Forget Instant Replay

Using video or instant replay to decide a critical element of a mixed martial arts fight is an interesting idea, but it’s not necessary. Let the referees make their decisions, rightly or wrongly, and live with it.

UFC president Dana White indicated following UFC 142 that video replay would be considered in the wake of the controversial decision made by referee Mario Yamasaki to disqualify Erick Silva following his apparent victory over Carlo Prater for illegal strikes to the back of the head.

Yamasaki, a veteran referee, made the decision on the spur of the moment, and afterward he was criticized by announcer Joe Rogan. White also tweeted that he thought Yamasaki made the wrong call and later paid Silva his win bonus.

Effectively, Yamasaki has been thrown under the bus for what he believed to be the right call.

If you use video replay, based on how it’s implemented in other sports, a call can only be overturned based on conclusive evidence. And it’s the referee who normally overturns it, although some sports go to a command central, which is an independent board that makes the final ruling.

In this case, a video replay would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Silva did not, in fact, hit Prater in the back of the head and thus overturn his disqualification. It appeared that Silva hit Prater at least once and possibly two or three times -- even Rogan, an educated and respected analyst in MMA, could not say for sure. So, based on that result, would the evidence have been conclusive enough to overturn Yamasaki’s decision? No.

Full Article Here

For the record, I do not like Mario any less after the Silva and Prater fight. He is human and he was the closest man to the action and he had to make a decision in a split second without the advantages of a replay. And like the article suggests, these legal and illegal strikes are not conclusive. Some of them were borderline strikes. This is not Football whereby if a player crosses the boundary line, then he is deemed out of bounce. This is MMA whereby a strike can partially be legal and illegal at the same time.>>>> I'm sure the regulations have a specific definition of what is legal and illegal but something tells me if we are to use Instant Replay, we will have to revisit the rules and make them more conclusive.

Let me play devil's advocate and provide you with 2 scenarios.

Strike 1 - The majority or the bulk of the fist and glove is withing legal standard but a small portion lands on what is considered illegal.

Strike 2 - The majority or the bulk of the fist and glove is within illegal standard but a small portion lands on what is considered legal.

For those of you who know the rules, please tell me how we can distinguish between the two strikes and what would be the appropriate calls for them?

I'm not trying to start a fight - just merely digging at the issue and from reading this article, I retract what I said about Instant Replay and I feel maybe we should not use it in MMA.

This guys argues that instant replay could still result in a bad decision. OK, but I'll take 99% accuracy over 95% any day of the week. Who wouldn't? I realize there isn't a simple solution, but it doesn't mean that options shouldn't be explored. I've said for a long time that instant replay would only work if you limit its use to particular scenarios. I wonder if he'd change his tune if a referee's blunder cost him half of his paycheck or added a blemish to his resume.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

For the record, I do not like Mario any less after the Silva and Prater fight. He is human and he was the closest man to the action and he had to make a decision in a split second without the advantages of a replay. And like the article suggests, these legal and illegal strikes are not conclusive. Some of them were borderline strikes. This is not Football whereby if a player crosses the boundary line, then he is deemed out of bounce. This is MMA whereby a strike can partially be legal and illegal at the same time.>>>> I'm sure the regulations have a specific definition of what is legal and illegal but something tells me if we are to use Instant Replay, we will have to revisit the rules and make them more conclusive.

Let me play devil's advocate and provide you with 2 scenarios.

Strike 1 - The majority or the bulk of the fist and glove is withing legal standard but a small portion lands on what is considered illegal.

Strike 2 - The majority or the bulk of the fist and glove is within illegal standard but a small portion lands on what is considered legal.

For those of you who know the rules, please tell me how we can distinguish between the two strikes and what would be the appropriate calls for them?

I'm not trying to start a fight - just merely digging at the issue and from reading this article, I retract what I said about Instant Replay and I feel maybe we should not use it in MMA.

---

While the verbiage in the rules doesn't state it exactly like your scenario, I believe that most refs see any substantial amount of the fist in that area to be illegal. That, of coarse, is subjective...as many MMA rules are. That's not my major beef though.

It's true that we all make mistakes, but there are a couple of things that Mario did that I have a problem with. First, he didn't follow proper protocol for addressing a foul...which resulted in the improper ruling of a DQ. There's no excuse for this.

