1. The official Sherdog Store is back! Check it out! » Discuss it here! »

Must Read - The Actual Definition of "Back of the Head"

Discussion in 'UFC Discussion' started by dissolved, Jan 19, 2013.

  1. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Commentators (including: Rogan, Goldberg, Florian, and John Anik) are consistently getting this wrong and creating unnecessary controversy where there shouldn't be. When Sakara was disqualified after hitting Cote with 10 strikes (my count, not Rogan or Goldberg's) to the back of the head, posters in here went wild. Many could agree with 2 or 3, but no more than that and many called foul on Patrick - that he was playing pussy.

    Tonight again, controversy in the Nobre/Alcantara bout . . . or was there?

    Here is the agreed-upon definition of "back of the head" strikes as agreed upon in 2009.

    http://www.mmajunkie.com/news/2009/...st-fine-clears-up-back-of-the-head-definition
    I believe there is confusion because the early unified rules defined it is a Mohawk strip, while this clarification only locates the Mohawk strip from the top of the ears to the crown. The "nape" area of illegal strikes is located from the top of the ears where the skull begins to curve.

    This rule really needs to be better defined to those who are calling fights. The onus is on them and Zuffa for purposes of clarity and clearing up controversery.
     
  2. Mavant Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not a must read.

    But if that is the strict definition being used by refs...it sounds like the ref did the right thing.
     
  3. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course it's a must read - who are you to say it isn't? The main commentators from the UFC keep calling it wrong! Of course this needs to be cleared up!
     
  4. Tyrone Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Def a must read.

    Thanks for the info Joe
     
  5. tenniswhiz Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    33,812
    Likes Received:
    500
    Location:
    Santa Monica
    Thanks for the read.

    What bugs me is that if a guy gets clipped in the standup by a wild hook that lands in the back/nape neck/head area, it's all good. But if he gets hit by a strike in the EXACT same spot by a guy while on all 4's, it's grounds for disqualification. What gives?
     
  6. Tyrone Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    858
    Likes Received:
    0
    He is a nobody, Joe you are right and there were some blows to the back of the head under those rules

    Would be great if sherdog had more posters like you who focus on the facts and not just try and argue for the sake of it like most here do
     
  7. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    No problem. I hear the wrong commentating in nearly every event and I finally had enough.
     
  8. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you. This is probably the worst area of confusion and it needs everyone getting on the same page - whether the strikes are standing or on the ground, the defining area needs to be much better understood.
     
  9. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks man!
     
  10. Gavster Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    2,198
    Likes Received:
    14
    I hate it when the commentators say: Oh its hard not to hit the back of the head when he keeps moving his head. And the head has been in the same place the whole fight, the guy on the bottom isnt even trying to buck the other person off.

    Seemed like there were two punches to the back of the head followed by an elbow -- i went back to look, when the camera angle changed - it looks like it didnt hit the back of the head.
    But that elbow looked like it might have briefly knocked him out.
     
  11. Mavant Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who are you to say it is? Not a must read. Informative, but it will not overturn the results of the fight, will it?
     
  12. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    So everyone is to just carry on viewing with the same misinformation? Sorry dude, stupid post and opinion on your part. People should just post and blab on and on but the facts don't count. Ridiculous.
     
  13. Mavant Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    You bask in your own self-importance. Your post was informative but it doesnt rise to the level of must-read.
     
  14. Big Brother Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Messages:
    2,008
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it is... especially when so many threads are being made about it. People need to understand before raging on these forums. :|
     
  15. MRDOG Brown Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,203
    Likes Received:
    25
    I posted my thoughts based on the gif I seen because I missed the fight but for some reason the thread got wasted. So here it is again.

    I would say at least 2 strikes are what would be considered to be to the back of the head. The elbow hits the ear as it is being thrown but lands on the back of the head. The last shot in the gif before it is stopped is to the back of the head. The other two I see are iffy. So I see an illegal blow two iffy shots and another illegal blow.

    Here is the gif taken from this thread http://www.sherdog.net/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=78647813

    [​IMG]
     
  16. coen9 Purple Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,763
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    It IS a must read; thanks for the link/info TS.

    It's insane how POORLY it's "understood" and, shockingly, also how POORLY it's defined in the first place. "Mohawk area"...gimme a fucking break. How thick is the hypothetical Mohawk?

    They need a FUCKING PICTURE...or better yet...a 3D animation on a mannequin head that highlights the exact region that it considers "back of the head." Then, at least, it will be a definitive guideline.
     
  17. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about your self-importance? I just posted pertinent and important information. What did you do? Go post in the many subjective opinion threads if you're just up for increasing your post-count.
     
  18. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two were definitely illegal, I have to see the elbow again. Good stoppage.
     
  19. Mavant Blue Belt

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    So says the idiot with many more posts than me. LOL. Stop self-aggrandizing.
     
  20. dissolved Steel Belt

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    30,571
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree on all counts. On top of this, it's an absolute shame that the commentators are leading everyone astray! I do think Rogan and Goldberg are great, but Joe Rogan begrudgingly called the illegal strikes of Sakara - pretty much wasn't until he watched it in slow-mo that he agreed with a couple of them.

    Tonight, Miragliotta is portrayed as a retard by Kenny in particular and then agreed upon by Anik. Like good grief, get it right!
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.