Media Big John McCarthy: Commission Right, Ref Wrong in Weidman-Silva Affair

[Kevin Sorbo]

I like Weidman and wanted him to win the fight, but he should have been DQ'd. You could obviously see on the replay that he landed two eyepokes, not punches and couldn't they have DQ'd him after watching the tape?

 

[Dorkman]

So anyone who is up two rounds should just double poke the other guy and win a technical decision.

Well if they deem it intentional they could hand out a DQ and spoil that tactic, so it is running a different kind of risk. Question is would they deem it intentional. Would have to take at least a few more instances of this type of finish in a short period before they’d start considering looking at dq’s more often if fights keep getting ended in the third on fouls when it’s pretty clear one guy is up 2-0 before it happened

 

[Kenny95]

Honestly, if you assess a repeated foul that caused the fight to be stopped, any applicable point deduction should be applied along with the technical decision. I'm guessing a 29-28 should have been 28-28 based on how people are discussing the fight, idk. Shady shit nj athletic comm

 

[ultra321]

So anyone who is up two rounds should just double poke the other guy and win a technical decision.

 

[Siver!]

I like Weidman and wanted him to win the fight, but he should have been DQ'd. You could obviously see on the replay that he landed two eyepokes, not punches and couldn't they have DQ'd him after watching the tape?

They could have and should have.

While there are various nuances being explored in this thread, all that really matters is Weidman flagrantly ignored the referees instructions to the point his opponent couldn't continue/the fight was ended because of the foul.

You cannot ignore the referee, it is a violation that is DQ worthy in the rules.

 

[CHUTE_BOXE78]

It was bound to happen. God gave us eye for an eye, bad refs gave us eyeball for an eyeball and now just bleed fans will give us a ball for a ball

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

Guy who wrote the rules agrees with himself

To be fair, BJM also ignored his own rules a bunch.

His opinion means pretty little to me these days. He thinks he's like the Lord Emperor of decision making

 

[Mohawk Banditó]

I think there was sufficient evidence to go with (d) instead of (f). It should have been a technical draw. That being said, what is "intentional" and what is "accidental" is, ultimately, semantics (clouded with nuance, like the fact that accidental fouls can lead to point deductions and DQ's).

But I'm not surprised went with (f). Not in the slightest. The instant replay folks had the authority to make a gutsy decision. Instead they took the easy way out, and everyone saw it for what it was.

That's not to mention they have a rule specifically saying that 3 repeated fouls can be disqualified regardless of intention. AND NJ also specifically dictates that incomplete rounds are not supposed to be scored, but they did. Really feels like they didn't do their rules as written and just called it a technical decision afterwards to appear as if they addressed the situation to cover the situation

 

[HeffDoesWant]

McCarthy only makes passing comment about Weidman suffering absolutely zero negative outcomes for his multiple eye pokes.

I feel like I'm watching WWE with these ineffectual refs.

 

[IDL]

So anyone who is up two rounds should just double poke the other guy and win a technical decision.

No I don't think this follows.

Big John is saying that the ref didn't see the ending eyepokes, and that he could have deducted points. So if you were going to try to game the system you'd be relying on the ref making a mistake and not deducting the point on you. A very risky strategy.

In normal circumstances Weidman would have been called on the foul and had a point deducted and then the round would resume, assuming Silva could continue