logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
TUF 16 >> TUF - Knee to Head?
| 4/22/10 9:23 AM | |
donkypunch55
30 
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1901 |
Eveready - Again, I'm not saying that he didn't use it as an excuse, I have no idea if it was the knee or an earlier punch that broke his hand. But if one of those knees broke his hand, then the knee was illegal, don't you agree? Assuming it did break his hand then it happened as a direct result of the illegal strike and I don't see how anyone can argue that it makes it a legal strike. i don't know. bottom line is that it isn't illegal to knee someone in the hand. without pulling up the rules, i can still say that i'm reasonably sure that the verbage does not include "intent". and hey, lets be clear, i think kneeing a downed opponent in the face is definiatly wrong (as long as the rules stay geh) but if it wasn't in the face but the hand, how is that illegal? we need clarification on the rules. |
| 4/22/10 9:24 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7215 |
Eveready - Again, I'm not saying that he didn't use it as an excuse, I have no idea if it was the knee or an earlier punch that broke his hand. But if one of those knees broke his hand, then the knee was illegal, don't you agree? Assuming it did break his hand then it happened as a direct result of the illegal strike and I don't see how anyone can argue that it makes it a legal strike. Jesus Christ! No, they're not illegal. If they didn't hit the head they're not illegal. Those are the rules. It' s not up for referee interpretation of "intent". |
| 4/22/10 9:25 AM | |
|
The Elastic Assassin
18
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 26901 |
teh bottom bottom line is he never hit him with a knee to the head... |
| 4/22/10 9:29 AM | |
|
donkypunch55
30
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1903 |
C'mon Dana, fix this shit by bringing back knee's and stomps. obviously it would have a huge impact... ...no pun... |
| 4/22/10 9:33 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7217 |
Eveready - Ok, I'll try write this so it's readable, sorry about my engrish. No, I do not agree. The rules are quite clear on this. "15. Kneeing the head of a grounded opponent." (source: www.ufc.com) Nowhere in the rules (I looked pretty hard) did I see anything about "Kneeing the hand of a grounded opponent while aiming for the head" |
| 4/22/10 9:33 AM | |
|
donkypunch55
30
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1904 |
Eveready - Ok, I'll try write this so it's readable, sorry about my engrish. hmmm... i still waver here simply because how does the ref know what shot specifically broke the hypothetical hand? and how he know it was broken before an X-ray or at least a cage side examination? again, it's just too much of an interpretation of intent situation for me to say that would be cool. |
| 4/22/10 9:34 AM | |
|
jason hornbuckle
1
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 48280 |
who is too lazy to just go to that video i posted and fast forward it to the 7 min mark? all you guys wanting a gif, just go watch the vid |
| 4/22/10 9:36 AM | |
|
donkypunch55
30
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1905 |
Well, there you have it (thanks Slowshot) intent don't mean jack. and again, which shot broke the hand? no one does or could know. certainly not in the amount of time allowed to make a DQ ruling. |
| 4/22/10 9:38 AM | |
|
Big Pun
2
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 26421 |
he was stupid for throwing the first one. He's a whiner for throwing the second one and crying about it. Fool me once, you're an idiot. Fool me twice you're DQ'd...like an idiot |
| 4/22/10 9:38 AM | |
|
sacredhate
63
Member Since: 10/16/07 Posts: 6392 |
well...in that case a kick to the cup should be legal since the cup is protecting the groin, and rules explicitly state "no nutshots"...but say nothing about kicking the shit out of someone's cup. |
| 4/22/10 9:38 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7218 |
Also, fwiw, I DID find this in the rules, in the same "fouls" section: "29. Timidity, including, without limitation, avoiding contact with an opponent, intentionally or consistently dropping the mouthpiece or faking an injury. " (my emphasis added) |
| 4/22/10 9:41 AM | |
|
donkypunch55
30
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1906 |
sacredhate - well...in that case a kick to the cup should be legal since the cup is protecting the groin, and rules explicitly state "no nutshots"...but say nothing about kicking the shit out of someone's cup. Haha, i like the quotes, as if the unified rules actually says "no nutshots" hahaha! i love semantics... |
