Mixed Martial Arts Forum banner

Should the Deduction have been a warning?

  • No, rules are rules, who cares about precedent.

    Votes: 18 21.2%
  • No, It was blatant.

    Votes: 5 5.9%
  • Yes, clearly accidental, precedent dictates a warning.

    Votes: 55 64.7%
  • Yes, because it changed the outcome.

    Votes: 7 8.2%
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,362 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I thought it was what won Matt the fight and I also think that there was no reason to not give a warning like they do in 99% of fights.

IMO it was total BS.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,811 Posts
Yea, I'm with you here!

I really don't why they did that.. they normally never do it. It just showed us another huge hole in the whole MMA scoring. I dunno why people don't fix this kind of stuff. There should be some out there who earn a lot of money and those should be able to put some thoughts into this. Everybody sees the hole in there.. but they don't?! :confused02:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,362 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
The only reason I can think of is the ref thought it was flagrant so he jumped right to a point reduction. I honestly felt something was fishy there, I could hear Jardine pleading his case and the ref say "Sorry I have too, I dont have a choice" I was like dont have a choice? pfft.... WTF is going on here.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,481 Posts
Dean says that he did damage with the eye poke which is why the poke counted. I'm also not sure it was accidental, Jardine was rocked and it looked like he was going down. It reminded me of when Gonzaga kicked Tucshz...yeah not even going to try spell that one right(Brocks fat friend) in the bollocks and made him vomit in the ring.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
243 Posts
I thought it was what won Matt the fight and I also think that there was no reason to not give a warning like they do in 99% of fights.

IMO it was total BS.
I believe the judges had it 29/27, 29/27, 28/28. Meaning; Matt still would have won a split decision.
 

·
"I
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
I voted no but for none of the reasons up there. The eye poke was a really hard eye pokes and probably effected Matt's ability to fight quite a bit (as evident by that third round that, IMO, Jardine won). If a foul effects a fighter's ability to fight in a moderate-intense way (I.E. Tagging the cup with an inside leg kick should be a warning, crushing it with a knee ala Kongo should be a point, even if in inadvertent), it should take a point. If the foul is moderately damaging or more, there should be a point deduction. That eye poke seemed to be moderately damaging to me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,362 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I voted no but for none of the reasons up there. The eye poke was a really hard eye pokes and probably effected Matt's ability to fight quite a bit (as evident by that third round that, IMO, Jardine won). If a foul effects a fighter's ability to fight in a moderate-intense way (I.E. Tagging the cup with an inside leg kick should be a warning, crushing it with a knee ala Kongo should be a point, even if in inadvertent), it should take a point. If the foul is moderately damaging or more, there should be a point deduction. That eye poke seemed to be moderately damaging to me.
That line of thought makes to many assumptions for me although I respect your opinion.

If it had done damage of any kind it would have took longer than the ten seconds matt took to recover IMO.
I believe the judges had it 29/27, 29/27, 28/28. Meaning; Matt still would have won a split decision.
It changed the way the fight was being fought and had a direct influence on the rest of the fight, I think you missed my point.
 

·
'England Elite'
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
I believe the judges had it 29/27, 29/27, 28/28. Meaning; Matt still would have won a split decision.
Yes but we will never know what would have happened prior to the incident if the point hadnt been deducted. I personally think it affected Jardine in a negative way.

I think he should have been warned that if it happens again he would have a point deducted.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
847 Posts
Yes - the eye poke was accidental.

No - it shouldn't have been a deducted point.

No - it did not change the outcome of the fight (neither mathematically nor hypothetically).

No - I don't think the deducted point affected Jardine's performance. I think the gashes that Hamill opened up on his face affected his performance.

