UnderGround Forums
 

TUF 16 >> TUF - Knee to Head?


4/22/10 9:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
The Elastic Assassin
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
199 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/25/08
Posts: 7217
Eveready - Ok, I'll try write this so it's readable, sorry about my engrish.

I see a knee coming to my head while I'm grounded, I put my hand in front of my face to protect it and the knee breaks my hand and makes me unable to continue. If the strike was not thrown to my head while I was grounded, then there would have been no altercation. This is a very specific argument to to the hypothetical situation I've been trying to explain. However in that exact situation do you not agree that it should result in a DQ loss?

 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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
199 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/09
Posts: 1904
Eveready - Ok, I'll try write this so it's readable, sorry about my engrish.

I see a knee coming to my head while I'm grounded, I put my hand in front of my face to protect it and the knee breaks my hand and makes me unable to continue. If the strike was not thrown to my head while I was grounded, then there would have been no altercation. This is a very specific argument to to the hypothetical situation I've been trying to explain. However in that exact situation do you not agree that it should result in a DQ loss?


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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jason hornbuckle
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
199 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Big Pun
40 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sacredhate
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
199 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
The Elastic Assassin
55 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sacredhate
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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.

 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.

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
199 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
sacredhate
104 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/16/07
Posts: 6394
you know "to" as in "towards"
4/22/10 9:51 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/25/08
Posts: 7221
billyball2 - 

Why are you so butt-hurt about this, and why can't you recognize that you're wrong here.

BOTH fighters acknowledge that 2 illegal knees to the head were thrown. Attonito was rocked by one or both of them.

What's so difficult for you to comprehend here?
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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
donkypunch55
199 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
bcolflesh
94 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/9/05
Posts: 5272
TTT for morning crew opinions.
4/22/10 9:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 7/25/08
Posts: 7222
sacredhate - 
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.

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".

Hmmmmmm.

This begs the logical question then, if your opponent is on the ground on one side of the ring, and you are 30 feet away, across the ring, and throw a knee that if you did the geometry would be directed at his head, would that constitute a foul?

Because this is obviously not the case, then the alternative is to accept "onto" as the accepted meaning of "to".

You could argue it the other way if you wanted to be stubborn, though.  I'll admit that much.
 

4/22/10 10:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MentaL
528 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/12/07
Posts: 1809
 Here, Just made the gif...


4/22/10 10:12 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Stipe
22 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 8/31/02
Posts: 1784
Slowshot, time to let this one go.
4/22/10 10:14 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Slowshot
158 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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.
4/22/10 10:15 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MentaL
528 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04/22/10 10:16 AM
Member Since: 1/12/07
Posts: 1810
 

less bandwidth. 



the knee didnt hit him, it grazed his hands at best.
4/22/10 10:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MentaL
528 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/12/07
Posts: 1811
 Slightly bigger



Reply Post

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