The second issue is the precedent that's been set by Mr. Yamasaki and other refs for several years in regards to what should be called a foul. Someone will undoubtedly say, but 1 strike to the back of the head is too many. Is it? Sure, I'd prefer none, but it happens every single event, without fail. The scenario that we saw in Silva/Prater has been played out hundreds of times in the UFC, let alone all of MMA. An inadvertent shot or two to the back of the head in a finishing flurry is in the nature of fighting and has never been scrutinized to that extent by Mario before...so why now? Only he can answer that...in the mean time, he treated Silva differently than the other fighters that he has reffed. I can't get on board with that.

I think the knee is what ended the fight.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

For the record, I do not like Mario any less after the Silva and Prater fight. He is human and he was the closest man to the action and he had to make a decision in a split second without the advantages of a replay. And like the article suggests, these legal and illegal strikes are not conclusive. Some of them were borderline strikes. This is not Football whereby if a player crosses the boundary line, then he is deemed out of bounce. This is MMA whereby a strike can partially be legal and illegal at the same time.>>>> I'm sure the regulations have a specific definition of what is legal and illegal but something tells me if we are to use Instant Replay, we will have to revisit the rules and make them more conclusive.

Let me play devil's advocate and provide you with 2 scenarios.

Strike 1 - The majority or the bulk of the fist and glove is withing legal standard but a small portion lands on what is considered illegal.

Strike 2 - The majority or the bulk of the fist and glove is within illegal standard but a small portion lands on what is considered legal.

For those of you who know the rules, please tell me how we can distinguish between the two strikes and what would be the appropriate calls for them?

I'm not trying to start a fight - just merely digging at the issue and from reading this article, I retract what I said about Instant Replay and I feel maybe we should not use it in MMA.

---

While the verbiage in the rules doesn't state it exactly like your scenario, I believe that most refs see any substantial amount of the fist in that area to be illegal. That, of coarse, is subjective...as many MMA rules are. That's not my major beef though.

It's true that we all make mistakes, but there are a couple of things that Mario did that I have a problem with. First, he didn't follow proper protocol for addressing a foul...which resulted in the improper ruling of a DQ. There's no excuse for this.

The second issue is the precedent that's been set by Mr. Yamasaki and other refs for several years in regards to what should be called a foul. Someone will undoubtedly say, but 1 strike to the back of the head is too many. Is it? Sure, I'd prefer none, but it happens every single event, without fail. The scenario that we saw in Silva/Prater has been played out hundreds of times in the UFC, let alone all of MMA. An inadvertent shot or two to the back of the head in a finishing flurry is in the nature of fighting and has never been scrutinized to that extent by Mario before...so why now? Only he can answer that...in the mean time, he treated Silva differently than the other fighters that he has reffed. I can't get on board with that.

---

I think you and Warglory already beat the Yamasaki ordeal to death and we'll leave it at that...

Regarding the standard which has been set by Yamasaki and other refs, I can only assume the athletic's commission or whatever associations these refs belong to - have made a push for more intervention and prevention of fighters' injuries which will ultimately lead to more earlier stoppages and penalties - which I believe is the trend for the past year.

Regarding instant replay: I cannot jump on board for mainly this reason.

A play in Football or other short play sports will last a few seconds. MMA and other extended play sports will have a play lasting as long as minutes whereby cardio becomes a significant factor in winning. If we were to use Instant Replays in MMA, this will undoubtedly affect fighters's performances and change the natural order of outcomes. An exhausted fighter who was in the brink of defeat will receive an extended rest and could come back from behind to win or survive - which most likely would not have been the case if the fight progressed without interruption.

IMO, we simply need to accept rulings by the refs in MMA as we do in most other sports.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

Regarding the standard which has been set by Yamasaki and other refs, I can only assume the athletic's commission or whatever associations these refs belong to - have made a push for more intervention and prevention of fighters' injuries which will ultimately lead to more earlier stoppages and penalties - which I believe is the trend for the past year.

Regarding instant replay: I cannot jump on board for mainly this reason.

A play in Football or other short play sports will last a few seconds. MMA and other extended play sports will have a play lasting as long as minutes whereby cardio becomes a significant factor in winning. If we were to use Instant Replays in MMA, this will undoubtedly affect fighters's performances and change the natural order of outcomes. An exhausted fighter who was in the brink of defeat will receive an extended rest and could come back from behind to win or survive - which most likely would not have been the case if the fight progressed without interruption.

IMO, we simply need to accept rulings by the refs in MMA as we do in most other sports.

---

If Mario has something to say regarding his biased treatment of Silva, I'm willing to listen. In the mean time, if your assumption is correct, we'll see Mario making similar calls in future bouts. I have a feeling that's not gonna be the case though.

