UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> Yamasaki and the Back of the Head Rule


11/19/12 7:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
30 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
84 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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 | Vote Down | Vote Up
Narcolepsy
20 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/10/10
Posts: 588
This fight was clearly back of the head. Silva/Prater was iffy.
11/19/12 7:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Andersons_Chin
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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.
11/19/12 7:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Gin Tonic
22 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/11
Posts: 829
Is that the fight where Rogan stepped in and called him out regarding the strikes? Phone Post
11/19/12 7:53 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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 | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tat2tillidie
356 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 12/17/10
Posts: 3770
Gin Tonic - Is that the fight where Rogan stepped in and called him out regarding the strikes? Phone Post
Yea Phone Post
11/19/12 8:13 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
UGCTT_I Got Fitched Up
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
18 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
30 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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 | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
30 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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.
11/19/12 9:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Wasa-B
260 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 42149
agree with OP
11/19/12 9:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
OmgItsTheWams
216 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/8/10
Posts: 1586
Made a thread about this Saturday night Phone Post
11/19/12 9:43 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
30 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3549
OmgItsTheWams -  Made a thread about this Saturday night Phone Post

Didn't see it, what with the 400,000 GSP v Anderson threads made that night. Link, pls :)
11/19/12 9:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
xXJayRobXx
3 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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. Phone Post
11/19/12 9:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
OmgItsTheWams
216 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/8/10
Posts: 1587
joe canada -
OmgItsTheWams -  Made a thread about this Saturday night Phone Post

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 Phone Post
11/20/12 9:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
joe canada
30 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 3552
OMG -- no, in all seriousness, link it up, I'd be interested in reading it
11/20/12 10:55 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hikikomori
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/23/11
Posts: 817
Mario did the right thing back then but got beat up for it. Phone Post

Reply Post

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