Originally Posted by Canadian Psycho
They're both contrary to the rules. No one is arguing that they're the exact same, but you can certainly make the comparison that if breaking the rules during a fight is okay if it's ultimately of no consequence, then breaking the rules outside of a fight must also be okay if it's ultimately of no consequence.
You can't just brush it off by saying they're different scenarios. That's a cop-out. We're talking about rule breaking and people having no problem with it because it made no difference. Last I checked, that wasn't the point of having rules.
I don't think there is any obvious brushing off of the rules going on here at all ... there are at least two phase of 'justice' when it comes to 'the rules'.
Phase 1: was there a rule violation?
Phase 3: if so, what is the prescribed punishment?
Potential other phases: How much did the rule violation effect the fight (ie: refs discretion
, as in "The following acts constitute fouls in a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts and may result in penalties, at the discretion of the referee, if committed:
So, there are rules against 12-6 elbows, and there are rules against 'eye gouging' for example.
If a fighter pokes their opponent in the eye, that is a foul, just like a 12-6 elbow is a foul, but the prescribed punishment is not simple 'stop the fight, you're disqualified, no questions asked." ... there is discretion allowed, and the ref can do anything from ignore that it happened, to calling time to allow the fighter to recover, to calling time and taking points off the offending fighter, to stopping the fight and calling for a decision based on current judges score cards, to stopping the fight and DQing the offender.
So, even assuming there was technically a 12-6 elbow thrown (and that's not obvious to me at all,) the ref was well within his right to ignore it given the situation (or he could have simply warned Jones about elbows if he though the elbows were questionable) ... what would have been more questionable would be if he had stopped the fight and DQed Jones.
Now, fair or not, getting caught with weed in your blood after a fight has stricter rules and prescribed punishments, so unfortunately while I would have no issue if Diaz had simply been given a warning, the rules did not allow for that (or did not allow for that easily. ie, without appeals, court cases, and lots of money.)
So, rules are great, and applying the rules evenly is even better ... but that applies to all
phases of the rules, not just some
phases of the rules (ie: pretending that the rules say 'here is a list of fouls, and if you commit a foul, you are disqualified" ... when in actuality the rules are much more nuanced that that.