First of all, to those of you who think I posted this to defend Travis Lutter - I could care less about him. If Herb Dean had called those elbows as a foul, there would have been a time out, Lutter would have been givin time to recover, then Silva probably would have crossed the ring and knocked him out. I had always assumed Lutter the underdog, and when he failed to make weight, I knew he didn't even have the glimmer of a chance I had already given him. I posted this thread not to defend Lutter, but to argue a rule.
Because, quite frankly, I don't care much about Anderson Silva, either. He's not my favourite fighter, and isn't going to sell a PPV to me. But I do have a vested interest in making sure UFC rules are enforced, because the rules make for better fights.
Originally Posted by baz00ca
the rule is open to interpretation. when i look at the rule I see it as saying you cannot strike North-South with the point of the elbow. interpreted in this way Silva's elbows were legal as they were going parallel to the mat.
It's really a rule that has to be clarified and/or rewritten by the NSAC
I agree. If you take the rule as meaning that elbows thrown with the majority of the force behind the elbow being delivered parallel to the attacker's body (which would be "down" relative to the position of the fighters), then the rule would make Silva's elbows illegal. If the rule is specifically referring to elbows thrown down to the floor, regardless of the relative position of the fighters, then Silva's strikes would be legal.
To me, I would interpret the rule as being relative to the fighter's position, and thus the strikes were illegal, irregardless of the elbows yawing slightly as they were being delivered. But baz00ca is correct - this rule needs to be clairified.