News UFC's Marc Ratner: Referees can't view fouls through black-and-white lens; gray areas needed

[Kryptt]

The parade of recent fouls between UFC 259 and UFC Fight Night 187 has placed MMA officiating and rules pertaining to fouls under the microscope, with fighters, fans, officials, coaches and media all varying in opinions. For Ratner, however, the final rulings on all three recent incidents were the correct calls.

Ratner explained the major difference was the referee interpretation of intent: Was the knee accidental or not?

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2021...usses-illegal-blows-gray-area-sterling-vs-yan

“What we start with is the referee’s judgment,” Ratner told MMA Junkie Radio on Monday. “That’s the most important thing. He’s going to determine, in his mind, whether it was intentional or accidental. It certainly changes the way the fight is scored or the outcome. In the Yan fight, Mark Smith was the referee, and he felt that the knee was intentional. And therefore, because Sterling couldn’t go forward, that became a disqualification.

“The difference from last Saturday’s fight was Herb Dean felt that maybe (Anders), who landed the knee, (and Stewart), who was putting his hand up and down, kind of baited him into that knee. He felt it was an accident. Therefore it became a no contest or a ‘no decision.’ If it would’ve (gone) two rounds full, we would’ve gone to the scorecards.”

“I would say that Aljamain’s knee was down for, I don’t know, four or five seconds,” Ratner said. “There was no question it wasn’t coming up. He hit him in the head. He kneed him in the head. Right from the beginning, I knew it was going to be a DQ. I was thinking that way. That was the correct decision.”

“I think you have a gray area there,” Ratner said. “You’re always going to have a judgment call in any sport. To put it in black and white, to say, ‘This is going to be accidental … this is going to be intentional,’ can you read intent? That’s really the question. … I don’t think it’ll ever be clear. I don’t know how you can make it in writing that you wouldn’t be able to use judgment. That would be, I don’t know – I read those rules and there is some gray area there. I think it would be hard to say that you can definitively say that black and white, ‘This was intentional … this was accidental.”

“My belief is if a fighter is compromised with what I would call a ‘closed-head injury,’ possibly a concussion, that you cannot let the fighter go forward,” Ratner said. “I would like the doctor to make a really quick decision. Don’t ask the fighter if it can go on. A lot of fighters would say yes because they don’t want to go out that way. It doesn’t matter what the fighter says. I want the doctors to be more definitive. I’m certainly not an educated doctor, but when I see a person compromised, I just assume you stop the fight right away. Don’t vacillate and have him make a decision. ‘Can you walk? Can you fight?’ I think that’s wrong.”

