Forget Instant Replay

---

Posted by grappler0000

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.

---

You're not willing to answer the predicament I placed you in which tells me you are somewhat afraid of what instant replay can do and mean in a sport such as MMA. Murphy's law says what I have propose will happen and it probably has happened but not in those exact time frames. You and I know there are countless illegal strikes thrown during finishing flurries.>>>> If you want to right the wrong, here's your chance. I'll say to you what I said to Pmoney. Are we to allot a few illegal strikes to fighter A and declare him the winner or should we call a halt to the fight and deduct points and see if the battered fighter is able to continue - which you and I know most fighters will not be the same after he has been dismantled and the continuation of the fight will likely favored the fighter who has committed the foul. Which ever route you choose, it's still shady even with the help of instant replay.

I bring up these so called ridiculous situations because if we were to someday use instant replay, it would most likely be used on them.

Regarding controversy: I am willing to bet you if and when Instant Replay is adopted by MMA and the athletic's commissions surrounding them, you will have outrage from cornermen which we have not seen the light of in MMA history - and I don't think I would need to explain why that would be the case.

---

The Ultimate Fighting Championship released a statement today regarding the outcome of UFC 142’s welterweight bout between Erick Silva and Carlo Prater. Silva was disqualified during the bout for landing what the referee deemed to be illegal strikes. Marc Ratner, UFC Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs, issued the following statement:

---

“Based on the referee’s verbal warnings and his determination that the blows were intentional and a disqualifying foul, this is not the type of decision that can be reviewed. Therefore, the decision stands. Recently, Zuffa has decided to implement the use of instant replay at all international events that are self-regulated, and to encourage all regulators to consider the feasibility and effectiveness of instant replay in the sport of MMA. While instant replay would not have reversed the call in the Silva-Prater bout, we believe that it could be valuable to referees and the sport in the future.”

---

Zuffa also noted that Silva was awarded his potential Win Bonus following the contest.

---

Apparently Mario cut his legs out from under him with his decision of "intentional illegal" strikes. Kind of a catch 22 really. I just rewatched the fight. There weren't multiple warnings. There was one...and it was literally within a second of the fight being stopped. No time for Silva to even respond. Also, when someone continues to change angles so that they hit the side of the head, I would conclude that they are not intentionally throwing an illegal strike. But what do I know. Just a clusterf*ck of an event for Yamasaki. