Eye pokes create a huge advantage, and current rules are absurd

[HereticBD]

I think it's dramatic in talking about changing the entire dynamic of the sport. I'm not trying to legislate intent, my point is more that intent isn't all that relevant.

It's VERY relevant. It's the most relevant thing in this conversation. How do you measure intent? That's what it's all about.

Again, you have Jon Jones admitting he does it on purpose. Why? Because he knows the negative outcomes for his opponent from it is real, and he knows that each fight he can get away with it and face essentially no consequences. Meanwhile you have Jim Miller with the most fights in org history and never doing it. Do you think that's some wild coincidence?

So TWO whole fighters decide this whole thing? That is anecdotal and no different than arguing safety rules for any number of professions, where one guy looks to follow the rules to a tee, and another one looks to take advantage of them. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the people in that field just simply make mistakes. Should they all be held to the same standard of the perfect guy?

 

[mkess101]

It's VERY relevant. It's the most relevant thing in this conversation. How do you measure intent? That's what it's all about.

So TWO whole fighters decide this whole thing? That is anecdotal and no different than arguing safety rules for any number of professions, where one guy looks to follow the rules to a tee, and another one looks to take advantage of them. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the people in that field just simply make mistakes. Should they all be held to the same standard of the perfect guy?

I disagree. When you do something dangerous, the punishment needs to be commensurate EVEN IF there's no intent. In football (American), launching yourself at a defenseless receiver results in a more severe penalty than other fouls. And you can be ejected from the game for it, even if the intent clearly isn't to injure someone.

This recent instance, Gane was warned at least once (maybe twice) and continued the same behavior and lo and behold he rakes the shit out Aspinall's eyes. So we're just gonna shrug and say "Ehh, he may not have meant to gouge his eyeballs, let's not be too hard on him..." Nah, my view is that (just as we are generally in society) that you're responsible for your actions, regardless of your intentions.

 

[HereticBD]

I disagree. When you do something dangerous

It's a fight, though. The entire endeavor is dangerous.

the punishment needs to be commensurate EVEN IF there's no intent. In football (American), launching yourself at a defenseless receiver results in a more severe penalty than other fouls. And you can be ejected from the game for it, even if the intent clearly isn't to injure someone.

Sure, but you're comparing a spur of the moment eye poke in a fight, to a football play where anyone can tell when the receiver is defenseless. These are not comparable.

To me, this is like trying to regulate when a slash in hockey is legal. They all hack and slash throughout the entire game, but only the highly and visibly intentional and detrimental ones are called. That's basically the system in MMA right now, when it comes to eye pokes. The intent has to be very obvious for a big penalty, and it will never be perfect.

This recent instance, Gane was warned at least once (maybe twice) and continued the same behavior and lo and behold he rakes the shit out Aspinall's eyes. So we're just gonna shrug and say "Ehh, he may not have meant to gouge his eyeballs, let's not be too hard on him..." Nah, my view is that (just as we are generally in society) that you're responsible for your actions, regardless of your intentions.

But this isn't a "societal" issue. It's an MMA issue. A sport where your intent is to incapacitate your opponent through violence, with hands and legs wildly flailing about. Eye pokes are gonna happen. Now in your example, that's just a case of bad officiating. If he was warned for it, he should've been punished when he continued to do it. You don't need to change the sport for that. The ref needs to be talked to. That's all.

 

[650lb Sumo]

You should be heavily penalised for even extending fingers towards your opponent's face, the ref shouldn't wait until they actually make contact with the eyes.

 

[mkess101]

It's a fight, though. The entire endeavor is dangerous.

Sure, but you're comparing a spur of the moment eye poke in a fight, to a football play where anyone can tell when the receiver is defenseless. These are not comparable.

To me, this is like trying to regulate when a slash in hockey is legal. They all hack and slash throughout the entire game, but only the highly and visibly intentional and detrimental ones are called. That's basically the system in MMA right now, when it comes to eye pokes. The intent has to be very obvious for a big penalty, and it will never be perfect.

But this isn't a "societal" issue. It's an MMA issue. A sport where your intent is to incapacitate your opponent through violence, with hands and legs wildly flailing about. Eye pokes are gonna happen. Now in your example, that's just a case of bad officiating. If he was warned for it, he should've been punished when he continued to do it. You don't need to change the sport for that. The ref needs to be talked to. That's all.

