Multiple fence grabs to stand up from heavy ground and pound should be a DQ loss

[Alpha_T83]

Obviously these fence grabs should not have been a DQ, though a DQ would have been more plausible than a TKO. While the foul(s) made it much easier for Teixeira to improve his position, they weren't after the bell, or referee abuse, or particularly dangerous for the opponent, or even necessary to escape a nearly certain finish; they just helped Teixeira improve position while he was being attacked. The heaviest ground-and-pound was already past by the time of the fence grabs, and the grabs were not the cause of the bad tactical decision by Lewis to stick to Teixeira's back and throw ineffective short punches as he got up rather than taking half a step back and blasting him in the undefended kidneys or knees.

The fence grabs were clearly consequential, which means at least one point should have been taken regardless of a lack of previous warnings (whether the multiple grabs were independently consequential and, if so, whether multiple fouls should have been assessed is another matter that could be legitimately debated), but on the scale of consequential fouls there was nothing particularly unsportsmanlike about them.

The real issue here is that neither a DQ nor a TKO are "100% clearly warranted" using the individual criteria.

While I will absolutely argue that a DQ is technically allowed under the rules, I will acknowledge that it is highly unlikely any MMA ref would DQ Tallison in that position. If you're ruling out a DQ, then the TKO stoppage is also questionable because Tallison looked like he continued.

However, there is a fundamental question: Should Tallison have been allowed to continue fighting? And I will aggressively argue NO.

So no matter whether a TKO or DQ is called, you'll have window lickers complaining because they wanted the fight to continue on. But it is completely unfair to take the win away from Derrick Lewis, just because Tallison intentionally turned his back, gave up intelligent defense, and committed multiple rules violations to get to his feet.

I think Herzog 100% made the right call.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Improving position and getting to your feet is 100% intelligent defense every time. It is quite literally exactly what a fighter should do. Working your way up the fence always has a fighters back to the opponent, this is normal. Especially when the guy just escaped 2 positions seconds prior.

You're not supposed to turn your back to your opponent to make yourself more difficult to hit. Period.

The rules need to make this more clear that a TKO will be called if you aren't able to intelligently defend yourself due to putting yourself in that position. You shouldn't be allowed to do what Tallison did. Period.

 

[sdpdude9]

You're not supposed to turn your back to your opponent to make yourself more difficult to hit. Period.

The rules need to make this more clear that a TKO will be called if you aren't able to intelligently defend yourself due to putting yourself in that position. You shouldn't be allowed to do what Tallison did. Period.

Making yourself more difficult to hit isn’t intelligent defense? Lmfao.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Making yourself more difficult to hit isn’t intelligent defense? Lmfao.

Yes when it abuses the rules of no strikes to the back of the head.

This is the entire philosophy behind "intelligent defense" from DECADES ago. The reason fights are stopped when people turtle on the ground isn't because of damage, it's because they've intentionally put themselves in a vulnerable position by turning their backs to their opponent, and their opponent swinging punches could hit them in the back of the head by accident.

You're not allowed to exploit the rules like that without getting stopped. Sadly, the rules are so goddamn poorly written that this concept isn't made clear anymore.

Referee Stoppage: the referee stops the contest because the combatant IS NOT INTELLIGENTLY DEFENDING HIMSELF/HERSELF;
1. Strikes

That's the most insanely poorly written garbage I've ever seen. That's what's written in the rules. It doesn't explain the concept behind intelligent defense at all. That definitely needs to be fixed to clarify that fighters ARE NOT allowed to turn their backs to their opponents, which is 100% the case. And again, referees are taught this even if you don't agree with it.

 

[sdpdude9]

Yes when it abuses the rules of no strikes to the back of the head.

This is the entire philosophy behind "intelligent defense" from DECADES ago. The reason fights are stopped when people turtle on the ground isn't because of damage, it's because they've intentionally put themselves in a vulnerable position by turning their backs to their opponent, and their opponent swinging punches could hit them in the back of the head by accident.

You're not allowed to exploit the rules like that without getting stopped. Sadly, the rules are so goddamn poorly written that this concept isn't made clear anymore.



That's the most insanely poorly written garbage I've ever seen. That's what's written in the rules. It doesn't explain the concept behind intelligent defense at all. That definitely needs to be fixed to clarify that fighters ARE NOT allowed to turn their backs to their opponents, which is 100% the case. And again, referees are taught this even if you don't agree with it.

That we can agree on, it’s so insanely subjective and that’s why arguments like this happen. It needs to be more clearly defined.

I disagree with your interpretation of intelligent defense. Has nothing to do with exploiting the rule, it’s when a fighter is not making the necessary moves to stay in the fight.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That's the problem: it wasn't a TKO.

The reason people are calling it a bad stoppage is because Tallison stood up and clearly wasn't finished. But he cheated multiple times to stand up from a bad position. Without grabbing the fence, he wouldn't have been able to stand up, and would have eventually been finished.

That's why this fight either should have been allowed to continue, possibly with a point deduction, or be called a DQ loss. IMO it should be a DQ loss.

