ABC to vote on revised MMA judging criteria, including change in 10-8 round language

cletus

http://www.mmafighting.com/2016/7/21/12245582/abc-to-vote-on-revised-mma-judging-criteria-including-change-in-10-8

Long overdue. Looking at use of a dominant position on its own is probably worth it on its own

cletus

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/8/3/12365862/association-of-boxing-commissions-amends-mma-s-unified-rules

So, new rules have been ratified, biggest changes would seem to be interpretation of 'effective' regarding striking and grappling, finger positions re. eye pokes, and the definition of a grounded opponent.

Evidently some of these rules have been trialed in regional events to good effect.

Mellor

cletus wrote: »

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2016/8/3/12365862/association-of-boxing-commissions-amends-mma-s-unified-rules

So, new rules have been ratified, biggest changes would seem to be interpretation of 'effective' regarding striking and grappling, finger positions re. eye pokes, and the definition of a grounded opponent.

Evidently some of these rules have been trialed in regional events to good effect.

Hand down fighter is "grounded" no more.
About time.

DrPhilG

Mellor wrote: »

Hand down fighter is "grounded" no more.
About time.

It's going to be fun watching guys forget and put the fingers down think I they're safe...

All these changes sound good. Progress.

cletus

I am personally delighted that clavicle grabs are now legal. I have bided my time long enough, now to unleash the almighty clavicle grab


(I searched for a suitably funny video to put here, but it looks like NOBODY trains clavicle grabs )

Fromvert

It's still up to each commission to bring in these new changes, so some may not be brought in. I thought I saw yesterday that New Jersey are against some of the changes (down opponent, heel strikes and some others) so they probably won't bring them in.

ASOT

Fromvert wrote: »

It's still up to each commission to bring in these new changes, so some may not be brought in. I thought I saw yesterday that New Jersey are against some of the changes (down opponent, heel strikes and some others) so they probably won't bring them in.

New Jersey against it and two abstained, rest all voted yes.

Mellor

Fromvert wrote: »

It's still up to each commission to bring in these new changes, so some may not be brought in. I thought I saw yesterday that New Jersey are against some of the changes (down opponent, heel strikes and some others) so they probably won't bring them in.

This was essentially the vote to bring it in on a state level.
New Jersey wanted the word damage removed, which it subsequently was.
They also didn't like the grounded fighter full change. So it remains to be seen what they'll do.


I feel the grounded-fighter rule change is a good one. As 99% of the time, that comes into play when a fighter grounds himself to avoid strikes. That surely isn't the intention of the rules.
However, I can see a flaw in the current rule that a fighter genuinely getting up off the ground, is now exposed earlier than before. Falls under protect yourself at all times I guess.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Hand down fighter is "grounded" no more.
About time.

Absolutely.

Also I never understood why bottom fighters couldn't use kicks to the head when top fighters are in the guard. What's the difference between that and up kicks to a 'standing' fighter?

Silva's DQ vs Okami should have been allowed in my eyes.

Mellor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolutely.

Also I never understood why bottom fighters couldn't use kicks to the head when top fighters are in the guard. What's the difference between that and up kicks to a 'standing' fighter?

Silva's DQ vs Okami should have been allowed in my eyes.

Because they have to draw a line for when a fighter is grounded.
If you allow kicks to the head in guard, why not in turtle. It's the same position, etc.

The difference with the above and an upkick is that fighters know that they have to watch for upkicks. They aren't watching out for illegal strikes.
Silva head kick was an illegal strike. It would still be an illegal strike after the above rule change.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Because they have to draw a line for when a fighter is grounded.
If you allow kicks to the head in guard, why not in turtle. It's the same position, etc.

Yeah but I mean kicks to the head from the bottom guy from guard, I don't really see why this shouldn't be allowed. If a guy is on top of you with his knees planted what's the real difference between him standing and receiving the up kicks.

The difference with the above and an upkick is that fighters know that they have to watch for upkicks. They aren't watching out for illegal strikes.
Silva head kick was an illegal strike. It would still be an illegal strike after the above rule change.

I know that is currently the rule but I'm just saying maybe it should't be. In my eyes anyway

Mellor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah but I mean kicks to the head from the bottom guy from guard, I don't really see why this shouldn't be allowed. If a guy is on top of you with his knees planted what's the real difference between him standing and receiving the up kicks.

Physically there's probably no reason why it any different to upkicks, or elbows from guard (both legal). But it's very hard to legislate for. How do you draw a line that makes it black and white. Kneeling in guard, is the same position as kneeling in turtle, or scrambles. Grey areas are not good. Complex rules are not good.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Physically there's probably no reason why it any different to upkicks, or elbows from guard (both legal). But it's very hard to legislate for. How do you draw a line that makes it black and white. Kneeling in guard, is the same position as kneeling in turtle, or scrambles. Grey areas are not good. Complex rules are not good.

That's true enough, I just think that one could be added and made clear. Kicks to the head are allowed FROM a downed fighter, but not TO a downed fighter.

I suppose it is still a grey area and would never be looked at, just something I'd like to see personally as it would give the fighter on top a lot more to think about and encourage passing guard.

All my humble opinion of course

Mellor

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I just think that one could be added and made clear. Kicks to the head are allowed FROM a downed fighter, but not TO a downed fighter.

But that is the rule.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

But that is the rule.

Damn you're right, it sounded clearer in my head. It would be a messy one to describe alright. Basically I'd like to see kicks allowed from the bottom guy even when the top guy is in their guard.