when he commits an eye poke, testicle shot, fence grab and etc. Why shouldn't he be punished when the intention is pretty clear, when he fails in his attempt to commit a foul? For example, if your intention is to soccer kick an opponent while he is considered grounded, why should you get away with it just because you missed? The fact that you even attempted it should be clearly discourage, because if you succeed to lethal or fatal consequences, then it will be too late to do anything about it for the unfortunate fighter and his family. It seems to me that the referees either have to throw intention out of the window, and punish fouls based on the fact that they were committed, or, if they are going to factor intention in their judgments, then they should punish a fighter when the intention is clear, regardless of whether or not the fouling fighter was successful with his intention. The referee and the commission's most important job is fighter safety. So, I think it is a reasonable safety measure to punish fighters at the level of intention. Meaning, a fighter should never be so engrossed in the action that he losses his mind to the point of "I was in the heat of the moment and didn't intend to do that." That excuse will not fly if your intention leads to a dead or permanently crippled fighter. Just thoughts.