The only way to stop eye pokes and groin shots is to..

[Vegesus44]

You'd be crying x5 harder when your favorite fighter gets points docked for legit accidental fouls.

Accidental in all his fights?

 

[MCS]

agree, there's too much leeway with "intent". You'd usually assume anyways fighters fight clean, not dirty. A warning doesn't mean anything, but recovering from a poke or a groin shot can be a game changer. Just take a point away, then 2, then DQ. It's the only way.

 

[SherdogGoat]

Warning at first and then be very strict about deducting a point.

 

[PoisonGodMachin]

next topic

Same rule should apply, not penalizing them immediately basically means every one is entitled to 1 or 2 eye pokes, groin shots, and fence grabs per fight, if fighters aren't penalized they will obviously keep doing it

 

[achillesdave]

Start taking away a point on the first offense. No warnings, the damage is already done. Then watch all these fouls disappear.

 

[FightsFTW]

I think 1 warning is fine, but if the fighter does it a second time it should be an automatic deduction.

 

[billo2007**]

Tougher rules required regarding multiple fighters. As TS says....

I feel this should be handled based on a fighters past tendancys too.

 

[Philtard]

You could do that, and maybe that's what should be done. But how about just putting corks on the ends if your fingers?

 

[FinBJJ]

The ref kicks the fighter in the nuts or pokes his eye. Then they're even.

Problem solved.

 

[Codpiece]

It should be rated on severity. When a fighter has to take a serious break from action, they always show the replay. They should assure that the ref watched the replay, or have a second official paying close attention to the tape so he can guide the official in the cage. When it is a deep, fight effecting poke I would be fine with taking a point on first offense. Given that the officials have done their due diligence.

And issue a warning for the first graze, and take points on the second graze, when they are minor contact with the eye or pawing.

I think that is pretty fair and shows some common sense. We have the ability to review footage at a moments notice now, why not make a decision during a 30 second pause in the action? If it is a clear 'flop' by a fighter trying to get a soccer foul then penalise that fighter. If an eyepoke is blatantly deliberate, as was one of the Jones/Glover ones, it should carry an instant penalty. Why give anyone jobbing the rules on purpose a free pass once, ever?

 

[OtavioMMA]

Eyepokes should only be allowed if they help Jones Bones win,

 

[spid3yo]

How would one determine whether a dirty shot is intentional? Intentional and unintentional eyepokes or groin kicks look very similar.

The same way they do now, unless you want to say it's currently a problem

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The same way they do now, unless you want to say it's currently a problem

The way they do it now is to automatically assume that every dirty shot is unintentional. Yes, I think that currently I have little faith that every "unintentional" shot is unintentional, and I think that is a problem.

 

[spid3yo]

The way they do it now is to automatically assume that every dirty shot is unintentional.

If you are going to just make stuff up, you can probably do better than this

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If you are going to just make stuff up, you can probably do better than this

I can do without the eye rolling and suggestions I am making things up if you do not mind. I try to take you seriously even when I disagree with you.

When is the last time a fighter was penalized for an intentional eyepoke or groin kick? I think by far the majority of occurrences are unintentional, but it would be extremely naive to think none of the fighters who immediately show contrition for their act did not intend the strike they landed. The incentives are too great and the consequences are too low to think no fighter would succumb to the temptation to take a free shot.

 

[ovbious]

As it is, fence/trunks grabbing, eye poking and nut shots are legal if you do it once or twice.

So I don't see why fighters wouldn't do it. If the ref sees and don't do shit or only warn you, then it is legal.

I also favor more strict rules.

 

[ovbious]

Same rule should apply, not penalizing them immediately basically means every one is entitled to 1 or 2 eye pokes, groin shots, and fence grabs per fight, if fighters aren't penalized they will obviously keep doing it

Yep, and I don't consider it dirty moves, since the "facto" rules allow you to do it.

 

[spid3yo]

I can do without the eye rolling and suggestions I am making things up if you do not mind. I try to take you seriously even when I disagree with you.

When is the last time a fighter was penalized for an intentional eyepoke or groin kick? I think by far the majority of occurrences are unintentional, but it would be extremely naive to think none of the fighters who immediately show contrition for their act did not intend the strike they landed. The incentives are too great and the consequences are too low to think no fighter would succumb to the temptation to take a free shot.

It's hard to take you seriously when you simply make things up to make your point, you do know the old addage about assuming right? Good comments for shock value, but lets only speak on what we actually know to be true and not generalities like "all refs assume this, this is how it's done now" unless you can back that statement.

When was the last time you thought a fighter intentionally poked another fighter in the eye or kicked somebody in the groin...and I don't mean because of stylistic reasons but because the offending fighter had 100% intention to foul, and then succeeded.

The last "intentional" foul I can remember was Bisping at 127 (should be noted he claims that was unintentional), and I do believe they took a point immediately.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It's hard to take you seriously when you simply make things up to make your point, you do know the old addage about assuming right? Good comments for shock value, but lets only speak on what we actually know to be true and not generalities like "all refs assume this, this is how it's done now" unless you can back that statement.

When was the last time you thought a fighter intentionally poked another fighter in the eye or kicked somebody in the groin...and I don't mean because of stylistic reasons but because the offending fighter had 100% intention to foul, and then succeeded.

The last "intentional" foul I can remember was Bisping at 127 (should be noted he claims that was unintentional), and I do believe they took a point immediately.

What exactly am I making up?

1. Groin strikes and eye pokes can be temporarily debilitating. Thus there is an incentive to use them.

2. Groin strikes and eye pokes are only rarely penalized. Thus there is little disincentive to use them.

3. It is difficult to distinguish between an intentional and unintentional groin strike or eye poke. You asked me for an example of a 100% intentional strike. This is begging the question I have been asking, which is how exactly does one determine the intentionality of an illegal strike? Currently, almost every illegal strike is considered unintentional.

 

[spid3yo]

What exactly am I making up?

The way they do it now is to automatically assume that every dirty shot is unintentional

Quote where in the unified rules, or from any ref camp/training literature/source that proves this is how MMA refs are taught and trained to do.

Also I absolutely asked you to prove it, because you've also used in your arguments that it happens.....don't worry though I didn't think you actually could either. But if you can't make the distinction it's because it's not happening.

Now if you wanted to argue the refs not applying the current rules correctly you'd have a better case...... but this whole notion that guys cheat the system, and do it on purpose, and it happens all the time....well lets just say you would be using some real examples if this was true.