UnderGround Forum

OtherGround Forum

Training Forums

States Forums

Yamasaki and the Back of the Head Rule

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

11/19/12 7:15 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

joe canada 19 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3546

Remember less than a year ago when, during the Prater/Silva fight, Mario Yamasaki stopped it for illegal strikes to the back of the head? And how everyone went apeshit? How everyone was saying what a horrible call and/or rule it was?

How things change in a year.

Every one of you complaining about Dan not moving in quickly enough should give Mario Yamasaki his props for being the first one to draw a line in the sand on this issue. He took a lot of crap for that, but he was right then, and the stoppage was right now.

I hope other refs continue to follow his lead in cracking down (pun intended) on this dangerous practice.

Mario Yamasaki for ref of the year, based on that call alone and what it means to MMA.

11/19/12 7:34 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

ufc98newb 37 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 9/26/10
Posts: 1606

joe canada - Remember less than a year ago when, during the Prater/Silva fight, Mario Yamasaki stopped it for illegal strikes to the back of the head? And how everyone went apeshit? How everyone was saying what a horrible call and/or rule it was?

How things change in a year.

Every one of you complaining about Dan not moving in quickly enough should give Mario Yamasaki his props for being the first one to draw a line in the sand on this issue. He took a lot of crap for that, but he was right then, and the stoppage was right now.

I hope other refs continue to follow his lead in cracking down (pun intended) on this dangerous practice.

Mario Yamasaki for ref of the year, based on that call alone and what it means to MMA.

I didn't see this. did he stop the fight, give recovery time, an re-start like you would on a nutshot? or was the fight called right then and there?

11/19/12 7:38 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Narcolepsy 14 Member Since: 12/10/10 Posts: 588	This fight was clearly back of the head. Silva/Prater was iffy. You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 7:50 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Andersons_Chin 6 Member Since: 8/25/12 Posts: 447	That was one, very close, very fast strike, which looked unintentional. This was 8 blatant, slow and obvious strikes, which looked intentional. I do agree, though, that there needs to be less grey area regarding this foul. (and eye pokes) Make the call, and stick to it. You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 7:52 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Gin Tonic 11 Member Since: 1/1/11 Posts: 829	Is that the fight where Rogan stepped in and called him out regarding the strikes? You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 7:53 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up

Member Since: 5/13/11
Posts: 14741

Andersons_Chin - That was one, very close, very fast strike, which looked unintentional.

This was 8 blatant, slow and obvious strikes, which looked intentional.

I do agree, though, that there needs to be less grey area regarding this foul. (and eye pokes) Make the call, and stick to it.

5 of those 8 landed on the ear, or right behind it, which is not illegal regardless of how it looks. Think a 2-3" mohawk down the center of the back of the head. Only that mohawk is illegal.

11/19/12 7:59 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

Andersons_Chin 6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 8/25/12
Posts: 448

UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up -
Andersons_Chin - That was one, very close, very fast strike, which looked unintentional.

This was 8 blatant, slow and obvious strikes, which looked intentional.

I do agree, though, that there needs to be less grey area regarding this foul. (and eye pokes) Make the call, and stick to it.

5 of those 8 landed on the ear, or right behind it, which is not illegal regardless of how it looks. Think a 2-3" mohawk down the center of the back of the head. Only that mohawk is illegal.

I can see that, but that does speak to the 'grey area' i mentioned. Is there a clear 'mohawk' definition in the rule?

I still think you cant compare Prater/Silva with Cote/Sakara

11/19/12 8:00 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Tat2tillidie 201 Member Since: 12/17/10 Posts: 3770	Gin Tonic - Is that the fight where Rogan stepped in and called him out regarding the strikes? Yea You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 8:13 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up

Member Since: 5/13/11
Posts: 14745

Andersons_Chin -
UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up -
Andersons_Chin - That was one, very close, very fast strike, which looked unintentional.

This was 8 blatant, slow and obvious strikes, which looked intentional.

I do agree, though, that there needs to be less grey area regarding this foul. (and eye pokes) Make the call, and stick to it.

