(Pic) So is this an illegal knee?

[Rebel_LioN]

And if it isn't, is it legal now?

 

[Fahcough]

Yes

It was and it still is

Not sure why Tim was so proud he landed an illegal shot

 

[Phrozenspite]

yes. the only change to the rule is now if a hand is what causes them to be a downed opponent it has to be both hands not just one.

 

[Rebel_LioN]

yes. the only change to the rule is now if a hand is what causes them to be a downed opponent it has to be both hands not just one.

So you're telling me the 3 points of contact is still in effect if it's a knee? But if it's his hands there needs to be 4 points?

 

[Fahcough]

So you're telling me the 3 points of contact is still in effect if it's a knee? But if it's his hands there needs to be 4 points?

That looks like the least confusing answer I've seen.

 

[Bluntforce420]

So you're telling me the 3 points of contact is still in effect if it's a knee? But if it's his hands there needs to be 4 points?

One knee = downed opponent

2 hands = downed opponent

 

[Bluntforce420]

That looks like the least confusing answer I've seen.

Im confused by it

But not by the new rule

 

[CrimsonFan]

I'm really confused too guys

 

[lifelessheap]

If a knee is down or an ass is down he is down. If you bend over and stick a finger on the floor with one hand your are not down.

 

[LiQuiD42]

Ok so no knee or ass down, you must have 2 hands on the floor to be down.

 

[Bluntforce420]

Ok so no knee or ass down, you must have 2 hands on the floor to be down.

Yes. No more leaning on the cage and putting one hand down to keep from being kneed

 

[Scheme]

But Rogan said if it happened the day after it would be a legal knee.

 

[Mikey Palangio]

They need to get rid of that downed opponent rule. You are expected to intelligently defend yourself at all times, so it makes no sense to have downed opponent rule, because it implies that the fighter cannot defend, if that is the case, the fight should be called.

 

[LiQuiD42]

They need to get rid of that downed opponent rule. You are expected to intelligently defend yourself at all times, so it makes no sense to have downed opponent rule, because it implies that the fighter cannot defend, if that is the case, the fight should be called.

See the problem with your post is: it contains a very high amount of common sense and well..... we just can't have that shit round these parts.

 

[Workaholic]

But Rogan said if it happened the day after it would be a legal knee.

He was wrong

Which made it more confusing

 

[GusLost]

In Rizin = spectacular fun

In UFC = no, we don't like exciting finishes as much

 

[WaylonMercy5150]

You call that an "illegal knee". This is an illegal knee

 

[Schoolboy Q]

Illegal when it happened and it's still illegal.

 

[HendricksPunch]

You call that an "illegal knee". This is an illegal knee

Ive never seen this before. Holy shit that was brutal. I'm legit LMAO watching it. That second knee was ridiculous.

Who are these guys? I can't tell.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

They need to get rid of that downed opponent rule. You are expected to intelligently defend yourself at all times, so it makes no sense to have downed opponent rule, because it implies that the fighter cannot defend, if that is the case, the fight should be called.

Er, what? The downed opponent rule does not imply that the downed fighter cannot defend himself. It says that he cannot be attacked by kicks or knees to the head.

It makes plenty of sense to restrict certain kinds of attacks by rule.