That's what I think. Let the rule break go, don't disrupt the flow of the fight. If he managed to survive, take the point or dq him or whatever the ref feels necessary.

 

[Cartiac]

Nowhere does it say a referee can disqualify for any other reason. So you clearly haven’t read the actual rules, so who’s 100% making stuff up now? You’re wrong straight from the fucking book.

Well, except for the part of the rules that actually defines the reasons a ref can disqualify a fight which you somehow completely missed in your reading

d. Disqualification:
i. When an injury sustained during competition as a result of an intentional foul is severe enough to terminate the contest, multiple fouls have been assessed, and/or there is flagrant disregard for the rules and/or referee’s commands.

 

[sdpdude9]

Well, except for the part of the rules that actually defines the reasons a ref can disqualify a fight which you somehow completely missed in your reading

d. Disqualification:
i. When an injury sustained during competition as a result of an intentional foul is severe enough to terminate the contest, multiple fouls have been assessed, and/or there is flagrant disregard for the rules and/or referee’s commands.

You right, I overlooked that. Was reading more in the foul section since that’s what this is about. But still, this instance doesn’t meet any of that criteria.

 

[Cartiac]

You right, I overlooked that. Was reading more in the foul section since that’s what this is about. But still, this instance doesn’t meet any of that criteria.

I think a case could be made that two of those criteria were met. There were definitely multiple fouls committed and blatantly climbing up the fence could also be considered flagrant disregard for the rules, but nonetheless I enjoyed reading your debate of the rules with @Alpha_T83. There is definitely a lot of room for interpretation and clarification needed there. Enjoy the fights!

 

[Dr Fong]

Shut the fuck up. I'm 100% right and you can't even refute the argument and you know it.

Thanks for admitting defeat in the argument by literally not responding to what I said at all in any meanigful way.

Embarrassing.

I already pre-refuted your argument by anticipating you might abuse wording that seemingly gives referees broad discretion, while conveniently ignoring specific wording that deals with this specific foul.

And I explained to you that broad theoretical discretion is not the same as practice. A referee is not going to ignore the specific instructions related to a specific foul in the rulebook, nor ignore established precedent, because they are actual professionals rather than a clown on Shitdog desperately trying to defend a retarded argument.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Embarrassing.

I already pre-refuted your argument by anticipating you might abuse wording that seemingly gives referees broad discretion, while conveniently ignoring specific wording that deals with this specific foul.

And I explained to you that broad theoretical discretion is not the same as practice. A referee is not going to ignore the specific instructions related to a specific foul in the rulebook, nor ignore established precedent, because they are actual professionals rather than a clown on Shitdog desperately trying to defend a retarded argument.

Bruh you're actually embarrassing. This is literally all you said when I pointed out that clause that gives referees broad discretion to DQ fighters:

You chose intellectual dishonesty. How very sad.

That's literally all you said. Not sure if you posted something else that I missed, but what you're quoting of me was a direct response to the ENTIRE POST I just quoted above. Maybe next time spend less time trolling and more time elaborating on your actual argument.

You're also wrong about the "theoretical practice". Referees absolutely have broad discretion to DQ fighters if they feel the foul was egregious enough. NOW, do I think that is likely to happen at this current moment? No, I do not. And if you actually read some of my responses in this thread, you'd see that I've admitted that several times. At this current moment, I wouldn't expect any referee to DQ a fighter for a fence grab, because it's something that hasn't been done yet (and usually breaking new ground requires a higher burden of proof before it becomes common place).

Do not make this rookie mistake: Just because something HAS NOT happened, does not mean it CAN NOT happen.

This was, by far, the most egregious fence grab I have seen. Had Tallison been allowed to continue, he would have potentially taken away a TKO from Lewis. I don't think Tallison was getting up without grabbing the fence. So by definition this is uncharted territory. Thus, there will be discussions about this topic and what should be done in the future. And I personally think Tallison should have been DQ'd. You can disagree with that, which many people do. But if you think you can make some stupid argument that referees don't have the power to DQ Tallison in that position, then you're dead wrong. They just choose not to.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Well, except for the part of the rules that actually defines the reasons a ref can disqualify a fight which you somehow completely missed in your reading

d. Disqualification:
i. When an injury sustained during competition as a result of an intentional foul is severe enough to terminate the contest, multiple fouls have been assessed, and/or there is flagrant disregard for the rules and/or referee’s commands.

Exactly. I can't believe this is even a debate. It was well understood in MMA 20 years ago that referees have absolute discretion to stop the fight or a DQ a fighter if they feel justified in doing so, and there has always been a catch-all clause to allow this (in various forms over the years).

I think people are conflating the philosophical ideas of "could" and "would". Could a referee DQ Tallison in that spot? Absolutely. Would they? Admittedly unlikely. I can't recall a DQ for fence grabbing, especially without a point being deducted first.