5 of those 8 landed on the ear, or right behind it, which is not illegal regardless of how it looks. Think a 2-3" mohawk down the center of the back of the head. Only that mohawk is illegal.

I can see that, but that does speak to the 'grey area' i mentioned. Is there a clear 'mohawk' definition in the rule?

I still think you cant compare Prater/Silva with Cote/Sakara

Well, in Brazil there is no sanctioning body so the UFC uses the Uninfied Rules as defined by Nevada SAC.

I believe the mohawk is defined but will look up exactly where it is defined. State to state can have different rules which is IDIOTIC. The rules should be 100% standardizes in the world imo.

I agree the two fights should not be compared as identical.

11/19/12 8:16 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

Andersons_Chin 6 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 8/25/12
Posts: 449

UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up -
Andersons_Chin -
UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up -
Andersons_Chin - That was one, very close, very fast strike, which looked unintentional.

This was 8 blatant, slow and obvious strikes, which looked intentional.

I do agree, though, that there needs to be less grey area regarding this foul. (and eye pokes) Make the call, and stick to it.

5 of those 8 landed on the ear, or right behind it, which is not illegal regardless of how it looks. Think a 2-3" mohawk down the center of the back of the head. Only that mohawk is illegal.

I can see that, but that does speak to the 'grey area' i mentioned. Is there a clear 'mohawk' definition in the rule?

I still think you cant compare Prater/Silva with Cote/Sakara

Well, in Brazil there is no sanctioning body so the UFC uses the Uninfied Rules as defined by Nevada SAC.

I believe the mohawk is defined but will look up exactly where it is defined. State to state can have different rules which is IDIOTIC. The rules should be 100% standardizes in the world imo.

I agree the two fights should not be compared as identical.

Totally agree about standardization.

11/19/12 8:33 PM

Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up

joe canada 19 The total sum of your votes up and votes down

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3547

http://thegarv.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/NewOrleansABCProfessionalAmateurMMARulesReport.pdf

See page 10 of 49 for the Unified Rules definition of the back of the head.

That should end any lingering discussion as to the Sakara strikes for anyone not on his team.

As for the Silva/Prado fight, here it is. Watch in after, not before, looking up the rule on page 10.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=gfO-9S72a48
No, they weren't identical situations. The Silva/Prader call was MUCH harder to make on the fly. All the more reason to give Mario Yamasaki his retro-active props.

11/19/12 8:34 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
joe canada 19 Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3548	ps: apologies to Kirik et al for posting a UFC clip on here. They're already in the public domain, and serve to illustrate an important point. I claim fair usage. You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 9:35 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Wasa-B 46 Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 42149	agree with OP You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 9:40 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
OmgItsTheWams 112 Member Since: 5/8/10 Posts: 1586	Made a thread about this Saturday night You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 9:43 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
joe canada 19 Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3549	OmgItsTheWams - Made a thread about this Saturday night Didn't see it, what with the 400,000 GSP v Anderson threads made that night. Link, pls :) You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 9:54 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
xXJayRobXx Member Since: 9/17/12 Posts: 169	I remember this fight. I remember it because even joe asked interviewed Mario after the fight ( which never happens) If he would change his decision to stop the fight because in the replay most if not all the shots were clearly not in the illegal area. You have ignored this user.

11/19/12 9:57 PM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
OmgItsTheWams 112 Member Since: 5/8/10 Posts: 1587	joe canada - OmgItsTheWams - Made a thread about this Saturday night Didn't see it, what with the 400,000 GSP v Anderson threads made that night. Link, pls :) No worries it was list amongst the gsp threads and people complaining about the dq You have ignored this user.

11/20/12 9:34 AM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
joe canada 19 Member Since: 1/1/01 Posts: 3552	OMG -- no, in all seriousness, link it up, I'd be interested in reading it You have ignored this user.

11/20/12 10:55 AM	Ignore \| Quote \| Edit \| Warn Admin \| Vote Down \| Vote Up \| Delete Post
Hikikomori Member Since: 11/23/11 Posts: 817	Mario did the right thing back then but got beat up for it. You have ignored this user.

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.

Type:	Standard Video
Source (embed code):
Body: [HTML] [Text]