Refresh | Add To Favorites | Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs
 


Jon Jones to Protest Loss


«« Prev FP 4 5 6 7 8 [ 9 ]
From: bhamill 2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/11/09 2:14 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14823
 
Fair enough on that.

What is your opinion in general as pertains to disadvantage/injury caused by something inadvertent versus intentional. Do you let a fight continue? Is there actually a rule?

From: DaddyRich 89 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/11/09 2:56 PM
Member Since: 8/22/02
Posts: 615
 
I think the reason to call it a no contest is because of all this back and forth. Reasonable people can come to different conclusions after watching the same thing. If there's this much doubt why penalize Jones?

From: Zeke Dynasty 8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/11/09 3:13 PM
Member Since: 6/22/09
Posts: 141
 
well, but Jones clearly acted in an illegal manner, so speculation here is merely that, speculation. if decisions were based on fan speculation, this fight would be on hold for the next three months while the "Yes" camp battled the "no" camp. That's precisely why this should NOT be overturned, it would set a disgusting precedent and the "That was the right call" people would feel just as robbed as those who think it wasn't do right now.

From: Altofsky 683 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/11/09 3:13 PM
Member Since: 12/17/06
Posts: 27942
 
"I'm saying he based his decision on OTHER than the response or lack thereof."

I don't see what your basis for that argument is. Blood in the eyes? That's no basis for a ref stopping a fight. As I stated before, there's a long-standing precedent for calling a doc in when blood is the issue.

There's also a long-standing precedent of questioning a fighter about his condition to continue. And in that precedent, it's standard procedure to call the fight if the fighter is unresponsive... which is exactly what happened.

It's not about being a mindreader, it's about drawing a simple conclusion based on past actions.

From: bhamill 2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/11/09 4:07 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14827
 
Altofsky - "I'm saying he based his decision on OTHER than the response or lack thereof."

I don't see what your basis for that argument is. Blood in the eyes? That's no basis for a ref stopping a fight. As I stated before, there's a long-standing precedent for calling a doc in when blood is the issue.


The basis is there is obvious debilitating damage done by an illegal and intentional technique.

There's also a long-standing precedent of questioning a fighter about his condition to continue. And in that precedent, it's standard procedure to call the fight if the fighter is unresponsive... which is exactly what happened.

It's not about being a mindreader, it's about drawing a simple conclusion based on past actions.


You are trying to act as if its impossible that Mazzagati REALIZED Matt COULDN'T hear him because he's deaf when he got no response. What do you base this on? And he STILL didn't in the MINUTES before the decision was announced (okay, I don't know the amount of time but it seemed like minutes)? Yours is not a simple conclusion to come to, it just one that is favorable to your wants.

We can just agree to disagree and see what happens, we both have our own view.

What is your opinion in general as pertains to disadvantage/injury caused by something inadvertent versus intentional. Do you let a fight continue? Is there actually a rule?

From: bhamill 2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/11/09 5:01 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 14828
 
BTW I love the way Jones fights for the most part and am looking forward to his next bout.

From: SikRick Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/12/09 3:38 AM
Member Since: 12/9/09
Posts: 45
 
 ILLEGAL

From: lemh157 Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/16/09 12:59 PM
Member Since: 2/20/04
Posts: 45
 
Jones Files Formal Appeal Over Hamill DQ
Options: ShareThis| Printer Friendly
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
by Brian Knapp (bknapp@sherdog.com)


21568
A management team representing light heavyweight Jon Jones this week filed a formal appeal with the Nevada State Athletic Commission requesting that his disqualification loss to Matt Hamill at “The Ultimate Fighter 10” Finale on Dec. 5 in Las Vegas be overturned.

Jones, who entered the bout unbeaten, was disqualified by referee Steve Mazzagatti after he struck Hamill with repeated illegal downward elbows to the face.

In the complaint, Ryan Ciotoli and Gary Marino of BombSquad Sports Management called the criteria used to determine whether or not Hamill could continue “flawed,” citing Mazzagatti’s decision to ask Hamill, a legally deaf athlete whose vision had been impaired by blood, “Are you done?” The complaint also claims that proper protocol was not followed, since none of the ringside physicians assessed Hamill’s condition prior to the stoppage.

“If the referee believed that the injury was due to a foul, Mr. Hamill should have been given the appropriate amount of time to recover,” the complaint reads. “At minimum, Mr. Hamill should have had [the] opportunity to clearly understand what was being asked of him and given the ability to respond.”

The complaint also cites a statement posted on Hamill’s Web site in which he pointed to a shoulder injury he suffered during a takedown prior to the illegal blows. “I knew it was probably over at that point,” Hamill wrote. Jones’ representatives also called into question the use of instant replay and the decision that was based upon it. Their independent review, according to the complaint, shows that the illegal blows did not cause the lacerations to Hamill’s face.

“It is clear that the elbows that were deemed illegal were in fact not the blows that caused the facial cuts,” the complaint reads. “In fact, on the tape you can clearly see that with 1:30 remaining in the first round, the bridge of Mr. Hamill’s nose was cut open and blood was starting to flow. The illegal blows however were not thrown, nor was Mr. Jones given a warning by the referee, until 1:05 minutes remaining in the first round.”

Furthermore, according to the complaint, Jones threw 27 legal blows during the 25-second interval in question, “accelerating” the facial injuries Hamill sustained. In light of the evidence as they see it, Jones’ representatives have requested the decision be changed from a loss to a win, though they would settle for a no contest, “should the commission determine that the footage is not sufficient to determine which blows in fact caused the vital injury.”

From: Zeke Dynasty 8 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/23/09 9:14 AM
Member Since: 6/22/09
Posts: 167
 
http://www.heavy.com/post/jon-jones-loses-hamill-appeal-2433


way to go, end of thread.

From: Crazy Zimmerman 301 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/23/09 9:18 AM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 53779
 
 Jones' management did the right thing.  You have to at least make an attempt to do everything possible for your fighter.  Anything less and you should not be a manager.

From: tdunning 12 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/23/09 12:26 PM
Member Since: 6/22/07
Posts: 572
 
This is why they needed arbitration on this matter. The NSAC is biased by the fact that it was the first instance of instant replay being used, so they were not likely to overturn the decision. An arbitrator would have looked at the facts objectively.

From: Liyon 118 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/23/09 12:39 PM
Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 20962
 
The loss on Jones's record will have as much significance as the "loss" on Fedor's record. It seems the UFC is treating it as a win anyway.

From: disbeliever 354 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile
Posted: 12/23/09 1:00 PM
Member Since: 9/27/03
Posts: 5937
 
Didn't they just pass the use of instant replay?

Refresh | Add To Favorites | Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs
 

«« Prev FP 4 5 6 7 8 [ 9 ]

Reply Post

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

Shop | Contact Us | Advertising | Create Account | Links