- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 23,233
- Reaction score
- 28,699
Mcarthy allowing back of the head strikes
- Thread starter Spinjitsu
- Start date
dakeyboardgod
White Belt
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2011
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
they weren't even hitting his mohawk, they were hitting the shaved part or the side of the head lol
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 16,944
- Reaction score
- 3,329
hes just a pup i imagine mang, all cocky and shit making statements for reaction factor rather than substance.
i do want to see knees to a downed opponent tho
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,766
- Reaction score
- 0
No, but they should allow knees to the face in that instance. Just like if the only thing the fighter leaves is the back of the head because he is covering up not trying to get back to his feet, then the back of the head should be fair game.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 10,767
- Reaction score
- 0
If the topic is whether the back of the head should be fair game, then lets talk about how that is illegal, but you're allowed to lift people high into the air and slam them right down on the back of their heads. No problemo.
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,297
- Reaction score
- 0
Because he wasn't blaring shots straight to the back of his head, he was using wide hooks to try to hit the sides. When he threw a punch directly to the back of the head John DID say something. But when the opponent is rolling his head underneath you and you use wide hooks to find his ears then the ref doesn't truly have to call it. Vitor though, he is another animal.
DaleRHCP
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 0
I didn't think there was a big problem with it. When the guy on the bottom is rolling around it's difficult to avoid the back of the head. The refs should be lenient in these circumstances. If Cormier was constantly pinpointing the back then i'm sure Mcarthy would have penalized him.
Bedroomrockstar
Orange Belt
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2011
- Messages
- 458
- Reaction score
- 0
Well I can't imagine how you earned those dubs.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,910
- Reaction score
- 0
Big John did warn him, and honestly it wasn't that big of a deal. Only a few slipped through and would be considered legit fouls, and it was mostly due to his opponent turning his head.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 0
No. They should let the fighter get blasted in the face by a knee. Sorry, off topic but I hate that hand on the canvas shit.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,766
- Reaction score
- 0
To be fair I understand about keeping a hand down to regain your bearings as you try to get back up. But voluntarily placing a hand down while you are clinched against the cage should not count you as a downed opponent, and you deserve to get blasted with a knee for your effort.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 5,452
- Reaction score
- 854
Because he wasn't blaring shots straight to the back of his head, he was using wide hooks to try to hit the sides. When he threw a punch directly to the back of the head John DID say something. But when the opponent is rolling his head underneath you and you use wide hooks to find his ears then the ref doesn't truly have to call it. Vitor though, he is another animal.
That gif is fucking disgraceful.
What is the point of even having the rule if a fighter can blatantly cheat and get a way with it like that?
So what if an opponent only has the back of their head exposed or is turning their head in a certain way? It is illegal - what your opponent is doing doesn't change that.
It's like saying if your opponent is blocking his head and body effectively then it's fine to kick them in the nuts because that's all they have exposed.
It doesn't work like that.
Cormier landing numerous illegal strikes, despite the warnings. It wouldn't have changed the outcome but he should have had a point deducted.
If Staring was covering up leaving only the back of the head exposed then switch to a submission or get him to change his posture.
It's like saying if your opponent is blocking his head and body effectively then it's fine to kick them in the nuts because that's all they have exposed.
It doesn't work like that.
Cormier landing numerous illegal strikes, despite the warnings. It wouldn't have changed the outcome but he should have had a point deducted.
If Staring was covering up leaving only the back of the head exposed then switch to a submission or get him to change his posture.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,315
- Reaction score
- 392
That "soldier" had nothing to do in a cage with Cormier anyway.
Yes, maybe I would rather have it allowed actually.
It might stop people rolling into a defensive position, hoping the fight gets stood back up, as the aggressor is forced to stall for fear of being disqualified.
Or maybe you enjoy watching that?
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2010
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 0
You realise how dangerous punches to the back of the head are right?
This isn't fairness, this is a safety rule.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,910
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes and no. If only the foul zone is exposed due to the way your opponent positions themselves, you cannot intentionally target the foul area, so you'd be right in that scenario.. However, if you are swinging and your opponent is turning their head back and forth etc, and you land some strikes to the back of the head, it is not a foul. Here's Big John explaining it at about 3:25.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
BJM is one of the worst and most inconsistent refs.
