Originally Posted by Gun'n'Run
You make a good point about the rules but the thing about rules is that the way they're written isn't always what defines them; often it's the way the arbiters of the rules interpret them that defines them. Think about the laws in the US; there are numerous examples of laws that seem like they should do something that the courts have ruled they don't do, or vise-versa.
The strikes Browne threw have been accepted as legal for a long time now. Fighters have thrown that same strike in the same position without drawing a foul numerous times. Every fighter knows the danger of that position and it's definitely something we've seen more and more fighters doing. It's very effective, and definitely 100% legal despite how the rules might appear to suggest otherwise.
I think his win over Gonzaga should have been changed to a DQ, but I had no problem with the strikes against Barnett. He seemed to be arcing the blows more. Either way, you make a very strong point.