An Illegal Knee to the Head should be an auto DQ/NC

Knee down makes u a grounded opponent had nothing to do with the hand...


Yan knows the rules just as me and u both do...u even sent them to me...

Purposeful foul...auto DQ at Refs discretion as it should be...thats a severe foul...the rules say call it and be done with it...based on severity

We shouldnt be putting compromised fighters on the hot seat to make decisions after taking brutal foul shots..


This is a sport...sports have rules...
Again, severity is not about impact.

And yan said he thought the knee was up. The hand came up which was a change in circumstance. There is obviously some grey on intent here, unlike say sims against mir or Tyson biting an ear, or Golata low blow for the 6th time. That’s why the rule is there.
 
Again, severity is not about impact.

And yan said he thought the knee was up. The hand came up which was a change in circumstance. There is obviously some grey on intent here, unlike say sims against mir or Tyson biting an ear, or Golata low blow for the 6th time. That’s why the rule is there.


I dunno ...to me it was a severe foul...and a direct contradiction from instruction the ref gave him before throwing it...

We have different criteria in regards to severity....i dunno how this couldnt be viewed as a severe foul...if this isnt a auto DQ worth K.O i dunno what is really
 
I dunno ...to me it was a severe foul...and a direct contradiction from instruction the ref gave him before throwing it...

We have different criteria in regards to severity....i dunno how this couldnt be viewed as a severe foul...if this isnt a auto DQ worth K.O i dunno what is really
the ref told him he was grounded when his hand went to the ground. he threw the knee when his hand was no longer on the ground.

and again, i gave you blatantly more egregious examples with no ambiguity.
 
the ref told him he was grounded when his hand went to the ground. he threw the knee when his hand was no longer on the ground.

and again, i gave you blatantly more egregious examples with no ambiguity.
.
So outside of biting someones ears...an auto DQ shouldn't exist??..

That seems alittle lienteint for a sport people are hitting each other in...

He was grounded due to the knee on the ground its not like the ref was yelling..hes down...hes not...hes down..hes not...he said hes down..
And never said otherwise..

Ur trying treat Yan like hes idiot and didnt know better...he knew...he knows what he did
 
Champ retains in a DQ (in pro-wrasslin'...and this is apparently what the OP wants).

Jarl


That's not what TS said at all, lol. No one's even talking about pro wrestling.
 
.
Yo outside of biting someones ears...an auto DQ shouldn't exist??..

That seems alittle lienteint for a sport people are hitting each other in...

He was grounded due to the knee on the ground its not like the ref was yelling..hes down...hes not...hes down..hes not...he said hes down..
And never said otherwise..

Ur trying Yan like hes idiot and didnt know better...he knew...he knows what he did
i gave other examples. not just tyson.

df-vR1.gif

tumblr_mm9gtqFl8y1sq1a4no1_400.gifv

19fE.gif
 
the ref told him he was downed. then his hand came off the canvas.

So your argument is that Yan doesn't know the rules of the sport of which he's a champion? That's preposterous. Yan knows full well how many points of the body equals a downed fighter.
 



Watch until the end DC and Hellawani spell it out..
 
So your argument is that Yan doesn't know the rules of the sport of which he's a champion? That's preposterous. Yan knows full well how many points of the body equals a downed fighter.
he said he didn't know his knee was grounded.
 
A solid defense position with the unified rules is either a finger in the ground or drop to your knees.

it really Makes for a great fight and what the sport was intended to simulate.

a knee on the ground is a fierce foul. But if you can slide a piece of paper under that knee it’s a great ko.

what a watered down shit show and gaming of the rules you can do.

and it’s not just this yan aljo fight. It’s well over more than half. A guy will just touch the floor with his hand or put a knee down.

a
The loudest voices are new mma fans who think this is a justifiable rule. As it’s as dangerous as kicking a guy in the head standing or in a Thai plum and bringing his face to your knee.

it’s an absurd rule that makes the sport look so foolish. But the majority of fans think what they are told so they think this is a safety issue. Hilarious
 
That's not what TS said at all, lol. No one's even talking about pro wrestling.