But IMO if anyone deserved to be DQ'd for fence grabbing, it was Tallison. Either he was so concussed that he grabbed the fence without thinking, in which case the TKO is justified, or he knew what he was doing and intentionally broke the rules to avoid a TKO, which deserves a DQ.

 

[Dr Fong]

Bruh you're actually embarrassing. This is literally all you said when I pointed out that clause that gives referees broad discretion to DQ fighters:



That's literally all you said. Not sure if you posted something else that I missed, but what you're quoting of me was a direct response to the ENTIRE POST I just quoted above. Maybe next time spend less time trolling and more time elaborating on your actual argument.

You're also wrong about the "theoretical practice". Referees absolutely have broad discretion to DQ fighters if they feel the foul was egregious enough. NOW, do I think that is likely to happen at this current moment? No, I do not. And if you actually read some of my responses in this thread, you'd see that I've admitted that several times. At this current moment, I wouldn't expect any referee to DQ a fighter for a fence grab, because it's something that hasn't been done yet (and usually breaking new ground requires a higher burden of proof before it becomes common place).

This was, by far, the most egregious fence grab I have seen. Had Tallison been allowed to continue, he would have potentially taken away a TKO from Lewis. I don't think Tallison was getting up without grabbing the fence. So by definition this is uncharted territory. Thus, there will be discussions about this topic and what should be done in the future. And I personally think Tallison should have been DQ'd. You can disagree with that, which many people do. But if you think you can make some stupid argument that referees don't have the power to DQ Tallison in that position, then you're dead wrong. They just choose not to.

I made that point in my first post when responding to you. I anticipated you would make a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest argument and was hoping you would demonstrate more self-respect.

The bold part is you admitting that it is a silly argument. You could start a thread demanding that you personally think fighters should be castrated for a fence grab if you like too. It doesn't mean you should be taken seriously.

Try to understand that normal people are not going to have the same hysterical, irrational overreaction to a single incident of a fence grab, which is why no fighter in history has ever been DQd for one.

 

[Alpha_T83]

I made that point in my first post when responding to you. I anticipated you would make a ridiculous, intellectually dishonest argument and was hoping you would demonstrate more self-respect.

The bold part is you admitting that it is a silly argument. You could start a thread demanding that you personally think fighters should be castrated for a fence grab if you like too. It doesn't mean you should be taken seriously.

Try to understand that normal people are not going to have the same hysterical, irrational overreaction to a single incident of a fence grab, which is why no fighter in history has ever been DQd for one.

It's not a silly argument. That's the point. I'm arguing that it SHOULD HAVE BEEN a DQ.

And you're making an argument that because it HAS NOT happened that it SHOULD NOT or COULD NOT happen.

You're no different than the idiots over 100 years ago saying the Wright Brothers' airplane concept would never work. Progress is inevitable. It might take 5 years or 50 years, but I guarantee you eventually someone will be DQ'd for grabbing the fence to avoid a TKO, just like Tallison did. It's just going to take time for that "first case" to happen, and then after that it will become more common.

The alterantive is that this fight WILL BE the standard that solves the problem: You call it a TKO, not a DQ. I've been convinced by other peoples' arguments in this thread that grabbing the fence in this spot should constitute automatic "failure to intelligently defend yourself", and therefore be an automatic TKO. The MMA refs will meet to discuss this case and try to find a general approach for future cases. They may well say Herzog made the right call, and that turning your back to your opponent + climbing the fence constitutes a failure to intelligently defend yourself, and therefore a TKO call is appropriate.

If the refs decide this should be a TKO instead of a DQ, I'm fine with that. But I think the people arguing Tallison should have been allowed to continue are flat wrong.

 

[Dr Fong]

It's not a silly argument. That's the point. I'm arguing that it SHOULD HAVE BEEN a DQ.

And you're making an argument that because it HAS NOT happened that it SHOULD NOT or COULD NOT happen.

You're no different than the idiots over 100 years ago saying the Wright Brothers' airplane concept would never work. Progress is inevitable. It might take 5 years or 50 years, but I guarantee you eventually someone will be DQ'd for grabbing the fence to avoid a TKO, just like Tallison did. It's just going to take time for that "first case" to happen, and then after that it will become more common.

The alterantive is that this fight WILL BE the standard that solves the problem: You call it a TKO, not a DQ. I've been convinced by other peoples' arguments in this thread that grabbing the fence in this spot should constitute automatic "failure to intelligently defend yourself", and therefore be an automatic TKO. The MMA refs will meet to discuss this case and try to find a general approach for future cases. They may well say Herzog made the right call, and that turning your back to your opponent + climbing the fence constitutes a failure to intelligently defend yourself, and therefore a TKO call is appropriate.

If the refs decide this should be a TKO instead of a DQ, I'm fine with that. But I think the people arguing Tallison should have been allowed to continue are flat wrong.

Read this bold part back out loud to yourself and try to understand why I am calling you hysterical and irrational.

 

[Alpha_T83]

Read this bold part back out loud to yourself and try to understand why I am calling you hysterical and irrational.

OK child. You're an idiot. Goodbye.