Reffing controversies at UFC on Versus 1

by Steve Cofield | source:

It was another one of those nights for the officials in the UFC. Referee Josh Rosenthal got it right in the James Irvin fight but Colorado officials and ref Herb Dean made a judgement error in the Paul Buentello-Cheick Kongo fight according to UFC president Dana White.

In the second round, Buentello appeared to injure a finger.The fight was stopped while doctors looked at the hand. Then they appeared to pop the finger back into place.

"If he couldn't continue right there, you can't come in [and call timeout]," said White, who thought Buentello broke the finger. I actually appeared to be a dislocation. Dean paused the fight because he thought there was an equipment malfunction with the glove. He was wrong. If Buentello had a dislocated finger and needed medical care, the fight should've been given to Kongo with a TKO victory.

Read entire article..


tags: UFC on Versus 1   Herb Dean   Josh Rosenthal   Dana White   


Get the MMA Underground app. for iPhone and Andriod devices.
iPhone Application Andriod MMA Underground Application

Recent Comments »

clarenceworley site profile image  

3/23/10 3:55 PM by clarenceworley

Lindland got a DQ win by playing the game in his UFC debut years ago against Ricardo Almeida. He would have won anyway, but he is a game player.

BUFFGEO site profile image  

3/23/10 3:36 PM by BUFFGEO

I think you guys are over analyzing it. I dont think Buentello was trying to trick Kongo into breaking the rules, I think he just put his hand down so he would stop getting the fuck knee'd out of him!

jkennedy site profile image  

3/23/10 1:56 PM by jkennedy

Personally I'd factor in both fighter's previous performance in the ring to decide this. Is fighter A more prone to using the rules to his advantage? Is fighter B more prone to intentional foul? These things would be the deciding factor for me.

Uncle Justice site profile image  

3/23/10 12:57 PM by Uncle Justice

 ^Of course, I agree.... that was a bad example. My point was in reference to the tactic of "manipulating the rules to your advantage", for which there are several perfectly acceptable and "legal" examples. What if Buentello was waiting and watching for Kongo, and decided to put his hand down just as or right before a knee landed to the face?  Should Kongo have a point deducted for this? I'm ambivalent on this topic.  On one hand, it sets a bad precedent for the ref to assume a fighter's intention and allow a rule to be broken, on the other hand, I would hate to see a precedent set for fighters to look for any way they can use a unique circumstance with the rules to win instead of focusing on trying to best their opponent "normally".

GladiatorGannon site profile image  

3/23/10 12:37 PM by GladiatorGannon

There is a world of difference between a tactical decision to put a hand down, and faking a nutshot. One is allowed by the rules, one is outright fraud.

Uncle Justice site profile image  

3/23/10 11:50 AM by Uncle Justice

 ^Well, with all due respect, only Paul knows that. Herb obviously thought otherwise.

jkennedy site profile image  

3/23/10 10:41 AM by jkennedy

Unfortunately the reason Paul touched down was due to Kongo leaning on him.

Uncle Justice site profile image  

3/23/10 10:07 AM by Uncle Justice

 CagePotato has a solid article up about all of the shit with the rules from Kongo/Buentello.

Uncle Justice site profile image  

3/23/10 10:05 AM by Uncle Justice

 nofatchicks brings up an interesting point, but I still agree with Herb writing off the foul because Buentello was indeed intentionally "playing a game". I believe that was the difference... Buentello was intentionally trying to elicit a foul by putting his hand down, and this could open a huge can of worms with fighters purposely trying to take advantage of the rules instead of trying to just fight within them, i.e. faking a nutshot. I'm sure Herb wanted to encourage fair play rather than manipulating the rules to his advantage.

JRSFITNESS1 site profile image  

3/22/10 8:17 PM by JRSFITNESS1

Just as a point of clarification, it is the grounded opponent rule, not a 3 point of contact rule. The rule does not reference the number of points of contact, but rather what specifically is touching the ground. If anything is touching the ground other than the soles of the feet the opponent is grounded. If you're doing a one arm handstand you only have s single point of contact but you would be considered grounded and no head kicks would be allowed. Same thing if you had one foot and one hand down, you would be grounded and the head would be disallowed as a target for kicks.