My point still stands. The OP claims an auto DQ necessitates a rematch, so champ retains the belt. That type of rule would encourage champs to cheat if they start losing are involved in a close decision (just like pro-rasslin'). Try reading the OP's post before you reply to my post. And, after you read it, THINK about what it implies.

Jarl
 
My point still stands. The OP claims an auto DQ necessitates a rematch, so champ retains the belt. That type of rule would encourage champs to cheat if they start losing are involved in a close decision (just like pro-rasslin'). Try reading the OP's post before you reply to my post. And, after you read it, THINK about what it implies.

Jarl


You're the one that misunderstood the OP and you still don't get it. The champ does NOT retain if he's the one that commits the foul. That's something you made up or got from pro wrestling. Not once did TS say that or anything about pro wrestling.
 
You're the one that misunderstood the OP and you still don't get it. The champ does NOT retain if he's the one that commits the foul. That's something you made up or got from pro wrestling. Not once did TS say that or anything about pro wrestling.

Then why say it necessitates an automatic rematch? What grade level is your reading comprehension? Maybe you are late for school. Get goin' (and don't forget your lunch box).

Jarl
 
Then why say it necessitates an automatic rematch? What grade level is your reading comprehension? Maybe you are late for school. Get goin' (and don't forget your lunch box).

Jarl


Because of the controversy. It's amazing you're this lost.

It's funny you wanna insult anyone's intelligence when you're so far off from understanding the OP. Just about everyone else in this thread got it but you.
 
look, either he was recovered enough to continue, or he wasn't. the fighter fouling bears the risk that he losses because of the foul. but the fouled fighter does bear some responsibility in the equation. if he can continue, and he's not compromised after evaluation from the doctor, he shouldn't be faking it just to get a win. again, only sterling knows how compromised he was. but it's bullshit to just say take the win and fake it if you have to.

What does recovered enough to continue mean? If you mean recovered to the same point he was before the illegal strike then it makes sense, no harm was done. If it means recovered enough to get back on his feet (like in boxing with legal blows, they're considered recovered enough to continue if they can regain their feet, answer a question like "what day is it", and keep their wrists tight when the ref pushes on their gloves) so he can get knocked down five seconds later, then the guy who did the foul just got a massive advantage from an illegal strike.

The problem is how to make it fair, and really the only way is to let the guy who was fouled get the same free strike against the fouler, so they're both equally concussed when they restart. Assuming that will never fly legally, almost any continuation means the guy who was fouled, even if they can continue, will be continuing at a reduced capacity. That gives a big incentive to foul fighters -- its trading a point deduction for putting a fighter at 50% capacity (enough to continue but not to continue well).
 
the refs role is to bring in the doctor to evaluate the fighter.
Even this though has issues, and at the very least the fighter's choice should be removed. Also not sure how well a doctor can evaluate brain damage in the cage like that. I'm sure the more obvious situations are apparent, but even so. There's some subjectivity to it all, but in this particular case, it was a deliberate, hard shot, even if Yan wasn't deliberate in breaking the rule.
 
okay but DQ and NC are not the same thing

NC is basically a draw

DQ means one fighter loses and the other wins because of the illegal blow

it's an important difference
 
Has a fighter ever won after being illegally kneed in the head?


Bisping kneed Jorge Rivera and Jorge chose time continue and lost.

Jones kneed Lionheart, Smith chose to continue and lost.

Eddie kneed Dustin in the head, fight was NC, right? (The only case I can think of where the guy who threw the knee wasn’t on the way to winning already at the time of the foul)


Nate Marquardt kneed (Thiago?) what’s his name, and did a pile driver, and would have gone on to win but the multiple fouls flipped the results and Nate lost on points
Amar Soulev smoked Baroni with a flush knee and Baroni KOd him minutes later
 
okay but DQ and NC are not the same thing

NC is basically a draw

DQ means one fighter loses and the other wins because of the illegal blow

it's an important difference

I believe as currently written in the rule, NC and DQ only depends on intention.
 
the ref told him he was grounded when his hand went to the ground. he threw the knee when his hand was no longer on the ground.

and again, i gave you blatantly more egregious examples with no ambiguity.
How good is Petres English, could he even understand the reffs instructions clearly.
 
Back
Top