- Joined
- Nov 28, 2009
- Messages
- 12,234
- Reaction score
- 11,454
This rule is completely nuts and triggers me.
Upkicks to a "grounded opponent" that is.
Any argument related to damage that may be caused I feel like is refuted by the sheer fact of knees to the face being legal from the standing position.
Mike Perry agrees:
So you cannot do this :
Because...? It's a "down" opponent? The purpose of the definition of a down opponent that comes to mind is that he is defenseless to a degree and it may look barbaric, involving less skills, thus soccer kicking a guy while he is down is banned due to PR reasons, I get it (although I wish it wasn't banned). But you cannot upkick a guy that CAN smash your face in with elbows, that's beyond silly to me. They take away a big tool to defend yourself from a bottom position, which would create more action and passing from the top, mind you.
Also, you can upkick the guy when he is going down but is not yet grounded, so the impact is actually worse, damage wise, for the person on top. So "damage", again, shouldn't be used here for defending this rule.
Heel being too devastating? "Hardest part of the body" argument I've seen. Yeah, right. But I can heel kick your face to a second row with a spinning heel hook.
Any ideas as to why this rule is banned, other than the rule set being created long time ago when people knew shit and now they are unwilling to change it for some reason (which is..?)
Upkicks to a "grounded opponent" that is.
Any argument related to damage that may be caused I feel like is refuted by the sheer fact of knees to the face being legal from the standing position.
Mike Perry agrees:

So you cannot do this :

Because...? It's a "down" opponent? The purpose of the definition of a down opponent that comes to mind is that he is defenseless to a degree and it may look barbaric, involving less skills, thus soccer kicking a guy while he is down is banned due to PR reasons, I get it (although I wish it wasn't banned). But you cannot upkick a guy that CAN smash your face in with elbows, that's beyond silly to me. They take away a big tool to defend yourself from a bottom position, which would create more action and passing from the top, mind you.
Also, you can upkick the guy when he is going down but is not yet grounded, so the impact is actually worse, damage wise, for the person on top. So "damage", again, shouldn't be used here for defending this rule.
Heel being too devastating? "Hardest part of the body" argument I've seen. Yeah, right. But I can heel kick your face to a second row with a spinning heel hook.
Any ideas as to why this rule is banned, other than the rule set being created long time ago when people knew shit and now they are unwilling to change it for some reason (which is..?)