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

[dissolved]

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

"Strikes are not permissible in the nape of the neck area up until the top of the ears. Above the ears, permissible strikes do not include the Mohawk area from the top of the ears up until the crown of the head. The crown of the head is found where the head begins to curve.

In other words, strikes behind the crown of the head and above the ears are not permissible within the Mohawk area. Strikes below the top of the ear are not permissible within the nape of the neck area."

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.

 

[Mavant]

Not a must read.

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

 

[dissolved]

Not a must read.

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

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!

 

[Tyrone]

Def a must read.

Thanks for the info Joe

 

[tenniswhiz]

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?

 

[Tyrone]

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!

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

 

[dissolved]

Def a must read.

Thanks for the info Joe

No problem. I hear the wrong commentating in nearly every event and I finally had enough.

 

[dissolved]

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?

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.

 

[dissolved]

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

Thanks man!

 

[Gavster]

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.

 

[Mavant]

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!

Who are you to say it is? Not a must read. Informative, but it will not overturn the results of the fight, will it?

 

[dissolved]

Who are you to say it is? Not a must read. Informative, but it will not overturn the results of the fight, will it?

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.

 

[Mavant]

You bask in your own self-importance. Your post was informative but it doesnt rise to the level of must-read.

 

[Big Brother]

Not a must read.

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

Yes it is... especially when so many threads are being made about it. People need to understand before raging on these forums. :|

 

[MRDOG]

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

 

[coen9]

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.

 

[dissolved]

You bask in your own self-importance. Your post was informative but it doesnt rise to the level of must-read.

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.

 

[dissolved]

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

Two were definitely illegal, I have to see the elbow again. Good stoppage.

 

[Mavant]

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.

So says the idiot with many more posts than me. LOL. Stop self-aggrandizing.

 

[dissolved]

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.

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!