Yes - Jardine conceivably out-pointed Hamill in the 3rd, but Hamill was pushing forward relentlessly, and busted him up badly. He inflicted much more damage. Jardine was a bloody mess, and that tends to sway how a judge sees a round.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,481 Posts
Most of you who are taking Jardines side in this are forgetting is he was given a warning in the fight for dropping his mouth piece. You can poke a guy in the eye, you can hold the cage, you can kick a guy in the nuts, and you can drop your mouth piece, but when you do TWO of those things you lose the benefit of the doubt with me.

I voted blatant
 

·
To the death George
Joined
·
2,306 Posts
Yes it was accidental, but it was a damaging shot and it probably hampered Matt's vison through out the rest of the fight a little. So why should matt be at a disadvantage because of the other fighters mistake? the point deduction was fair IMO.
 

·
MMA Patriot
Joined
·
4,003 Posts
I think should have been a warning and it did effect the outcome of the fight.

Keith was doing great up till the eye poke. He was the technical unorthodox striker we all remember but after he had appoint taken away he got pissed and rushed in and lost his cool. Had it not been for the eye poke he would have kept his cool and won.
 

·
Pretty old, apparently
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
I am not sure about this and maybe others remember better. Herb was in no position to see the eye poke when it occurred. Maybe he was, but I thought I remembered he was on the other side of the fighters. It seemed he only had Matt's word and actions that he got poked. I am not saying it didn't happen it looked pretty clear in the replay. I just wondered if it was reviewed? Not sure when he could have reviewed it. There was a minute while the camera was showing the doctor looking at Matt's eye. I was just curious.
 

·
Super Ultra Great Delicious Wonderful
Joined
·
6,517 Posts
I voted no but for none of the reasons up there. The eye poke was a really hard eye pokes and probably effected Matt's ability to fight quite a bit (as evident by that third round that, IMO, Jardine won). If a foul effects a fighter's ability to fight in a moderate-intense way (I.E. Tagging the cup with an inside leg kick should be a warning, crushing it with a knee ala Kongo should be a point, even if in inadvertent), it should take a point. If the foul is moderately damaging or more, there should be a point deduction. That eye poke seemed to be moderately damaging to me.
I agree with the premise but that isn't the precedent and it doesn't state that in the rules. I'd like a specific rule for damaging fouls like you are talking about but until then a point shouldn't be taken for a first time offense of an eye poke or groin shot. Especially when the ref didn't even see the foul.
 

·
"I
Joined
·
6,923 Posts
That line of thought makes to many assumptions for me although I respect your opinion.

If it had done damage of any kind it would have took longer than the ten seconds matt took to recover IMO.

It changed the way the fight was being fought and had a direct influence on the rest of the fight, I think you missed my point.
You're not taking into account the amount of pride a lot of fighters have. Most of them will say they're okay to fight just because A) they're giving the other dude a break and B) they don't want to show weakness.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,601 Posts
I thought I heard the reason the ref took a point was because it damaged Matt, not because he did it on purpose. I think it opened a small cut near his eye.

If an illegal shot, even if accidental, does visible damage and the fighter is still willing to fight, then a point will be taken.
 

·
of Nazareth
Joined
·
10,239 Posts
I thought I heard the reason the ref took a point was because it damaged Matt, not because he did it on purpose. I think it opened a small cut near his eye.

If an illegal shot, even if accidental, does visible damage and the fighter is still willing to fight, then a point will be taken.
I mean, it really is that simple. I don't see what's to debate here? The ref followed the rules to the wire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,689 Posts
I voted that he should have been warned, but it's really difficult to make a fair decision in a situation like that. A point deduction might affect the outcome more than the poke, which would be unfair if the poke was completely unintentional. But if you don't deduct anything, the poker will benefit... It's tricky.

Regardless of the deduction, I wouldn't have given the W to Hamill though, since I scored:

Round 1: 10-9 Jardine
Round 2: 9-10 Hamill
Round 3: 10-9 Jardine

So with the deduction it would have been a draw and without it a W for Jardine. But then again, without the poke, Hamill might have taken round 3 and won the fight on my scoreboard.:dunno:
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top