Throwing Illegal Strikes

[NE 1]

After seeing the O'Malley and Jeremy Stephens fights where illegal strikes were thrown but didn't "land" I started to wonder if the rule should change. At first my initial thoughts were the in place rules are fine, but then I got to thinking:

If an illegal strike is intentionally thrown and you are forced to defend it (or even avoid it) isn't it still illegal? As the receiving fighter you have the option to defend against it, thereby making it legal, or not and probably win by dq (but also get a concussion). Seems like a poor trade off. Also, when an illegal strike is thrown (i.e., O'Malley kick on the floor) and the opponent defends against it, they are thereby disadvantaged because instead of being able to stand for example, you have to use your hands to block the illegal strike. Shouldn't this be the equivalent of a fighter being warned/penalized for an open/outstretched hand not poking in the eye?

My point is that under the "the strike is only illegal if it connects, not when thrown" rule, couldn't this be manipulated to gain a significant advantage?

(Disclaimer: I don't think either of the fights mentioned above were actually influenced by an illegal strike, but they were the impetus for my train of thought)

 

[Luvhawky]

How do you distinguish a missed knee to the head of a grounded opponent vs. a knee to the shoulder or missed knee to the shoulder. I think result is important.

 

[The guest]

Talk to the ACs, buddeh.

If those assholes would adopt the rules that came into play over a year ago. Then there’d be uniformity, and consistency.

New rules here, old rules there.

No video review in Florida. No points taken for inadvertent eye pokes in Nevada.

It is what it is.

The knee did not connect. The combo came after the horn.

C’est la vie.

 

[ThatGuy7698]

These should be the only rules for MMA:

-No strikes to the back of the head
-No small joint manipulation submissions
-No groin strikes
-No eye pokes
-No biting
-No stomps (come at me I don't care)
-No oblique kicks (those could end a career very quickly)

Everything else is fair play, except of course for obvious things like stopping after the bell or whenever the ref breaks the fighters up.

 

[fightfan70]

just fucking legalize knee strikes and kicks to grounded opponents.
and change the back of the head rule.
i do agree intentional back of head shots should be illegal
i dont think many fighters target that area.

 

[NE 1]

How do you distinguish a missed knee to the head of a grounded opponent vs. a knee to the shoulder or missed knee to the shoulder. I think result is important.

I agree, you make an excellent point. It's not so black and white. The Stephen's knee could almost be used as a counter to the O'Malley kick. Emmett wasn't defending against the knee, I don't think he even saw it coming. So it would be wrong to penalize the fighter for it. The O'malley kick did require Soukhamthath to react.

I would think you'd have to make a judgement call not based on the strike alone, but really the sequence of events following it.

 

[Luvhawky]

I agree, you make an excellent point. It's not so black and white. The Stephen's knee could almost be used as a counter to the O'Malley kick. Emmett wasn't defending against the knee, I don't think he even saw it coming. So it would be wrong to penalize the fighter for it. The O'malley kick did require Soukhamthath to react.

I would think you'd have to make a judgement call not based on the strike alone, but really the sequence of events following it.

Personally I'm against creating grey areas.

 

[NE 1]

Lol just a funny anecdote - A couple guys have referenced the strikes to the back of the head and being a good rule. I hate it and feel like it gives a significant advantage to a fighter that goes belly down, when in reality that's the worst thing you can do. I remember the first UFCs, you knew a fight was over when someone went belly down.

 

[Jackonfire]

Nothing illegal about O'Malley's kick

 

[Luvhawky]

Lol just a funny anecdote - A couple guys have referenced the strikes to the back of the head and being a good rule. I hate it and feel like it gives a significant advantage to a fighter that goes belly down, when in reality that's the worst thing you can do. I remember the first UFCs, you knew a fight was over when someone went belly down.

I'm sure it gives a significant advantage, but I think because of the downside repurcusions. I'm not super educated on it, but you always here how dangerous it is to strike where the spine and brain stem meet.

 

[markys00]

Playing with fire here.

So many gray areas.

I thought Anderson's knee on Chael could have been illegal. It's all perspective. I'm just not sure how to fix it

 

[markys00]

I thought Pedro munoz getting a warning for groin kicks where one more would be a point deduction was a bit rediculous.

 

[trident]

Knees to grounded opponents should be legal

 

[smiles mma]

These should be the only rules for MMA:

-No strikes to the back of the head
-No small joint manipulation submissions
-No groin strikes
-No eye pokes
-No biting
-No stomps (come at me I don't care)
-No oblique kicks (those could end a career very quickly)

Everything else is fair play, except of course for obvious things like stopping after the bell or whenever the ref breaks the fighters up.

How's an oblique kick a career ender? The myth of "just take out his knees" had been busted.

 

[smiles mma]

Lol just a funny anecdote - A couple guys have referenced the strikes to the back of the head and being a good rule. I hate it and feel like it gives a significant advantage to a fighter that goes belly down, when in reality that's the worst thing you can do. I remember the first UFCs, you knew a fight was over when someone went belly down.

Because back of the impact does far more brain damage. If you have someone belly down and can't finish the fight then you need to work on more techniques. It should be from ear to ear and enforced. They stop it over the lightest graze if the cup, but nothing for back of the head

 

[Ken Fresno]

Knees to grounded opponents should be legal

I feel like this will be the collective reaction of Sherdog when they announce that the knees are legal again.

 

[trident]

I feel like this will be the collective reaction of Sherdog when they announce that the knees are legal again.

Its my favorite part of that gif.

Is he dead?

He's dead!

Whoohoooo!!!!

 

[SoSoSmart]

These should be the only rules for MMA:

-No strikes to the back of the head
-No small joint manipulation submissions
-No groin strikes
-No eye pokes
-No biting
-No stomps (come at me I don't care)
-No oblique kicks (those could end a career very quickly)

Everything else is fair play, except of course for obvious things like stopping after the bell or whenever the ref breaks the fighters up.

Oil checks?

 

[NE 1]

Nothing illegal about O'Malley's kick

Interesting. In the live action it looked like it was directly off the forearms (which were over his face), but I didn't ever see a replay of it. I'll have to rewatch. Thanks.

 

[NE 1]

Because back of the impact does far more brain damage. If you have someone belly down and can't finish the fight then you need to work on more techniques. It should be from ear to ear and enforced. They stop it over the lightest graze if the cup, but nothing for back of the head

Yeah I understand the reason for the rule, but the douche bag in me says, that's on the guy that intentionally rolls over knowing all the risks you just enumerated. It would be like blaming the guy that gets spear tackled in football instead. Like I said, I understand why the rule is there, but its pretty frustrating that going belly down is a "defense". And just for the sake of playing devils advocate, I'd argue that if your defense is going belly down, you need to work on more techniques.