Wait...what? American football plays are 100% "spur of the moment". These are the fastest guys on earth going full speed and having to make decisions in a microsecond on whether to hit the receiver or try to make a play on the ball etc. Maybe you just aren't as familiar with American football? Not sure.

My advocacy is for a more uniform approach. The ref "being talked to" is empty rhetoric when there's no actual hard and fast rule about how many warnings, etc. Everyone needs to know going in exactly what will happen if they are operating in a way that's likely to potentially lead to an eye poke.

I agree you'll never get rid of them altogether and that's an unrealistic goal. Repeat offenders need to be held accountable though.

 

[HereticBD]

Wait...what? American football plays are 100% "spur of the moment". These are the fastest guys on earth going full speed and having to make decisions in a microsecond on whether to hit the receiver or try to make a play on the ball etc. Maybe you just aren't as familiar with American football? Not sure.

Don't give me that shit. An eye poke is nowhere near a dude rushing and ploughing into a defenseless receiver. It's not even on the same planet. It could be football, hockey, rugby, etc. You know when a guy is defenseless. They aren't moving like The Flash, dude. They're in control of their body. Little different from a fight, where your hands are constantly in the face of your opponent, and any defensive reflex could result in an eye poke.

My advocacy is for a more uniform approach. The ref "being talked to" is empty rhetoric when there's no actual hard and fast rule about how many warnings, etc. Everyone needs to know going in exactly what will happen if they are operating in a way that's likely to potentially lead to an eye poke.

Okay, so lay out what could "potentially" lead to an eye poke in MMA, that doesn't compromise the fight. Gonna get rid of the natural instinct to paw at an opponent to create distance, or naturally extend your hands(and fingers) to defend against a million different offensive moves?

Again, the systems are in place to combat it. It's up to the refs to enforce them. Intentionally poking someone in the eye is already illegal.

I agree you'll never get rid of them altogether and that's an unrealistic goal. Repeat offenders need to be held accountable though.

Sure, but that again falls at the feet of enforcement of the rules that are already in place. There is a reason why you don't see that enforcement all the time. It's because it's a generally incidental foul, that is damn hard to figure out intent. Same deal with nut shots. Shit happens. The rules don't need to be changed because some fighter some people like got poked.

 

[mkess101]

Don't give me that shit. An eye poke is nowhere near a dude rushing and ploughing into a defenseless receiver. It's not even on the same planet. It could be football, hockey, rugby, etc. You know when a guy is defenseless. They aren't moving like The Flash, dude. They're in control of their body. Little different from a fight, where your hands are constantly in the face of your opponent, and any defensive reflex could result in an eye poke.

Okay, so lay out what could "potentially" lead to an eye poke in MMA, that doesn't compromise the fight. Gonna get rid of the natural instinct to paw at an opponent to create distance, or naturally extend your hands(and fingers) to defend against a million different offensive moves?

Again, the systems are in place to combat it. It's up to the refs to enforce them. Intentionally poking someone in the eye is already illegal.

Sure, but that again falls at the feet of enforcement of the rules that are already in place. There is a reason why you don't see that enforcement all the time. It's because it's a generally incidental foul, that is damn hard to figure out intent. Same deal with nut shots. Shit happens. The rules don't need to be changed because some fighter some people like got poked.

It's exactly like a guy running into a defenseless receiver because when he's sprinting full out and the ball is in the air he's trying to make bunch of micro decisions in fractions of a second. He thinks he has a play on the ball and the receiver moves a tiny amount and all of a sudden there's a huge collision. In the end he's responsible for that collision, just like a guy who rakes his opponents eyes is responsible for his.

Yes, you are trying to get rid of fighters putting hands near their opponents faces with fingers extended. Yes. Absolutely. Plenty of fighters are able to fight effectively without doing it. If you can't, find a different sport, or career.

In the NBA, you have levels of flagrant fouls. Intent is one factor, but there doesn't need to be bad intent to have it be a flagrant foul if it's deemed dangerous or unnecessary. And if you're a player who's racking up those type fouls (even what they call "flagrant one" fouls that don't assume ill intent), there are cumulative punishments. How about incorporating that in MMA? You're poking people in the eye consistently, you have a shorter leash. Quicker point deductions.

Refs literally say to fighters "It's your responsibility to be in control of your weapons." They aren't saying that to them with the assumption that there's malicious intent. They're saying "I don't care if you didn't mean to poke his eye or kick him in the nuts, it's your responsibility to operate in a way where that's not happening more than a rare one-off. If you can't control things enough to not blast that dude's balls or skewer his eye, there are gonna be consequences." The issue is those consequences aren't uniform nor is enforcement consistent.