I think you're being too closed minded regarding instant replay. One of the reasons why I suggest specific rules for when instant replay can be used, is so that it doesn't get abused like you described. Even if you only limit it to instances resulting in an end to a fight, it's a step forward...and that would never impede the momentum of a fight.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

Regarding the standard which has been set by Yamasaki and other refs, I can only assume the athletic's commission or whatever associations these refs belong to - have made a push for more intervention and prevention of fighters' injuries which will ultimately lead to more earlier stoppages and penalties - which I believe is the trend for the past year.

Regarding instant replay: I cannot jump on board for mainly this reason.

A play in Football or other short play sports will last a few seconds. MMA and other extended play sports will have a play lasting as long as minutes whereby cardio becomes a significant factor in winning. If we were to use Instant Replays in MMA, this will undoubtedly affect fighters's performances and change the natural order of outcomes. An exhausted fighter who was in the brink of defeat will receive an extended rest and could come back from behind to win or survive - which most likely would not have been the case if the fight progressed without interruption.

IMO, we simply need to accept rulings by the refs in MMA as we do in most other sports.

---

If Mario has something to say regarding his biased treatment of Silva, I'm willing to listen. In the mean time, if your assumption is correct, we'll see Mario making similar calls in future bouts. I have a feeling that's not gonna be the case though.

I think you're being too closed minded regarding instant replay. One of the reasons why I suggest specific rules for when instant replay can be used, is so that it doesn't get abused like you described. Even if you only limit it to instances resulting in an end to a fight, it's a step forward...and that would never impede the momentum of a fight.

---

I see a lot of issues that come with using instant replay.

Let's do as you propose and limit its use in the instances of fights coming to an end. Let's use this on the Silva vs Prater fight.

Fight ends.
Mario intervenes and checks the replay and for the sake of argument let's say Mario sees two illegal strikes thrown prior to Prater not defending himself intelligently.

What should the verdict be?

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

I see a lot of issues that come with using instant replay.

Let's do as you propose and limit its use in the instances of fights coming to an end. Let's use this on the Silva vs Prater fight.

Fight ends.
Mario intervenes and checks the replay and for the sake of argument let's say Mario sees two illegal strikes thrown prior to Prater not defending himself intelligently.

What should the verdict be?

---

I'll start by saying that my suggestion was just that...it's not necessarily the best answer, but I think it's better than the status quo. With that said, there's no reason to over-analyze the situation. Mario would use the same judgement he always does, but would have the benefit of possibly seeing things more clearly. You have to either discuss the rules regarding fouls or discuss instant replay. When you do both at the same time, you muddy the waters.

Also, there's more to the verdict than that. Even if he were to still call a foul after watching the replay, there are procedures that he would need to follow before declaring a DQ. Again, that's something he failed to do.

I'm against instant replay in all sports. The refs, officials, and umpires are there to do a job and the human element is a part of all things sport. Let them make the calls on the field, in the cage, wherever, and then we can play Monday morning quarterback and have something to say to the weird guy from IT, or the customer that normally creeps you out, etc.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

I see a lot of issues that come with using instant replay.

Let's do as you propose and limit its use in the instances of fights coming to an end. Let's use this on the Silva vs Prater fight.

Fight ends.
Mario intervenes and checks the replay and for the sake of argument let's say Mario sees two illegal strikes thrown prior to Prater not defending himself intelligently.

What should the verdict be?

---

i say the in-cage ref shouldnt be involved in looking at the replays. have the other 2 referees take a look at it (im pretty sure 3 are assigned every fight card) and let them come to a conclusion.

in the NHL, im fairly positive that the on ice referee doesnt see replays. he gets word from the "war room" in Toronto that has many people looking at all angles of the play and then relays it back to the ref to make the official call.

Even when replay is used mistakes are made because it's still a judgement call by whoever is looking at the monitor. A good example is the game between the Packers and Giants where Jennings clearly fumbled but even after a replay the officials ruled Jennings down(don't get me wrong I loved that gift).
Here's the math behind my point:
Judgement call + wasting extra time = shitty.

---

Posted by cowcatcher

Even when replay is used mistakes are made because it's still a judgement call by whoever is looking at the monitor. A good example is the game between the Packers and Giants where Jennings clearly fumbled but even after a replay the officials ruled Jennings down(don't get me wrong I loved that gift).
Here's the math behind my point:
Judgement call + wasting extra time = shitty.

