No Contest vs Technical Decision vs Disqualification

Cheatr Pan

Cheatr Pan

Green Belt
@Green
Joined
Feb 28, 2022
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
4,165
What is the difference between these 3? Why was Leon-Belal a NC while Yan-Sterling was disqualification? In both cases, the fighters were unable to continue due to illegal strikes
 
The ref deemed Yans knee intentional, therefore a disqualification and loss. Leon's eye poke was ruled unintentional so it's a no contest. A technical decision I believe is when enough rounds have gone by and something like this comes up but is also not intentional they can rule a decision.
 
HuskySamoan said:
The ref deemed Yans knee intentional, therefore a disqualification and loss. Leon's eye poke was ruled unintentional so it's a no contest. A technical decision I believe is when enough rounds have gone by and something like this comes up but is also not intentional they can rule a decision.
Click to expand...

Yep. They go to the cards if the fight ends on an unintentional foul and we are past halfway.
 
HuskySamoan said:
What is the difference between these 3? Why was Leon-Belal a NC while Yan-Sterling was disqualification? In both cases, the fighters were unable to continue due to illegal strikes
Click to expand...
The ref deemed Yans knee intentional, therefore a disqualification and loss. Leon's eye poke was ruled unintentional so it's a no contest. A technical decision I believe is when enough rounds have gone by and something like this comes up but is also not intentional they can rule a decision.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, when it's unintentional and doesn't continue, what happens next changes depending on how far into the fight it is. First half of the fight it's a NC, second half of the fight it goes to the judges.
 
Cheatr Pan said:
What is the difference between these 3? Why was Leon-Belal a NC while Yan-Sterling was disqualification? In both cases, the fighters were unable to continue due to illegal strikes
Click to expand...
The ref has all the power. He decides if it's intended or unintentional.
Intentional is a dq win.
Unintentional is a NC until recently, they now allow for a technical decision if the unintentional foul happened later than 1/2 the rounds in a fight.

It's a pretty bad system because you see alo of stupid NC from guys like Herb Dean who never saw an intentional foul in his life.
<WhatItIs>
 
Mmmmmmma1234 said:
It is important to note it's over half of the rounds not half of the time. For standard fights that's 2/3 or 3/5 completed but allows for rare 1/2 and 2/4 rounders.
Click to expand...
Thanks for saying this, man. I was getting ready to type it but I could not think of a cogent way of saying it.
 
Intent. This is why Jon Jones never gets points deducted for poking his opponents in the eyes - he really doesn't mean to do it on purpose.
7V2ArKq.gif
 
You also have to consider the type of foul that was committed. Eyepokes are almost always considered unintentional. The only eyepoke DQ in UFC history was Mike Jackson's win over Dean Barry.

Knees to the head of a grounded opponent are much more likely to be ruled intentional. Particularly if the grounded opponent has one or both knees actually down. If the grounded opponent has one or both hands down along the fence but their knees are up, that's more likely to be judged accidental. Nothing in the rules that says it has to be one way or another but that seems to be how refs tend to enforce the rules in practice.
 

Bisping was ahead in the 3rd when he poked Belcher who couldn't continue.

*And for some reason, the link doesn't seem to be loading.
 
Mmmmmmma1234 said:
The ref has all the power. He decides if it's intended or unintentional.
Intentional is a dq win.
Unintentional is a NC until recently, they now allow for a technical decision if the unintentional foul happened later than 1/2 the rounds in a fight.

It's a pretty bad system because you see alo of stupid NC from guys like Herb Dean who never saw an intentional foul in his life.
<WhatItIs>
Click to expand...
Mostly true. The technical decision isn't really new, it's just an incredibly rare occurrence.

If there are some examples of late NC's that I can't remember at the moment, then It's possible that some states don't have that rule, but I know Varner-Cerrone back in 2009 was a TD. And there were 2 on UFC 159 back in 2013

Cheatr Pan said:
What is the difference between these 3? Why was Leon-Belal a NC while Yan-Sterling was disqualification? In both cases, the fighters were unable to continue due to illegal strikes
Click to expand...
Cuz Yan blatantly intentionally fouled Sterling, so he was DQ'd.

Glad I could help
Aljamain-Sterling-UFN-80-Post-Press-03.jpg
 
Mohawk Banditó said:
Mostly true. The technical decision isn't really new, it's just an incredibly rare occurrence.

If there are some examples of late NC's that I can't remember at the moment, then It's possible that some states don't have that rule, but I know Varner-Cerrone back in 2009 was a TD. And there were 2 on UFC 159 back in 2013


Cuz Yan blatantly intentionally fouled Sterling, so he was DQ'd.

Glad I could help
Aljamain-Sterling-UFN-80-Post-Press-03.jpg
Click to expand...

I still don't feel like it's blatant exactly, sometimes it's just reflexive to throw a strike at an open target just as it is to extend your hand out fingers first into someone's face. Its not too different really.
 
HuskySamoan said:
I still don't feel like it's blatant exactly, sometimes it's just reflexive to throw a strike at an open target just as it is to extend your hand out fingers first into someone's face. Its not too different really.
Click to expand...

Maybe Yan should have taken ownership of that knee and begged to be DQ'd like Means did. Then he might have only got a NC out of it. Still cracks me up, "if that knee is illegal then please disqualify me, because I damn sure meant to throw it". - Tim Means
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,266,851
Messages
57,433,356
Members
175,708
Latest member
Dheurick Samurai

Share this page

Back
Top