| 4/22/10 9:41 AM | |
|
The Elastic Assassin
18
Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 26907 |
well teh the spiking should have been a dq because he MEANT to spike him on his head but the other guy was able to tuck his chin.... |
| 4/22/10 9:43 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7219 |
sacredhate - well...in that case a kick to the cup should be legal since the cup is protecting the groin, and rules explicitly state "no nutshots"...but say nothing about kicking the shit out of someone's cup. Nope, the rules say "6. Groin attacks of any kind." You're defining the groin as the testicles, which it is not. The groin is an area, within which the cup rests, thus making it an illegal target. |
| 4/22/10 9:45 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7220 |
The Elastic Assassin - well teh the spiking should have been a dq because he MEANT to spike him on his head but the other guy was able to tuck his chin.... Exactly. He may have meant to spike him on the head, but he failed, so it's not a foul. That's like a guy landing a leg kick, and the ref DQing him because the ref thought he MEANT to kick him in the groin. |
| 4/22/10 9:45 AM | |
|
sacredhate
63
Member Since: 10/16/07 Posts: 6393 |
Slowshot -sacredhate - well...in that case a kick to the cup should be legal since the cup is protecting the groin, and rules explicitly state "no nutshots"...but say nothing about kicking the shit out of someone's cup. well, don't the rules state "no knees TO the face of a downed opponent" and not "no knees ON the face of a downed opponent". Thus the word "to" implies direction and intent and mean that someone putting a hand in there does not nullify the illegality of the action. |
| 4/22/10 9:45 AM | |
|
donkypunch55
30
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1908 |
The Elastic Assassin - well teh the spiking should have been a dq because he MEANT to spike him on his head but the other guy was able to tuck his chin.... This ^^^ |
| 4/22/10 9:46 AM | |
|
sacredhate
63
Member Since: 10/16/07 Posts: 6394 |
you know "to" as in "towards" |
| 4/22/10 9:51 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7221 |
billyball2 -I'm not really butt-hurt about it (although I can see where you would think I was, because I've been pretty persistent with my argument). I have been persistent, though, because I think that Uscola got screwed. I'd need to rewatch, but what I recall is that Uscola didn't ever say that his knee hit him in the head, but rather something along the lines of the ref did what he had to do. I honestly get the impression that he's trying to be a good sport after the fact, and not make Rich out to be the bad guy. I think Rich took an opportunity to quit, and looking at him after the fight, he seeme dlike a guy who knew he got away with one. I'd rather not see that sort of behavior rewarded. Then people like Everready jumped in not understanding the rules, and it turned into a technical argument, which I really do enjoy. I probably overstated when I disparaged Rich as a person. I do disparage his actions that night, but then I've never claimed to be perfect either. Actually, on that note, I formally apologize for calling Rich a quitter. That may have may have been an overstatement. |
| 4/22/10 9:51 AM | |
|
donkypunch55
30
Member Since: 2/20/09 Posts: 1909 |
Christ, i feel like i've been on a merry go round at 80 RPM... we can agree to disagree. and not for nothing, i've been aurguing off topic for 3 pages now. my original point was that dude wasn't really hurt and took (an at the time legitemately looking) way out. that was it. |
| 4/22/10 9:55 AM | |
|
bcolflesh
42
Member Since: 5/9/05 Posts: 5272 |
TTT for morning crew opinions. |
| 4/22/10 9:59 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7222 |
sacredhate - Well, now THIS IS an interesting argument, and one I'd be willing to buy, depending on how well it ws argued. I guess my initial pushback would be that this use of the word "to" is generally interpreted to mean "onto", but you could push back and say "well, now YOU'RE arguing for intent, and you can't have it both ways". |
| 4/22/10 10:12 AM | |
MentaL
346
Member Since: 1/12/07 Posts: 1809 |
Here, Just made the gif... |
| 4/22/10 10:12 AM | |
|
Stipe
Member Since: 8/31/02 Posts: 1784 |
Slowshot, time to let this one go. |
| 4/22/10 10:14 AM | |
|
Slowshot
16
Member Since: 7/25/08 Posts: 7224 |
Stipe - Slowshot, time to let this one go. Actually, that gif makes me think I'm right all over again. I think he airballed that knee. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