---

Here's my opinion on that. There's nothing you can do that will result in 100% accuracy, but if taking a minute to review some tape takes it from 95% to 99% accuracy, it was worth the time. And if you limit its usage, it will rarely come into play, so there will rarely be time spent using IR. If we were talking amateur sports, I wouldn't be as passionate about it, but when a guy's livelihood is on the line, I think it deserves consideration.

---

Posted by cowcatcher

I'm against instant replay in all sports. The refs, officials, and umpires are there to do a job and the human element is a part of all things sport. Let them make the calls on the field, in the cage, wherever, and then we can play Monday morning quarterback and have something to say to the weird guy from IT, or the customer that normally creeps you out, etc.

---

This is the most powerful thing I have heard on the Playground. We are human, born of imperfection....and that which we create are subjected to being human as well.

I motion that you get a badge for simply saying what you said.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by cowcatcher

Even when replay is used mistakes are made because it's still a judgement call by whoever is looking at the monitor. A good example is the game between the Packers and Giants where Jennings clearly fumbled but even after a replay the officials ruled Jennings down(don't get me wrong I loved that gift).
Here's the math behind my point:
Judgement call + wasting extra time = shitty.

---

Here's my opinion on that. There's nothing you can do that will result in 100% accuracy, but if taking a minute to review some tape takes it from 95% to 99% accuracy, it was worth the time. And if you limit its usage, it will rarely come into play, so there will rarely be time spent using IR. If we were talking amateur sports, I wouldn't be as passionate about it, but when a guy's livelihood is on the line, I think it deserves consideration.

---

Instant replay will backfire on what you already deemed as appropriate.

You said finishing flurries have a tendency of being misplaced and will likely hit fighters in illegal spots. Imagine a corner challenging for instant replay when this happens. Many of what could have been finishes will turn into DQs because of instant replay.

The human element is not perfect and to help you cross over to our side, I have this one quote I have learned and cherished from my music professor.

"I don't want it to sound perfect. If I wanted that, I will have a computer play it for me. " - Professor Anna Hambre.

---

Posted by Bubbles

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

I see a lot of issues that come with using instant replay.

Let's do as you propose and limit its use in the instances of fights coming to an end. Let's use this on the Silva vs Prater fight.

Fight ends.
Mario intervenes and checks the replay and for the sake of argument let's say Mario sees two illegal strikes thrown prior to Prater not defending himself intelligently.

What should the verdict be?

---

i say the in-cage ref shouldnt be involved in looking at the replays. have the other 2 referees take a look at it (im pretty sure 3 are assigned every fight card) and let them come to a conclusion.

in the NHL, im fairly positive that the on ice referee doesnt see replays. he gets word from the "war room" in Toronto that has many people looking at all angles of the play and then relays it back to the ref to make the official call.

---

But like I said to Grappler, instant replays will likely impede on the natural flow of the fight -affecting the momentum of one fighter and allowing rest for the other.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by cowcatcher

Even when replay is used mistakes are made because it's still a judgement call by whoever is looking at the monitor. A good example is the game between the Packers and Giants where Jennings clearly fumbled but even after a replay the officials ruled Jennings down(don't get me wrong I loved that gift).
Here's the math behind my point:
Judgement call + wasting extra time = shitty.

---

Here's my opinion on that. There's nothing you can do that will result in 100% accuracy, but if taking a minute to review some tape takes it from 95% to 99% accuracy, it was worth the time. And if you limit its usage, it will rarely come into play, so there will rarely be time spent using IR. If we were talking amateur sports, I wouldn't be as passionate about it, but when a guy's livelihood is on the line, I think it deserves consideration.

---

I can completely see your side of this but unfortunately it rarely takes just a minute to review a play and I don't know that I'd agree that it's 99% accurate but I have no stats to back that up It sounds to me like the line proponents of replay are told to say when trying to push for replay to be used. You hate to see anyone lose money because of a bad call anywhere but bad calls happen everywhere in the world inside and outside of sports, and it's not like we get replay on our day to day lives. That's kind of a cop out of an argument on my part but I believe in it. Baseball and football were fine before replay, and the UFC is too as far as I'm concerned.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

---

Posted by Bubbles

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

I see a lot of issues that come with using instant replay.

Let's do as you propose and limit its use in the instances of fights coming to an end. Let's use this on the Silva vs Prater fight.