 

[joy2day]

Wait...what? American football plays are 100% "spur of the moment". These are the fastest guys on earth going full speed and having to make decisions in a microsecond on whether to hit the receiver or try to make a play on the ball etc. Maybe you just aren't as familiar with American football? Not sure.

My advocacy is for a more uniform approach. The ref "being talked to" is empty rhetoric when there's no actual hard and fast rule about how many warnings, etc. Everyone needs to know going in exactly what will happen if they are operating in a way that's likely to potentially lead to an eye poke.

I agree you'll never get rid of them altogether and that's an unrealistic goal. Repeat offenders need to be held accountable though.

Yeah, serious helmet to helmet contact of a QB or defenseless receiver is automatic ejection from the game if it is reviewed and validated- the issue is whether they made contact, not their intention. Players can be fined or suspended if it's bad enough also. That could be pretty hard to avoid in some instances, but you are responsible for doing it. That's pretty much the theme throughout sports.

 

[Alpha_T83]

You should be heavily penalised for even extending fingers towards your opponent's face, the ref shouldn't wait until they actually make contact with the eyes.

I think part of the problem is that the rules aren't written well. The rules prohibit pointing your fingers towards your opponents face, but they don't require you to keep your fingers perfectly parallel to your opponents face at all times.

The rules should be written that your fingers must be pointed up, perfectly parallel to your opponents face at all times, when your hand is extended with an open palm. Even a 5 degree tilt of your fingers towards your opponent's face should require a point deduction, otherwise pokes will happen.

And it should be illegal to make physical contact with your opponents face with an open palm at all times.

 

[Hotora86]

by your argument, one person who is semi-retired gets away with it to the point everyone is up in arms about it lolz

Not one person.

Jon Jones, Travis Browne, Leon Edwards, Ciryl Gane, Henry Cejudo, Daniel Cormier, Michael Bisping, Yoel Romero, Stipe Miocic, Yair Rodriguez, Sean O'Malley, Kamaru Usman, Song Yadong... and the list goes on!

No DQs.
No points lost.
This is turning into a common issue.

 

[joy2day]

It looks like they ARE going to change the rules. Herb Dean says: “There's gonna be a meeting where we go over that. Definitely something's gonna happen. Enough people are upset, enough of the right people. Some people have been talking, it's got enough momentum... For people to vote on a rule change, there are a bunch of rule changes we should do; we’ll get to those, too."

UFC referee reveals Tom Aspinall eye poke could force rule change

The heavyweight champion was left compromised by an eye poke from rival Ciryl Gane to leave their fight as a no contest

sports.yahoo.com

 

[Only Here for Attachments]

Certainly created a huge advantage for Tom's YouTube channel

 

[IsNormal]

I assume that refs would be hesitant to deduct 1 point in many cases.
In the current point system where both decisive rounds and toss up rounds will be a 10-9, and a 10-8 is a rarity, deducting a full point will often be a huge deal. I know, some will argue that "Eye pokes SHOULD be a huge deal" - but since refs today often let them slide, doing 1 point deduction for every eye poke would be such a massive change.

I would consider if they could do yellow cards or 0.5 point deductions.
If there's a draw, you could let this be the deciding factor.

 

[Tito Tapped]

Yeah, serious helmet to helmet contact of a QB or defenseless receiver is automatic ejection from the game if it is reviewed and validated- the issue is whether they made contact, not their intention. Players can be fined or suspended if it's bad enough also. That could be pretty hard to avoid in some instances, but you are responsible for doing it. That's pretty much the theme throughout sports.

Should the team automatically forfit the entire game? Is it not a major and unfair advantage for you to lose your QB into concussion protocol, possibly for multiple games, while Johnny backup DE sits out the rest of the 2nd half?

Because this is what MMA fans are calling for.

 

[joy2day]

Should the team automatically forfit the entire game? Is it not a major and unfair advantage for you to lose your QB into concussion protocol, possibly for multiple games, while Johnny backup DE sits out the rest of the 2nd half?

Because this is what MMA fans are calling for.

I have no idea what you are even talking about.

 

[joy2day]

I assume that refs would be hesitant to deduct 1 point in many cases.

They won't have a choice if that is what the new rules dictate.