“I do believe hard warnings should be given in the dressing room, saying, ‘I’m not going to warn you during the fight. I’m telling you right now. Don’t grab the fence. If you’re leading with your fingers out there, I can take a point. I want you to know that. This is a hard warning, so think about this stuff very clearly,'” Ratner said. “Sometimes you’ve got language barriers, hoping the Portuguese, that their interpreters tell them these things. Sometimes you don’t know. We have a lot of international fighters now, but there’s no excuse for breaking the rules. They all know the rules. You just have to enforce them. Not every referee is going to enforce them the same way.”

~~~~~~~~~~~

TLDR

Just mined the Ratner quotes. Quite a bit more in the article.

 

[johnmangala]

Judging intent is a grey area...

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

I get what he's saying.

It's like the difference between a foul and a flagrant foul in basketball (but exponentially more impactful). Often it's obvious, sometimes it's borderline, and good luck defining it.

Still, making all fouls equal doesn't feel like an appropriate solution either.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Judging intent is a grey area...

Right. In what other sport does intent play a factor besides the difference between an ejection and a foul.

Seriously. In football, basketball, soccer, baseball. No one cares WHY you broke the rule. You still broke it. And there’s a penalty for it.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

I get what he's saying.

It's like the difference between a foul and a flagrant foul in basketball (but exponentially more impactful). Often it's obvious, sometimes it's borderline, and good luck defining it.

Still, making all fouls equal doesn't feel like an appropriate solution either.

I agree. The problem is that the difference seems to be either

A. You infract the offending fighter and essentially make them lose the entire fight for a foul.

or

B. You don’t do anything besides “hey stop that”

There’s no middle ground and it’s killing the sport

 

[2004 account]

Translation, leeway space is needed for us to rig fights in order for corruption to prevail



Anyways change is needed. As of right now it's too subjective and this bs of different rules in different states as well is truly unprofessional.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

Right. In what other sport does intent play a factor besides the difference between an ejection and a foul.

Seriously. In football, basketball, soccer, baseball. No one cares WHY you broke the rule. You still broke it. And there’s a penalty for it.

Actually, in all those sports intent is a factor. There is a baseline penalty and then a stiffer penalty.

• Flagrant foul in basketball,
  
• 15 yard personal foul in American Football (instead of 5 yards),
  
• Red card in Soccer-Football.

But MMA's "baseline penalty" is a "warning". So maybe MMA needs a stiffer baseline penalty.

 

[Yep]

Breaking rules should result in penalties.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

I agree. The problem is that the difference seems to be either

A. You infract the offending fighter and essentially make them lose the entire fight for a foul.

or

B. You don’t do anything besides “hey stop that”

There’s no middle ground and it’s killing the sport

Ya I think we're saying the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 512089]

Intent shouldn't be a factor period. You make a foul you're penalized. Simple as that.

 

[Kryptt]

I agree. The problem is that the difference seems to be either

A. You infract the offending fighter and essentially make them lose the entire fight for a foul.

or

B. You don’t do anything besides “hey stop that”

There’s no middle ground and it’s killing the sport

This without a doubt is a major frustration - past couple events really brought shit to a screeching halt. Looked like steaming pile and is smeared all over the place.

I love this sport but I take it less and less seriously or at least invest myself less in rankings and results and just pay my tribute to JBG.

 

[Yep]

Actually, in all those sports intent is a factor. So there is a baseline penalty and then a stiffer penalty. Flagrant foul in basketball, 15 yard personal foul in American Football (instead of 5 yards), and red card in Soccer-Football.

But MMA's "baseline penalty" is a warning. So maybe MMA needs a stiffer baseline penalty.

What foul turns a 5 yard penalty into a 15 based on intent?

 

[Arkham's Notorious Geyser]

Right. In what other sport does intent play a factor besides the difference between an ejection and a foul.

Seriously. In football, basketball, soccer, baseball. No one cares WHY you broke the rule. You still broke it. And there’s a penalty for it.

Off of that, you'd think with how many times Fighters have been caught in this whole "Grounded opponent" and Knee situation that they would stay away from throwing Knee's almost entirely if their not standing, but Fighters are not thinking like that. They know from that position it's the most effective strike you can throw at that range and do the most damage.

I think the rule is...a dumb one to say the least, but given the Weidman incident, the first Eddie and Dustin fight, and the Greg Hardy one, that Fighters would wisen up to not throwing knees, and would refrain from doing it, but in the heat of the moment, their just thinking about winning the fight and doing the most damage given such an advantageous position so intent in my opinion is out of the question, the intent is there, because the intent is to do damage.

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

What foul turns a 5 yard penalty into a 15 based on intent?

Well you might have me there. In the "old days" there were 2 levels of personal foul; 5 years and 15 yards. That may not be the case anymore.

I used to watch a lot more of that sport than I do today.

But NFL refs can now kick a player out of a game. That's an intent thing, no?