Fight ends.
Mario intervenes and checks the replay and for the sake of argument let's say Mario sees two illegal strikes thrown prior to Prater not defending himself intelligently.

What should the verdict be?

---

i say the in-cage ref shouldnt be involved in looking at the replays. have the other 2 referees take a look at it (im pretty sure 3 are assigned every fight card) and let them come to a conclusion.

in the NHL, im fairly positive that the on ice referee doesnt see replays. he gets word from the "war room" in Toronto that has many people looking at all angles of the play and then relays it back to the ref to make the official call.

---

But like I said to Grappler, instant replays will likely impede on the natural flow of the fight -affecting the momentum of one fighter and allowing rest for the other.

---

but if you restrict it to "end of fight circumstances" only...like MLB and using replays only to see if a home run left the park or not....then it wont impede the flow of the fight. i dont see it as any different than some fighter taking his time after getting a nut shot or an eye poke

tennis uses replays and its very quick and efficient. it can be done in the right context and circumstances. im not in favour of replays for everything, but if you limit it to one or two situations, then there wont be as many blown calls

---

Posted by cowcatcher

I can completely see your side of this but unfortunately it rarely takes just a minute to review a play and I don't know that I'd agree that it's 99% accurate but I have no stats to back that up It sounds to me like the line proponents of replay are told to say when trying to push for replay to be used. You hate to see anyone lose money because of a bad call anywhere but bad calls happen everywhere in the world inside and outside of sports, and it's not like we get replay on our day to day lives. That's kind of a cop out of an argument on my part but I believe in it. Baseball and football were fine before replay, and the UFC is too as far as I'm concerned.

---

I just pulled the 99% out of my ass. It was just random numbers intended to illustrate an improvement in accuracy.

There are actually plenty of situations where replays happen in real life. Photo, audio, and video footage are all used every day to turn the tables on situations, including a court of law. Not to mention, nearly everything in our life is possible to change with some sort of "proof". If I get canned for stealing equipment from work, but it turns out the security cameras show it was the cleaning lady, nobody says sorry about your luck...that gets overturned one way or another. If I realize that my wife wasn't really banging a bar tender yesterday, because it's been revealed that she was visiting her parents...I can tear up the divorce papers. Refs don't really have that luxury. In the worst of worst cases, decisions will get overturned a month down the road, but it has to be off-the-charts bad in order for that to happen generally. If nothing else, IR would at least afford the ref the ability to change his mind, when he knows he's made a mistake. I actually feel bad for the ref sometimes too...you can tell he badly wants to change the call, but can't because made a call before his brain processed everything that was happening.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
....instant replays will likely impede on the natural flow of the fight -affecting the momentum of one fighter and allowing rest for the other.

---

I feel this happens already. Take inadvertent groin strikes, for example.

The fighter who just got kicked in the balls gets five minutes to recover. Meanwhile, the offender is catching his breath on the other side of the cage, without having suffered an illegal blow.

With most illegal strikes, that same five minute recuperation period is given. Reviewing the act in question would take a small fraction of the already allotted time out period.

I would love to have IR implemented, especially considering the scenario in question was the end of a fight. It wouldn't take long to get that call right.

The right fighter deserves to have the win. Imagine how that can affect a young fighters psyche! You come in, smash your opponent in like thirty seconds.... And you lose. I know I would be thinking, "How do you win a fight?". That could affect a fighters performances for some time.

Another issue: I lost real life cash on my Barboza, Palhares, Silva parlay. I more than made up for it with a Palhares, Barboza and Aldo parlay, thank goodness. But I should have made way more money last weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people lost money too.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by cowcatcher

Even when replay is used mistakes are made because it's still a judgement call by whoever is looking at the monitor. A good example is the game between the Packers and Giants where Jennings clearly fumbled but even after a replay the officials ruled Jennings down(don't get me wrong I loved that gift).
Here's the math behind my point:
Judgement call + wasting extra time = shitty.

---

Here's my opinion on that. There's nothing you can do that will result in 100% accuracy, but if taking a minute to review some tape takes it from 95% to 99% accuracy, it was worth the time. And if you limit its usage, it will rarely come into play, so there will rarely be time spent using IR. If we were talking amateur sports, I wouldn't be as passionate about it, but when a guy's livelihood is on the line, I think it deserves consideration.

---

Instant replay will backfire on what you already deemed as appropriate.

You said finishing flurries have a tendency of being misplaced and will likely hit fighters in illegal spots. Imagine a corner challenging for instant replay when this happens. Many of what could have been finishes will turn into DQs because of instant replay.

