- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
Sometimes you can't.
Sometimes common sense leads the way and the obvious is obvious.
DC vs Cruz debate about Stephens knee.
- Thread starter essie
- Start date
Sometimes you can't.
Sometimes common sense leads the way and the obvious is obvious.
What on earth is wrong with that?
"Ref, ref! Stop the fight. He made me *think* was going to get kicked in the face!"
This is where I was going with my original point. How do you know they aren't reading the positioning of the persons body, and trying to instigate a heavy strike to land into that small, half second pocket?
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2006
- Messages
- 14,313
- Reaction score
- 7,408
You can’t — ref isn’t a mind reader — you go with where it actually landed
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,327
- Reaction score
- 1
If you try to hit the body and you touch the head, that's YOUR FAULT and it should be illegal. its not about intent.
Listen people. If the knee hits the fucking head, its illegal. if it doesn't, its not. THIS ISN'T THAT FUCKING COMPLICATED.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
Because you're threatening with illegal action, you're moving the action via threats of illegal activity.
The defender is forced to react, creating a new situation, to something he shouldn't have to prepare for. The attacker can advance from there. The suggestion it's not illegal until the defender eats the strike is unsafe and unfair.
It's about purity, gamesmanship, sportsmanship, safety and class.
It's completely impossible to know a strikers target? No. Sometimes it's very hard to to tell, sometimes it's very easy.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
They've derailed the discussion to cherry pick against my proposed rule idea and tell me how stupid I am.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 33,282
- Reaction score
- 12,081
I don't know if there is a rule against it or not. I don't think they should be able to use the illegal technique for any reason. Now refs are getting on fighters for leading with their fingers out because of the potential of an eye poke. Why should a fake soccer kick be ok? For instance, in a Bisping fight, maybe Mayhem maybe Jorge, Bisping knew full well the guy was on two knees but he still threw a kick up over his head for some reason. I think it shouldn't be allowed. There's potential for the strike to land and also don't these guys train within the rules? Seems cheap to me.
How many times have you seen kicks pulled back, shots stopped half way through the strike, etc. All because people know they were going to be illegal? I've seen fighters go for knees on grounded opponents, and cease when their mind catches up to the action.
This is kind of the point. Those would now be illegal under your new rules.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 33,282
- Reaction score
- 12,081
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 9,078
- Reaction score
- 125
well Jeremy talked about it in his post fight interview he said he saw his palm come up so he threw the knee. They adapted the new rules in Fla so he thought he was throwing a legal knee maybe somebody needs to have a sit down with the fighters to explain what's legal or not.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
Stopping yourself and missing are much different and an experienced ref should be able to decipher it.
Again, I've explained cannot and would not be enforced unless it blatantly malicious in the ref's eye's.
I never thought I'd be saying this, but, this might be the most pathetic conversation I've ever had about MMA.
We are seriously discussing the "threat" of unlanded strikes, that may have had the potential to be illegal, but weren't because they didn't land.
But they may make someone flinch, and as the good Lord wrote, if you flinch because you thought someone was going to do something illegal, you actually get to credit it as something illegal, and disqualify the guy that made you flinch.
We are seriously discussing the "threat" of unlanded strikes, that may have had the potential to be illegal, but weren't because they didn't land.
But they may make someone flinch, and as the good Lord wrote, if you flinch because you thought someone was going to do something illegal, you actually get to credit it as something illegal, and disqualify the guy that made you flinch.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
Now you're just being silly. He hit his target. No ref would step in and say "Welll you tried for face". That's an abuse and absurd use of what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about malicious acts, not hair line misses.
I think we're done.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
Cool, nobody is forcing you to read or take part. Buh bye.
No they aren't? The product of the strike missing, is the effect of the person stopping it.
See where we are going with this? Now we have to figure out by what admission did the strike not land? Was it really going to land, and the guy dodged it? Or it was going to land, and the guy pulled it, but pulled it too late? And it missed, but it "looked" like it was going to hurt according to SuperNerd.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 9,078
- Reaction score
- 125
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Messages
- 61,292
- Reaction score
- 10,978
That's the only way? You only miss strikes when you choose too?
Go way, your tactic has become acting stupid. I'm not interested in talking to you.
So by your own admission above. If Anderson would have stopped that strike due to fear of hitting Chael in the face, he could have actually been violating your "new rules" because it appears he was aiming for the head, or at the very least throwing a knee to a grounded opponent.
But, because he followed through with the strike, and hit the body instead (even though it clearly could have hit Chaels face, easily) we can call it legal?
You've been done for awhile, no offense.
