UnderGround Forums
 

Utah Underground >> Sharp vs Birdsley


1/31/05 1:38 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Scott Spain
53 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 31-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 25189
 
I just watched the last of the finals on TV, and have a question... When Sharp finished Birdsley by punches, was Sharp considered to be standing and striking a down opponent? Sharp's feet were on the ground, and neither knee was touching. But he was kind of sitting on Birdsley. Just wondering what others thought, and if there was any controversy surrounding this one.
2/22/05 2:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DJColdfusion
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-05
Member Since: 03/21/2003
Posts: 734
Is there controversey with that fight? No. But there is a ton with the rule in general. I had a short talk with Big John McCarthy concerning the rule and he even stated that he'd be glad to make the trip to talk to the commission about why its a bad rule. Sorry if I hijacked the thread.
2/22/05 4:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Scott Spain
53 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 25446
No problem. At least someone isn't ignoring it completely.
2/25/05 12:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
DJColdfusion
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Feb-05
Member Since: 03/21/2003
Posts: 735
Six fights during that finals event had moments when it could have been construed that one fighter was striking the other without the knee down. It just becomes a beeootttcchh to interpret when the rule is being broken or not because the referee, who is the only one that can actually make the judgement, has to take so much in at the same time that it becomes very difficult to determine if the rule has been broken. For example, if fighter A is striking fighter B and fighter A's is only touching the mat with the bottom of his feet then there's a foul . . . right? What if fighter B is supporting fighter A's weight with his knees? Is fighter A then committing the foul? His knees are still not on the ground, so is there an actual foul? No. A fighter cannot be held accountable for a foul if the actions of their opponent causes them to committ the foul. Its the same with knees. You can't knee a downed opponent in the head, right? Well what if you opponent shoots a double leg as you initiate a straight knee. Your knee strikes your opponent at just about the same time his knee hits the ground. Is it a foul? No, of course not. Another issue with the knee down rule is that it conflicts with other rules, including the fighters obligations to progress the fight and protect themselves. If fighter A is attempting to pass fighter B's guard and fighter B strikes fighter A then, under the current knee down rule, fighter A has to drop back down to his knees to retaliate (giving up on improving their position) or risk injury by leaving themselves open to strikes as they continue to attempt their guard pass. One last thing with the knee down rule. We already let fighters knee each other in the head, which is much more dangerous than striking a downed opponent, so the argument that the rule is in place for fighter safety is moot, or better yet moronic. The general excuse by the commission for the rule is that it is in place because laws in the Utah legal code define striking a downed opponent, even in a sportive situation, in such a way that it is legally "assault" and therefore brings a bunch of criminal and liability issues into play. I have never seen the code in question, and I've looked, but I would assume that the commission could attain an opinion letter from the Attorney General's office to clear up the matter and possibly open up an opportunity to bring Utah into MMA mainstream and ultimately make the sport safer for everyone involved.

Reply Post

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