The human element is not perfect and to help you cross over to our side, I have this one quote I have learned and cherished from my music professor.

"I don't want it to sound perfect. If I wanted that, I will have a computer play it for me. " - Professor Anna Hambre.

---

You're making too many assumptions. Consistency is what matters the most, whatever form that comes in. If Silva was DQ'd then yeah, there are plenty of others who deserved the same fate...if that was the right call. If the others were fine, then Silva should be as well. Also, nobody mentioned a corner's ability to challenge a call. So, from what I've stated, that was not even part of the equation. I made a single suggestion, that I admitted may not be perfect, but I intentionally left out the rest of the details, as only discussions on the matter and real life testing would iron out the remaining details.

And I realize there will always be a human element and that people will make mistakes. That's to be expected. Nobody is denying that. And although pro sports are a business, it's also a contest...a contest to see who's the best. To not seek the truth in that statement within the confines of reason, I feel it would be a disservice to all involved. I'm not saying everything needs to change, but I don't see why new avenues shouldn't be explored to improve accuracy. It sounds like you're almost offended that I'm suggesting there should be some sort of manual intervention. As if the ref is performing some sort of dance number and I'm trying to kill the art. Or that this is a battle of man vs machine. Why is it so important to embrace mistakes? Why is it not noble to seek the truth? Even if you'll never attain perfection, it's no reason not to try IMO. I mean, the fighters are doing that, so should we sell them short and accept mediocrity on their behalf? That's a bit selfish IMO. And arguing that seeking the truth would result in failure just doesn't make sense to me on any level. To each his own though.

A question for you. If you were to have corrective eye surgery, would you prefer a laser made the incision to your cornea or a human with a scalpel? A human with a scalpel is how it used to work. So, why the change. Well, when accuracy is important, we've found it's best to go whatever route produces the best results. A ref is not an artist, so I don't know how your quote is even relevant to the conversation. When Steve Mazzagatti starts playing a flute, we'll talk.

I don't know if this has been said already in this thread but instant replay was approved by the NSAC about 2 1/2 years ago, at the same time they stopped allowing vaseline to be applied except before the start of round 1.

It's already in place for most UFC events; it's just if a referee decides to use it.

---

Posted by Bubbles

tennis uses replays and its very quick and efficient. it can be done in the right context and circumstances. im not in favour of replays for everything, but if you limit it to one or two situations, then there wont be as many blown calls

---

I'll answer your concern in the post I am about to write to Grappler. I don't want to ruin the moment for Grappler.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by cowcatcher

Even when replay is used mistakes are made because it's still a judgement call by whoever is looking at the monitor. A good example is the game between the Packers and Giants where Jennings clearly fumbled but even after a replay the officials ruled Jennings down(don't get me wrong I loved that gift).
Here's the math behind my point:
Judgement call + wasting extra time = shitty.

---

Here's my opinion on that. There's nothing you can do that will result in 100% accuracy, but if taking a minute to review some tape takes it from 95% to 99% accuracy, it was worth the time. And if you limit its usage, it will rarely come into play, so there will rarely be time spent using IR. If we were talking amateur sports, I wouldn't be as passionate about it, but when a guy's livelihood is on the line, I think it deserves consideration.

---

Instant replay will backfire on what you already deemed as appropriate.

You said finishing flurries have a tendency of being misplaced and will likely hit fighters in illegal spots. Imagine a corner challenging for instant replay when this happens. Many of what could have been finishes will turn into DQs because of instant replay.

The human element is not perfect and to help you cross over to our side, I have this one quote I have learned and cherished from my music professor.

"I don't want it to sound perfect. If I wanted that, I will have a computer play it for me. " - Professor Anna Hambre.

---

You're making too many assumptions. Consistency is what matters the most, whatever form that comes in. If Silva was DQ'd then yeah, there are plenty of others who deserved the same fate...if that was the right call. If the others were fine, then Silva should be as well. Also, nobody mentioned a corner's ability to challenge a call. So, from what I've stated, that was not even part of the equation. I made a single suggestion, that I admitted may not be perfect, but I intentionally left out the rest of the details, as only discussions on the matter and real life testing would iron out the remaining details.

