- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Mcarthy allowing back of the head strikes
- Thread starter Spinjitsu
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2011
- Messages
- 13,899
- Reaction score
- 357
He did get a warning and DC was targeting the ear on a lot of his shots (not illegal).
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2011
- Messages
- 13,899
- Reaction score
- 357
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,910
- Reaction score
- 0
He's been reffing what...like 15-20 years? I think I'll go with his interpretation over any Sherdogger's 10 out of 10 times.
EarnPow**
Brown Belt
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,532
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, smashing the soft part of the skull should TOTALLY be legal.
Fighters don't deliberately hit the back of the head. They know not to do that.
Largely it is only when they are forced to out of position, to maintain their attack that it occurs.
I just hate watching a fight and having to keep thinking "omg be careful, you don't wana get disqualified", when a fighter clearly has the upper hand
Largely it is only when they are forced to out of position, to maintain their attack that it occurs.
I just hate watching a fight and having to keep thinking "omg be careful, you don't wana get disqualified", when a fighter clearly has the upper hand
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 28,400
- Reaction score
- 0
Appeal to authority fallacy. It has to actually be in the book. McCarthy has shown to make up his own rules all the time.
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 10,767
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe viewer enjoyment isn't the primary concern here.
Since around BJM's "Yeah, you wanted to play the game!?" comment to Jones after Belfort kicked him, I've noticed a clear tendency among the refs to let much more slide with regard to the hand-on-mat shit. I've several times expected a ref to step in because that's what I've been used to, and been surprised when they didn't.
In reality we need a new definition of a grounded opponent.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,910
- Reaction score
- 0
Appeal to authority/Argument from authority..yes. Fallacy, no. You are not even using the term correctly. In order for it to be an Appeal to Authority Fallacy, the "expert" in question has to be..well, not really an expert. For example, if I said "trust me, those shots were illegal, I am an expert in Rear Cranial Strike-ology", THAT would be an example of an appeal to authority fallacy. I am not an expert, there is no such field as rear cranial strike-ology, and the pros like BJM would disagree with me.
Of course I am going to cite BJM. When you want legal advice, you ask a lawyer. You want medical advice, you ask a doctor. You want clarifications on MMA rules, you ask the guy who wrote the book. No fallacy there. BJM helped found and create the damned referee course, you know, the one the Athletic Commission and Boxing Association recognizes as the golden standard. The course you have to take to be an MMA referee. You calling it a fallacy would be like telling the Founding Fathers that their interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, and some political blogger's was right.
It's not a fallacy when you take the word of the guy who helped write the rules.
Last edited:
L
LegioTitan
Guest
I never really thought about it like that. Interesting point, brah.
I've noticed this too. As a fan it doesn't really bother me, TBH.
I think it's a silly abuse of the rules. But then my opinion is terribly biased as I'm a supporter of kicks/knees to a downed opponent.
Just bleed barbarian, I know.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2007
- Messages
- 7,910
- Reaction score
- 0
http://boxing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/boxingnvgov/content/faq/MMA_RULES_Expained.pdf
Here:
9. Striking to the spine or the back of the head.
No direct striking attacks are allowed to the spine or the back of the head. A direct strike is an
aimed and executed attack to the area. The back of the head is considered the direct center of the
head with 1’ inch of tolerance to either side
Just like BJM said. You have to intentionally target the area for it to be a foul. Swinging and then your opponent turning into it isnt a foul.
Guld**
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2007
- Messages
- 815
- Reaction score
- 0
This guy knows what's up.
Trey Songz
Green Belt
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2011
- Messages
- 1,402
- Reaction score
- 0
He let it go, so he can just stop the fight. It was obvious that Staring was tremendously outclassed.
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.
I actually don't think this gif is that bad. It appears to me that the punches landed are more to the side of the head. As far as the Mohawk rule this doesn't seem bad at All.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2003
- Messages
- 2,360
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2007
- Messages
- 208
- Reaction score
- 29
I said this in another thread...I believe Staring took that fight for one reason. He was a crash test dummy for Overeem. He continually initiated the clinch, even though his supposed strength is as a striker. This was for the benefit of AO, so that he could see how Cormier reacts in the clinch. There is a strong possibility that AO will face Cormier down the road; as well as his training partner, Cain. If you rewatch the fight, Staring never really tried to strike with Cormier. He would just awkwardly advance into a clinch with him. The clinch game is a strength of AO's, with his knees to the body and thai plum. I am sure he was watching closely to study Cormier's techniques in that position.
My theory is the only thing that makes sense in regards to Staring's fight plan in that matchup...
chamchamtrigger
Brown Belt
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 4,822
- Reaction score
- 0
Even if the very corner of your thumb or pinky hits the ear, it's a legal shot.
Sorry, bro.
Sorry, bro.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 35,187
- Reaction score
- 9,574
NFL fallacy. my term, made up. not all sports are as specific as the NFL.
in the NFL, there are like 20 pages on what different players can do with his hand, feet, within 5 yards of the end zone, within the tackles, etc, etc. specific players.
in other sports, including mma, many rules are left vague or NOT in the rule books, and then taught at seminars, and left up to the ref.
did you know that the last rule in baseball is "anything not covered by this rulebook is up to the discretion of the home plate umpire?"
so unlike the NFL, MMA rules only have a vague "back of the head" rule, and then define it elsewhere. whereas the NFL would have a 20 page description.
because of this delta, you are incorrect in saying "It has to actually be in the book!" a shitton is left up to the ref. by design.
fact is, BJM was there before the rules, was there to help write the later rules, partook in the debates about the rules, understood the nuances of the intent of the rules, has taken the seminars on the best way to interpret and implement the rules, has taught the seminars on the best way to interpret and implement the rules, and frankly has probably forgotten more about the subtleties of the rules than you or i will ever know.
is he perfect? no. is perfection possible? no. but it's not nuthugging to point out that he's the most qualified expert in the sport. when you're sick, you don't go to a plumber for advice.
Last edited:
It has been proven time and again that if you are dominating the fight, you are allowed to punch in the back of the head under the pretense of "you were going to win anyway."
Belfort - Akiyama was the most egregious example.
Belfort - Akiyama was the most egregious example.
