1. It is easier to find men who will volunteer to die, than to find those who are willing to endure pain with patience. Discuss: "UFC 220: Miocic vs. Ngannou" Live Discussion *Spoilers*. Prelims begin at 7:00 p.m. ET on Fight Pass.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. We've created a backup site in case the forum experiences any technical difficulties. Please bookmark the following addresses: www.reddit.com/r/MMASPOT/ and/or www.nm.reddit.com/r/MMASPOT/. All urgent announcements will be posted there in the event that the main site goes down. Thank you.
    Dismiss Notice

Why does the referee stop the action for a stand up?

Discussion in 'MMA University' started by ILJO, Jun 2, 2012.

  1. PatsWillPoundMyProlapsedChin

    PatsWillPoundMyProlapsedChin Well-Known Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    71,220,914
    If the fighter standing up motions for the fighter to get up and then attacks once the guy goes to get up, it's a douche move, just like holding your hand out to touch gloves but attacking instead. That said, that move isn't illegal. I do think the ref should step in to make sure the standing fighter doesn't try to bait the downed fighter into losing his defense ability to stand up, but at the same time, I think if you hold your hand out to touch gloves but attack instead, you should lose a point.
     
  2. SandyWH

    SandyWH CHAOS KREATOR

    Reputation:
    158,023,137
    I haven't seen anything in any AC's rule book specifically about this. However, there are lots of 'referee discretion on behalf of fighter safety" stipulations.
     
  3. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    See that's just dumb imo. What's safest for the fighter is to not step in the cage/ring to begin with. You can't give the ref that kind of power to allow certain positions/techniques and not others imo. If it's in the rules, then so be it, but it shouldn't be at the discretion of the refs.

    And honestly, no offense, but I'm not sure if I believe that because that would be pretty messed up if it was true. I just don't really know how to find out for sure
     
  4. PatsWillPoundMyProlapsedChin

    PatsWillPoundMyProlapsedChin Well-Known Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    71,220,914
    I actually could see where the ref using discretion as an exemption could be used in the scenario you described. Say the fighter standing tells the fighter laying there to stand up and the ref doesn't move in. Then the standing fighter runs over midway through and knees the fighter in the head midway through his motion to get up. He's no longer a downed opponent but he's defenseless because he's not quite all the way to his feet.
     
  5. Malevolence

    Malevolence Hurt like you’ve never been loved

    Reputation:
    290,026,578
    That's why you protect yourself at all times.

    ---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

    I agree that it is kinda douchey to attack someone like that but it's within the rules.
     
  6. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    Exactly. It's not the refs job to make you defend yourself. There are plenty of situations that you can get into where you are vulnerable, but it doesn't mean the ref should be able to get in the way and make sure you don't get hurt.

    It's MMA ffs. The whole point is to hurt your opponent
     
  7. PatsWillPoundMyProlapsedChin

    PatsWillPoundMyProlapsedChin Well-Known Member Site Donor

    Reputation:
    71,220,914
    You can't protect yourself while getting off the canvas. And if your opponent motions to give you a chance to get back to your feet and then cheapshots you, that should be against the rules and the ref stepping in should be allowed to combat it. The argument saying it's MMA, the point is to hurt your opponent is invalid because there are numerous cheapshot methods that are illegal. There are plenty of things you could do to hurt your opponent if they were legal. I agree with the ref using discetion to make sure the other fighter isn't going to rush in and cheap shot the other guy. Eye pokes and groin shots are cheap shots and against the rules. Giving the ref the leeway to make sure other unforeseen cheapshots don't happen is justifiable, IMO.
     
  8. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    Says who? What kind of nonsense argument is that?

    Malevolence just told us he trained MMA and was taught "how to get up while protecting ourselves against a standing opponent & avoid getting kicked or punched"

    What the fuck are you talking about? If you do something illegal it is considered "cheap" because it's against the rules to do it. You seem to think it's the other way around... they didn't make things illegal because they were "cheap." There is nothing inherently "cheap" about anything that is illegal in MMA. The things that are illegal are illegal for safety reasons, not because they are "cheap."

    "Cheap" is an opinion. Don't you understand that? Whether something is cheap, and how cheap it is, will vary from ref to ref and fighter to fighter. So how could you possibly think that different refs allowing different fighters to do different things in different fights is, in any way, shape, or form, fair?

    That would be beyond fucked up
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2012
  9. Malevolence

    Malevolence Hurt like you’ve never been loved

    Reputation:
    290,026,578
    You can protect yourself getting up,you'll always be more vulnerable than when you are on your back or on your feet but you don't get up like your climbing up off of your living room floor,you protect your head with one arm & shoulder & are on guard against being rushed & scoot out sideways or backwards,you can also take advantage of an on rushing opponent,it's often one of the 1st things you're taught in any type of mma class & is an important aspect of self defense.

    ---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

    Sorry didn't see the above post.
     
  10. ATJ-Lucko

    ATJ-Lucko MMAtheist

    Reputation:
    167,396,616
    I think it's a hold over from kickboxing
     
  11. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    They might as well ban every dominant position.

    That's why I don't get it. It's not any worse than being mounted or having someone on your back imo
     
  12. Malevolence

    Malevolence Hurt like you’ve never been loved

    Reputation:
    290,026,578
    If you've worked hard to get your opponent to a position of weakness,he/she should have to work just as hard to get out of it,Rogan talks about it all the time,a lil too much at times,but like he says,if someone can squash you against the cage for example & dirty box & throw short elbows & foot stomps & you can't get off the cage & out of danger then why should the ref save you?
     
  13. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    Generally speaking I agree with that sentiment. It becomes another issue when the guy just uses that position to take advantage of the time constraints, but that's another issue entirely. I would understand if the ref was doing it because of a lack of action, but that doesn't seem to be what it's about.

    Since all of the refs seem to do it, as far as I can tell, I think they are trained to do so. So there has to be some kind of written or verbal instructions they're getting... I'd just like to know the reasoning and how it came to be that they all do this
     
  14. Poindexter

    Poindexter Reputation: ∞ Staff Member

    Reputation:
    476,284,560
    Yes, it is something along these lines it seems.
     
  15. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    Why does it seem that way to you?
     
  16. Poindexter

    Poindexter Reputation: ∞ Staff Member

    Reputation:
    476,284,560
    Because it generally occurs when the action stalls and the fighter on the feet isn't pursuing any significant offense. That seems to be taken as an indication that the standing fighter would rather have it on the feet. Since the fighter on his back isn't presenting any offense either then the fight is stood up and restarted rather than continue without any engagement. In that way, it looks somewhat similar to a restart when a fighter is laying on top in guard without advancing position or landing strikes. The consensual restart is implied and accepted by the ref.
     
  17. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    That is not the scenario I am addressing.

    Like I said, when it gets stood up because of a lack of action, that is another issue entirely, and I don't have a problem with that.
     
  18. Poindexter

    Poindexter Reputation: ∞ Staff Member

    Reputation:
    476,284,560
    Backing away doesn't constitute a lack of action?
     
  19. ILJO

    ILJO Soggy Bottom Boy Site Donor

    Reputation:
    142,256,102
    Are you implying that a single moment of non-action is enough for a ref to intervene?
     
  20. Poindexter

    Poindexter Reputation: ∞ Staff Member

    Reputation:
    476,284,560
    Single moment? What? No, the standing fighter usually indicates, by backing away, that he is not willing to engage while his opponent is on his back—thus comprising more than one moment and potentially the moments going forward.
     

Share This Page