The rules contain a provision against stalling (?)

[Hdfi]

An interesting way to try to solve this problem is to make decisions less valuable. PFL has a point system that takes this into account.

TKO/Sub win in the 1st round = 6 points.
TKO/Sub win in the 2nd round = 5 points.
TKO/Sub win in the 3rd round = 4 points.
Win by decision = 3 points.

 

[Goutfather]

Rule is very open to interpretation

That being said…fook all them ankle diving stallers

that should warrant an immediate knee to the face

 

[The Big Babou]

The problem world be fixed using Pride rules, right?

Staller gets a yellow card / 10% deduction... It's a strategy that always promotes action.

 

[OleBuffalo]

Beautiful. Nice, simple. Could have been written by a sherdogger. They defined stalling in so many words, and provided a solution. Now how can anyone argue that simply having the better position is WINNING? Not only are these people now arguing against the spirit of MMA, but the stated rules! It doesn't matter if the holder prevented them from just doing anything else, winning by default. That is not sufficient under the criteria of trying to finish the fight. In fact the entire rules are biased toward finishing the fight, at every turn. Read them yourselves.

Going just off of what you shared, it makes no mention of the scoring of fights, only that refs can stand them up, which I thought was always the case. What isn’t clear to me from
it is - does this mean the ref can use their discretion? or they must stand a fight up? In practice, appears to be at the ref’s discretion, which means if a stand up doesn’t happen then the fight will be scored the same as always

 

[Khaosan]

An interesting way to try to solve this problem is to make decisions less valuable. PFL has a point system that takes this into account.

TKO/Sub win in the 1st round = 6 points.
TKO/Sub win in the 2nd round = 5 points.
TKO/Sub win in the 3rd round = 4 points.
Win by decision = 3 points.

What would the points be for though?

 

[Thatlookinhiseyes]

Here’s a question, now we all know the stand a fight up rule if there’s nothing going on the ground. What about a ground the fight ruling if there’s nothing going on in standup? Say we have a wrestler and striker fight. The striker is on their bicycle and doesnt r engage with the wrestler and for fear of being taken down? What if now the ref says no, you must start on the ground? What could be a position neutral position for this?

 

[omawho402]

I would like to see more stand-ups if there isn't damage being inflicted or subs being attempted. More than 1-2 minutes of ineffective top control is too much. And I am not talking about little baby rabbit punches.

 

[World eater]

To paraphrase the old Bob Marley hit:
“Merab, stand up, we need more exciting fights”

 

[SuperAlly]

Merab was landing strikes and improving position which are both scoring criteria. Merab out struck and outgrappled O'Malley, deal with it.

If Omalley beat Merab in a boring fight, we wouldn't be seeing hundreds of such threads a day. Truth.

 

[markys00]

Welcome to mma? Wtf?

My guess is you will be crying about fight cards and fighter pay within a few weeks

 

[usernamee]

That's wild. Enforcing that rule would lead to a lot of stand ups. Sooo many times there's a guy on top for 3 minutes and there's never anything near fight ending happening, or even actual attempts of it. But gravity+some punches to stay active=Winning the round.