Grounded Rule needs to change

welcometohavoc

Yellow Card
Yellow Card
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
23,584
Reaction score
7,437
Firstly let me say that Yan's knee was 100% illegal under the current rules and Sterling had no reason to expect it. That being said, that knee from Yan should be legal 100%.

The grounded opponent rule was created to protect fighters from having their heads smashed against the canvas by knees/stomps ala Mark Coleman vs. Igor Vovchanchyn or Kevin Randleman vs. Kenichi Yamamoto, not to protect them from getting struck in a crouching position. The definition of grounded needs to be changed to refer only to fighters who are on their backs or in a turtle position. Its an outdated rule that does nothing for safety and just limits fighters tools.
 
100% agree. On the stomach or back should be considered grounded while hands or knees touching should be fair game. It's ridiculous that these guys can attempt takedowns get stuffed and then not get punished for it because they intentionally put a hand or knee down stalling to find a safe time to stand up.
 
Last edited:
I meam Yan could've found other ways to win, that was just sloppy. No need for rule changes.
 
You are years behind, he had a knee down, not just touching it with one hand...that rule has changed a while back.
 
I meam Yan could've found other ways to win, that was just sloppy. No need for rule changes.

100% irrelevant. The only reason we're talking about this is because this was the most recent example, but the rule is just garbage in general. There is no reason for that knee to be illegal yet a guy like Brock Lesnar can elbow a guys head through the canvas when he's on his back
 
You are years behind, he had a knee down, not just touching it with one hand...that rule has changed a while back.

I clearly laid out what I think a grounded opponent should be. A guy on his back or in the turtle position. You're just arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.
 
I clearly laid out what I think a grounded opponent should be. A guy on his back or in the turtle position. You're just arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.
Pointing out that a rule on what means ground has been changed already, you just want almost everything on the ground to be legal like UFC 1, Aljo wasnt playing a rules game like most used to before the rules got changed, now you ask for a knee down to not be considered as grounded.
 
Pointing out that a rule on what means ground has been changed already, you just want almost everything on the ground to be legal like UFC 1, Aljo wasnt playing a rules game like most used to before the rules got changed, now you ask for a knee down to not be considered as grounded.

I said absolutely no such thing. I said the grounded rule should only refer to fighters on their back or in a turtle position. I have no idea how you can reach this conclusion unless you're just trying to be obtuse
 
Pointing out that a rule on what means ground has been changed already, you just want almost everything on the ground to be legal like UFC 1, Aljo wasnt playing a rules game like most used to before the rules got changed, now you ask for a knee down to not be considered as grounded.
Actually, this article makes a very compelling argument that that’s exactly what Sterling was doing - playing a rules game. And that what he was doing was a perfect example of why the rule needs changing.

https://www.mmamania.com/2021/3/7/2...time-to-legalize-knees-to-a-grounded-opponent

curious if you agree or disagree after reading it.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2021-3-7_7-45-16.png
    upload_2021-3-7_7-45-16.png
    174.4 KB · Views: 5
100% agree. On the stomach or back should be considered grounded while hands or knees touching should be fair game. It's ridiculous that these guys can attempt takedowns get stuffed and then not get punished for it because they intentionally put a hand or knee down stalling to find a safe time to stand up.

The intentional hand on the ground is egregious. I would extend your definition of grounded to include shoulder, hip, butt/pelvis. All of those are clearly a downed.
 
I agree, Aljo was playing that game all night. Fighters do it all the time, those knees should be legal. I was glad MM supports this take.
 
I don't get why the UFC doesn't make everything illegal aside from the obvious stuff like groin shots and eye gauges.
 
TS is right
It is a stupid rule
 
I agree. Yan is guilty, Aljo did nothing wrong and it was appropriate that Yan was disqualified. But the rule is shit, it causes fighters to play this idiotic "I'm up! I'm down!" game which is NOT fighting. Then there's the fact that there are two variations of the rule based on where you're fighting, which makes it confusing. 12-6 elbows and knees to grounded opponents should be allowed, both would make for more exciting fights too.
 
Firstly let me say that Yan's knee was 100% illegal under the current rules and Sterling had no reason to expect it. That being said, that knee from Yan should be legal 100%.

The grounded opponent rule was created to protect fighters from having their heads smashed against the canvas by knees/stomps ala Mark Coleman vs. Igor Vovchanchyn or Kevin Randleman vs. Kenichi Yamamoto, not to protect them from getting struck in a crouching position. The definition of grounded needs to be changed to refer only to fighters who are on their backs or in a turtle position. Its an outdated rule that does nothing for safety and just limits fighters tools.

Coleman's biggest knee KO was against a crouching opponent in Goes, thats actually the most dangerous position for taking knees and soccer kicks and something people normally avoided much more in Pride falling back to open guard more.

Really thats the main arguement for dropping the rule I would say, in Pride when fighter had adapted you actually had very few plum knees or soccer kicks on the ground, it was more about forcing fighters to fight in a certain way avoiding dangerous positions.
 
Back
Top