Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MMA University' started by ILJO, Jun 2, 2012.
not worth it man, think Iljo is on bath Salts or something..
Well there are many positions/situations where someone will not want to engage. But this seems to be the only one where the ref intervenes instantly.
That makes me believe that it is not due to a lack of action. Because there are no other situations I can think of where the ref preemptively intervenes due to a potential lack of action. Therefore, I believe it has more to do with safety; however, I am not sure.
If it is due to a potential lack of action, then I strongly disagree with that rule and I think it's pretty fucked up to give a ref that kind of power in a fight
---------- Post added at 12:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------
Yeah and I'm going to eat your face if you don't fuck off
Nothing in the MMA Unified Rules of Conduct - http://elitemmareferees.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=63
Here is just why I think this is an obvious issue for me at least. All fights start standing, so we can at least assume that's the default MMA position right? So why does a referee intervene to allow a fighter to stand back up is the question.
Ok so we've already addressed that there are situations where the standing fighter doesn't want to advance onto the ground but is also waiting for an attempt by the ground fight to attempt to stand up so they can leverage there positional advantage. I don't see an argument for how a fight that has to engage with the canvas and change position from flat on their back to standing would have positional advantage. So can we at least assume that the standing fighter has positional advantage?
So let's assume that we agree that the ref can facilitate a positional conflict, where by a standing fighter doesn't want to surrender his ability to pounce and a grounded fighter wants to bait the standing fighter into grappling so doesn't change position. In this event the ref brokers standing or resetting the down fighter and then you and I can agree that is done to advance the contest correct?
Now is an impasse going to be subjective? Absolutely. Some refs might consider it an impasse after 10 seconds or 5 or 20. But that's the human element of the sport, just like calling or not calling intentional or unintentional fouls or violations.
The reason the ref stands up the grounded fighter is because of what we already said was the neutral or starting position. If MMA started on the ground, then it should be reset there but since it doesn't, standing it is.
I don't see where any other issue determines standing up so-called turtling fighters when the ground fighter doesn't want to engage. I have 0 problem with a buttscooting opponent since he's attempt to close the distance in a safe manner to advance the action in his domain. And If a standing fighter is pressing the grounded fighter with kicks to his legs, I also don't think the grounded should be stood up. I don't considered that inaction but I'm not a referee. In those regards refs dictate what happens in the cage, there could be no separations off the fence or there could be fast separation off the fence. That's subjective decision making. It may or may not influence a fight, but he ref is an element of the fight and both fighters have to consent to that going in.
I would agree with this, but the ref doesn't wait and make a judgment call on when to stand them up. I mean, sometimes he does, but that is not the situation I am referring to. Like I said, I have no problem with the ref standing it up due to a lack of activity.
What I'm referring to is when the standing fighter backs up enough or signals for the downed fighter to get up; the ref steps in every single time. He doesn't wait to see what happens, he instantly steps in every single time in that situation. So how is that a judgment call? It looks more like they are following some kind of protocol to me. Imo they had to be told to do that.... I'd like to know where they are getting this from and what the justification is. Because, as I've explained, the way they do it is not the same as the way they do any other kind of separation/stand up due to inactivity. So imo, this leads to the assumption that it is not an issue of inactivity as much as it is an issue of safety and protecting the fighter
Using Ninja's terminology, in the first case the ref is facilitating the positional conflict and resetting the fight on the feet to advance the contest, and in the second, if the standing fighter backs away that fighter is ceding his position in the impasse and the ref follows suit and similarly resets the fight. I don't see anything having to do with safety there.
Why though? Why does he have to do that every single time? I can't remember the last time I saw a ref let that situation play out without separating the fighters.
And how is it an issue of inactivity when the ref steps in instantly, every time?
I'm just trying to make sense of it, because I don't see how it can be an issue of inactivity when there is no inactivity before the break (maybe a second or two maximum, which has never been enough in any other situation to qualify for ref intervention).
I mean, I do understand the argument, but I think it is flawed.
Say, hypothetically, fighter X has fighter Y clinched up against the cage and he's holding him there and landing a few shots. Say he let's go of fighter Y and takes a few steps back. He still has fighter Y in a bad positional situation with his back pinned up against the cage, does he not? So why does the ref not step in and separate them? How is that really any different? It's fighter Y's responsibility to fight out of that tough spot if he doesn't want to be there... Why is it not the downed fighter's responsibility to fight out of that spot if he doesn't want to be there? If there is a lack of activity and neither fighter engages for an unnecessarily long period of time, then that is when the ref needs to intervene, but not before that lack of activity. Never before.
Why should the ref help the guy in a bad spot in one situation but not the other? It doesn't make sense to me.
I'm sure there are more than a few similar situations I could think of if I really put my mind to it, but the bottom line is that this issue of "inactivity" is not treated at all like any others. They always wait for the inactivity. They never, ever step in the way preemptively like they do in this situation. They always wait for a long period of inactivity...
That is what led me to believe that it's not an issue of inactivity to them. So I assumed it was an issue of safety to them. I'm not trying to say that I personally believe that it's a safety issue, I'm just trying to understand their reasoning behind it
Simply put, it's because of fans booing. Even on the cage, I've seen break ups if fighter x and y arent doing anything to advance the action. BTW, this type of shit never happend in pride(or very very rarely.)
On the ground, if fighter x isnt going into fighter y's guard, and just kicking his leg, it's boring to fans, so the ref makes them get up to advance the action.
What does one ref stop the fight when another allows an unconscious man to be repeatedly bludgeoned?