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Actually, in all those sports intent is a factor. There is a baseline penalty and then a stiffer penalty.

• Flagrant foul in basketball,
  
• 15 yard personal foul in American Football (instead of 5 yards),
  
• Red card in Soccer-Football.

But MMA's "baseline penalty" is a "warning". So maybe MMA needs a stiffer baseline penalty.

Ya I think we're saying the same thing.

the thing with all those sports is they have such intricate tiers to their rules. The impact of the play typically determines the punishment. How bad was the harm to the other player, and how much did it fuck up the game. If you interfere with a Hail Mary 60+ yard pass, you’re giving up that entire distance. If you interfere with a 10 yard pass, you give up the ten yards. It’s an adequate punishment for the crime. If you not only broke the rule, but also inflicted over the top violence for no reason on the other player, you’re ejected.

In no other sport does the rule book have such steep and unbending consequences. A point deduction might as well be an L in 90% of ufc fights. And how many fights have we seen 2+ warnings before something bad happens? Remember the Stefan Struve vs Ben Rothwell fight? It’s just absolute bogus. There’s no consistency and we can’t blame the refs because they don’t have the tools available to them to adequately address the complex variety of situations that a cage fight produces. The sports evolved past its rule sets.

 

[Cat Biscuits]

No one cares WHY you broke the rule. You still broke it. And there’s a penalty for it.

Exactly. Start enforcing the rules with harsh consequences and you'll see fouls go down a lot.

No more warnings. You got your warning in the dressing room before the fight started.

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Off of that, you'd think with how many times Fighters have been caught in this whole "Grounded opponent" and Knee situation that they would stay away from throwing Knee's almost entirely if their not standing, but Fighters are not thinking like that. They know from that position it's the most effective strike you can throw at that range and do the most damage.

I think the rule is...a dumb one to say the least, but given the Weidman incident, the first Eddie and Dustin fight, and the Greg Hardy one, that Fighters would wisen up to not throwing knees, and would refrain from doing it, but in the heat of the moment, their just thinking about winning the fight and doing the most damage given such an advantageous position so intent in my opinion is out of the question, the intent is there, because the intent is to do damage.

Intent is entirely debatable though. Because you’re thinking of intent as “did he mean to try and knee/kick”. Many think of it as “did he intend to knee/kick him while he was grounded”. There’s a vast difference between the two.

These guys train for these strikes out of certain positions because it puts bread on the table. Even if you’re losing, a far inferior striker, or generally outmatched, you can end a guy with those shots. DC vs Stipe 1 is a great example of a guy who really wasn’t in the best shape, and isn’t nearly the same level of striker getting a ko over a golden gloves boxer because of a transition. It’s a huge part of the sport and I don’t want it to go away. I want the rules adjusted and refs to have the tools to address the fights appropriately

 

[Zebra Cheeks]

Exactly. Start enforcing the rules with harsh consequences and you'll see fouls go down a lot.

No more warnings. You got your warning in the dressing room before the fight started.

If they aren’t going to give the refs more options than a point deduction, DQ, or verbal warning, I agree

 

[Kvothe_the_kingkiller]

the thing with all those sports is they have such intricate tiers to their rules. The impact of the play typically determines the punishment. How bad was the harm to the other player, and how much did it fuck up the game. If you interfere with a Hail Mary 60+ yard pass, you’re giving up that entire distance. If you interfere with a 10 yard pass, you give up the ten yards. It’s an adequate punishment for the crime. If you not only broke the rule, but also inflicted over the top violence for no reason on the other player, you’re ejected.

In no other sport does the rule book have such steep and unbending consequences. A point deduction might as well be an L in 90% of ufc fights. And how many fights have we seen 2+ warnings before something bad happens? Remember the Stefan Struve vs Ben Rothwell fight? It’s just absolute bogus. There’s no consistency and we can’t blame the refs because they don’t have the tools available to them to adequately address the complex variety of situations that a cage fight produces. The sports evolved past its rule sets.

I agree with most of what you're saying. Especially the "we can't blame the refs" part (never blame 1 party for a systemic issue).

I'm not opposed to penalizing many fouls the same way. But I guess I'm suggesting that instead of no differentiation, maybe they need to keep an equivalent of a "flagrant foul".

Again, I think you and I are at least 95% on the same page. Cheers.

 

[Yep]

Well you might have me there. In the "old days" there were 2 levels of personal foul; 5 years and 15 yards. That may not be the case anymore.

But NFL refs can now kick a player out of a game. That's an intent thing, no?

There’s no argument here tho I. The case of football. There are certain penalties that they call personal fouls but it has 0 to do with intent. Can they choose to eject a player? Of course. But a hold is a hold whether you meant it or not. Bottom line is there’s penalties for breaking rules. There’s no penalty in a warning. None. Unless that warning comes with a fine. You can have fight altering fouls that result in nothing more than a warning and multiple times in the ufc. That’s insane to me. I also don’t know why a fan would not want penalties to fouls.