.

Ben Goldstein

As much as I appreciate Jared’s dream to turn every UFC fight into a grisly re-creation of Arona vs. Sakuraba, I think it makes more sense to simply re-define what “grounded” means in MMA. There’s something very un-sporting — and really freakin’ dangerous — about soccer-kicking or kneeing a man in the head when he’s down, and I have no problem with that remaining illegal. But while some fighters unfairly game the system by dropping to a knee when they’re about to eat one in the face, it’s also currently allowable to simply put your hand down to escape a thrashing.

The worst recent example of this came during Rampage Jackson vs. Ryan Bader at UFC 144; click the image above and skip to the 4:58 mark. As you’ll see, Bader secures a clinch that places Rampage’s head in a very vulnerable spot. After Bader slams a knee up the middle, Jackson tags the mat with his left hand, effectively calling a time-out on getting his ass beat. With his options now limited, Bader decides to shoot for a single, and loses the position that could have — should have — ended the fight right then and there. That’s garbage, folks, and in my opinion, it’s the single biggest flaw in the unified rules. Two clarifications…

– Being on one knee should still count as a grounded safe-zone for fighters, but dropping there intentionally (as Jared described) should be treated as a violation of the current rule against timidity. It’s not a “wise” strategy, as Mike Goldberg claimed during the Rampage/Bader fight. It’s the very definition of “avoiding contact,” and referees should start giving warnings and point-deductions as soon as they see it happening.

– Upkicks should be allowed whether the recipient is technically grounded or not. The grounding rule is intended to prevent fighters from taking devastating head trauma from opponents who are on top of them, not to prevent amazing shit from happening.

SF Challengers 12 Aftermath: In Which We’re Told Where We Can Stick Our Limited Understanding of the Unified Rules

(Our thoughts exactly, Waachiim. PicProps: Strikeforce)
Without question, the most memorable part of Friday night’s Strikeforce  Challengers 12 broadcast came not from the fights, but during an unexpected television appearance by Strikeforce…


(Our thoughts exactly, Waachiim. PicProps: Strikeforce)

Without question, the most memorable part of Friday night’s Strikeforce  Challengers 12 broadcast came not from the fights, but during an unexpected television appearance by Strikeforce rules director Cory Schafer. After the tepidly anticipated bout between Marius Zaromskis and Waachiim Spiritwolf was declared a no contest when Zaromskis opened the first round with a flying finger to Spiritwolf’s eyeball, Schafer didn’t just afford himself well during his 30 seconds on camera with Mauro Ranallo, he owned it. In fact, immediately following five minutes of the Strikeforce announce team bitching about how no one understands the rules of MMA, Schafer gave the impression that he’d been waiting his whole life to come on TV and tell us all – especially Mauro – off about it.  Also, Strikeforce has a rules director. Who knew?

read more