And I realize there will always be a human element and that people will make mistakes. That's to be expected. Nobody is denying that. And although pro sports are a business, it's also a contest...a contest to see who's the best. To not seek the truth in that statement within the confines of reason, I feel it would be a disservice to all involved. I'm not saying everything needs to change, but I don't see why new avenues shouldn't be explored to improve accuracy. It sounds like you're almost offended that I'm suggesting there should be some sort of manual intervention. As if the ref is performing some sort of dance number and I'm trying to kill the art. Or that this is a battle of man vs machine. Why is it so important to embrace mistakes? Why is it not noble to seek the truth? Even if you'll never attain perfection, it's no reason not to try IMO. I mean, the fighters are doing that, so should we sell them short and accept mediocrity on their behalf? That's a bit selfish IMO. And arguing that seeking the truth would result in failure just doesn't make sense to me on any level. To each his own though.

A question for you. If you were to have corrective eye surgery, would you prefer a laser made the incision to your cornea or a human with a scalpel? A human with a scalpel is how it used to work. So, why the change. Well, when accuracy is important, we've found it's best to go whatever route produces the best results. A ref is not an artist, so I don't know how your quote is even relevant to the conversation. When Steve Mazzagatti starts playing a flute, we'll talk.

---

No. I am bringing up what would be the most likely scenarios if and when Instant Replay is adopted by MMA. Just like in Football, if a team has enough evidence or reason to question a call, it will challenge for an instant replay review. In MMA, who do you think will want the instant replay review? The refs, the winning corner - of course not. It will be the losing corner or the corner whose fighter is being battered by foul shots.

Anyway, I am all for searching for the truth. I want mathematicians and scientists to keep searching for that one missing number which will make an equation work. I want to know how the universe began and how life started on earth. But I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want Android Data to be officiating an MMA match.

There are sports which will and have benefited tremendously from the use of instant replay but combat sports is not one of them. There will be instances in which instant replay will benefit MMA but that also comes with the price - relating to the issues I brought up and more.

Because MMA has a lot of gray areas already, introducing another variable like Instant Replay will only make the gray areas more visible and not necessarily make the gray areas go away.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

No. I am bringing up what would be the most likely scenarios if and when Instant Replay is adopted by MMA. Just like in Football, if a team has enough evidence or reason to question a call, it will challenge for an instant replay review. In MMA, who do you think will want the instant replay review? The refs, the winning corner - of course not. It will be the losing corner or the corner whose fighter is being battered by foul shots.

Anyway, I am all for searching for the truth. I want mathematicians and scientists to keep searching for that one missing number which will make an equation work. I want to know how the universe began and how life started on earth. But I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want Android Data to be officiating an MMA match.

There are sports which will and have benefited tremendously from the use of instant replay but combat sports is not one of them. There will be instances in which instant replay will benefit MMA but that also comes with the price - relating to the issues I brought up and more.

Because MMA has a lot of gray areas already, introducing another variable like Instant Replay will only make the gray areas more visible and not necessarily make the gray areas go away.

---

Regarding the bold...here was your orginal staement:

---

Instant replay will backfire on what you already deemed as appropriate.

---

Android Data officiating an MMA match? It's a matter of supplementing the officiating. There's a world of difference...and I think you know that. What was the price of IR? If used efficiently, I've yet to hear an argument of any sort of negative impact that would come as a result. The worst I've heard is that it will take extra time. That's not a very solid argument though if the process is streamlined. I don't really even understand what you're implying with making gray areas more visible, so I'll leave that one alone. From the sounds of it though, it sounds like you want to brush the gray areas under the rug instead of addressing them.

Edit: and since Kpro brought it up, feel free to also explain all of the negative impacts that you haven't realized were happening over the last 2.5 years in Nevada.

I love the idea of instant replay. Yes it's the referee's job but he the ref shouldn't feel like "nobody loves me" "nobody trusts me" if the instant replay came in. It's okay to make mistakes and it's okay to make mistakes and be told hey you made a mistake, take a look here and for him to go alright my bad.
Then to take the mic and say after the review the fight has been ruled a TKO or after the review the call still stands, either way they took the time to right it.
That's all I want it for. For everyone to take the time to correct their mistakes.
Im all for it.

Also I would say wherever the majority of the glove/blow lands when its close like that...

---

Posted by pmoney

---

Posted by KungFuMaster
....instant replays will likely impede on the natural flow of the fight -affecting the momentum of one fighter and allowing rest for the other.

---

I feel this happens already. Take inadvertent groin strikes, for example.

The fighter who just got kicked in the balls gets five minutes to recover. Meanwhile, the offender is catching his breath on the other side of the cage, without having suffered an illegal blow.

With most illegal strikes, that same five minute recuperation period is given. Reviewing the act in question would take a small fraction of the already allotted time out period.

I would love to have IR implemented, especially considering the scenario in question was the end of a fight. It wouldn't take long to get that call right.

The right fighter deserves to have the win. Imagine how that can affect a young fighters psyche! You come in, smash your opponent in like thirty seconds.... And you lose. I know I would be thinking, "How do you win a fight?". That could affect a fighters performances for some time.

Another issue: I lost real life cash on my Barboza, Palhares, Silva parlay. I more than made up for it with a Palhares, Barboza and Aldo parlay, thank goodness. But I should have made way more money last weekend. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people lost money too.

---

I hear you, Pmoney. The problem I have with Instant Replay is it will bring more controversy to the table.

There have been many times when fighter A rocks fighter B and fighter A goes in for the finish and inadvertently hits fighter B in the back of the head. Fighter B goes limp and the fight comes to an end but corner B is outrage and demands an instant replay.

With instant replay, the ref will get to see this up close and personal. What is he to do? Should he allot fighter A the mishap and award him the victory anyway - or should he disqualify fighter A?

Without instant replay, the ref will have made a decision in the spur of the moment. With instant replay, he is literally having to pick and choose and more human elements may come into play.

These are the types of scenarios we will run into and it's a lose - lose situation - and I would much rather have the human element (referee decision) implemented and live with it instead.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

No. I am bringing up what would be the most likely scenarios if and when Instant Replay is adopted by MMA. Just like in Football, if a team has enough evidence or reason to question a call, it will challenge for an instant replay review. In MMA, who do you think will want the instant replay review? The refs, the winning corner - of course not. It will be the losing corner or the corner whose fighter is being battered by foul shots.

Anyway, I am all for searching for the truth. I want mathematicians and scientists to keep searching for that one missing number which will make an equation work. I want to know how the universe began and how life started on earth. But I'll tell you what I don't want. I don't want Android Data to be officiating an MMA match.

There are sports which will and have benefited tremendously from the use of instant replay but combat sports is not one of them. There will be instances in which instant replay will benefit MMA but that also comes with the price - relating to the issues I brought up and more.

Because MMA has a lot of gray areas already, introducing another variable like Instant Replay will only make the gray areas more visible and not necessarily make the gray areas go away.

---

Regarding the bold...here was your orginal staement:

---

Instant replay will backfire on what you already deemed as appropriate.

---

Android Data officiating an MMA match? It's a matter of supplementing the officiating. There's a world of difference...and I think you know that. What was the price of IR? If used efficiently, I've yet to hear an argument of any sort of negative impact that would come as a result. The worst I've heard is that it will take extra time. That's not a very solid argument though if the process is streamlined. I don't really even understand what you're implying with making gray areas more visible, so I'll leave that one alone. From the sounds of it though, it sounds like you want to brush the gray areas under the rug instead of addressing them.

Edit: and since Kpro brought it up, feel free to also explain all of the negative impacts that you haven't realized were happening over the last 2.5 years in Nevada.

---

The bold statement? You will have to explain that one to me.

What I was trying to say in my previous post was instant replay will not get rid of the gray areas we have in MMA. It will only make it more visible - thus creating more controversy.

You keep saying if instant replay was used efficiently, it will benefit fighters and MMA. You have been criticizing Yamasaki for the last two days. I'm giving you the notoriety to right the wrong. The ball is in your court. You refereed the Silva/Prater fight but it does not go down exactly as it did on Saturday.

Whether you choose to look at the instant replay or not, it will show you the following in chronological order.

Clock has 4 seconds left in the 3rd and final round.
Prater goes down from a knee.
Silva lands two clean shots to the head.
Silva lands two illegal shots to the head.
Prater goes limp.
Silva lands 3 questionable shots to the head.
Clock expires while you are rushing in to either stop the fight, call for time out, or whatever it is that was on your mind.

Your move. What are you going to do?

I think you keep searching for this mysterious controversial ending with no right answer. Instant replay doesn't change the sequence of events...it's only facilitates making the proper call. It doesn't change every time you watch it. It's the same every time. Having all of the facts is better than having only some...every time without fail. I can't fathom thinking the opposite is true. You're saying you'd rather have a sloppy call in a tough-to-call situation than the most informed one that the ref is able to make. You are literally saying that you'd prefer that...all to keep controversy from arising. Not only is that ridiculous, but it does nothing to to actually stop any controversy. If it did, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.