DC vs Cruz debate about Stephens knee.

[Anung Un Rama]

You use common sense when possible.

If I try to knee you in the head, you move and it hits your body. That should be an infraction. It shouldn't be okay because I missed.

I disagree. If I feint anything it should be legal.

 

[gondo]

They did talk about it for four months minutes, then Dom realized that the conversation wasn't going anywhere, so he acknowledged that it was pointless anyways.

Personally, I'd be more up in arms about the elbows to the back of the head.

The discussion would’ve ended a little sooner if Cruz didn’t scoff at everything DC said. Interrupting people tends to prolong the debate. You notice DC asked if Cruz would let him talk before he even got into it?

 

[fortheo]

Was there a more pointed discussion waiting? Doesn't seem like a good reason to quit to me.

And agreed, the elbow(s) were the most questionable part.

DC and anik discussed the knee on their own before this. Cruz and Bisping discussed the knee on their own before this. Then they all discussed it together, but it was turning more into a bickering match than an actual debate, so I have no problem with it ending there.

 

[Krixes]

Cruz and Stephens are teammates so he has to stand up for him. I think it grazed him but didn't do much damage, he was already on his way out. He needs to stop throwing illegal knees though, did the same thing to Frankie.

 

[SuperNerd]

I disagree. If I feint anything it should be legal.

Do you feel the same way if I was targeting your balls with punts or missing head butts from full guard?

 

[fortheo]

The discussion would’ve ended a little sooner if Cruz didn’t scoff at everything DC said. Interrupting people tends to prolong the debate. You notice DC asked if Cruz would let him talk before he even got into it?

They both were talking over each other, but I agree, Dom is usually over aggressive in these types of situations. Did you want to see another 10 minutes of them bickering before finally getting to the conclusion, which is the same conclusion that Dom pointed out?


They discussed it. They disagreed, but it doesn't matter because the ref didn't call it and there's no instant replay.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Do you feel the same way if I was targeting your balls with punts or missing head butts from full guard?

If they’re not landing there is no infraction. If you land that deliberate nut shot or head butt you lose.

 

[SuperNerd]

If they’re not landing there is no infraction. If you land that deliberate nut shot or head butt you lose.

To be clear, I didn't say there was. I said there should be.

And no, they often don't lose, they get warnings or infractions.

I think if you attempt any illegal action, and I'm forced to take any defensive action, that effects the fight unfairly. I think an infraction or break should happen.

 

[gondo]

They both were talking over each other, but I agree, Dom is usually over aggressive on these types of situations. Did you want to see another 10 minutes of them bickering before finally getting to the conclusion, which is the same conclusion that Dom pointed out?


They discussed it. They disagreed, but it doesn't matter because the ref didn't call it and there's no instant replay.

No the debate on the post fight show was over I agree with that. Even stated that nothing should change. The fact that this card was under the new rules but no instant replay means the ufc is still in a transition period. If they’re still updating the rules then these things need to be discussed in depth.

 

[tru3f4n]

Completely irrelevant to this discussion. Cruz is clearly biased here and that bias is informing his opinion, yet he's trying to feign objectivity.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be confident that DC would give fair evaluations of an issue concerning a teammate either, but that's not the issue here. Also, at least DC himself has acknowledged this bias, supposedly he declined to commentate ufc 221 because he couldn't be objective in a Rockhold fight.

it doesn't matter if it's bias or not DC twice tried to call what Jeremy did as illegal. When the replay showed the knee didn't land he went to the elbows which he called illegal although one looked to land right on the ear and the other behind it due to Josh turning. The ref said the elbows was clean shots DC went on and on and all Cruz did was say the knee didn't land so DC went with it landed on the way down. DC wouldn't stfu about Jeremy landing this or that and in return Cruz did what he did. Yeah Cruz is bias but it doesn't mean he was wrong the illegal knee didn't land with any kind of fight changing impact that DC was trying to hint at.

 

[fortheo]

No the debate on the post fight show was over I agree with that. Even stated that nothing should change. The fact that this card was under the new rules but no instant replay means the ufc is still in a transition period. If they’re still updating the rules then these things need to be discussed in depth.

They definitely do, but not by that fox crew lol. That was going nowhere.

 

[BlameTheMedia]

 

[Thaijitsu612]

Yes. Intent is enough for the ref to pause the fight and address the foul. The knee was not the reason Stephens won but man what a dumb move on his part.

This sums it up, it has no bearing on the outcome but it could have. It could have cost jeremy the fight if it landed.

EDIT: and also, as you said, the ref would have been justified to call a time out to check on emmett

 

[Area809]

Even if it doesn’t land, I could see a ref pausing the fight to address to act of throwing an illegal strike.

Dom is not making much sense. It’s like saying if you’re speeding, you’re not breaking the law unless you get caught.

 

[scorpipede]

I disagree. If I feint anything it should be legal.

You think fighters should be able to feint a soccer kick just to get the opponent to react? That what you're saying?

 

[Myrddin Wild]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If a illegal knee doesn't land, is it still illegal?

 

[boyer]

Ping when referencing previous fights always has to talk shit or let you know that he won. Other fighters dont do that.

 

[ArmenianAssasin]

To be clear, I didn't say there was. I said there should be.

And no, they often don't lose, they get warnings or infractions.

I think if you attempt any illegal action, and I'm forced to take any defensive action, that effects the fight unfairly. I think an infraction or break should happen.

Do you realize how moronic your argument is ?

You can’t judge someone’s intent — you judge what actually happens based on the raw the rules are written

Ie) if you poke someone in the eye or low blow — doesn’t matter what you intended to do

 

[SuperNerd]

You can’t judge someone’s intent

Sometimes you can.

you judge what actually happens based on the raw the rules are written

Ie) if you poke someone in the eye or low blow — doesn’t matter what you intended to do

Yes, in the world where I want obvious malicious intent to be punished, actual infractions would too.

 

[ArmenianAssasin]

Sometimes you can.

Too subjective

How do you know Stephens wasn’t trying to hit Emmett in the torso ala Anderson silva chael sonnnen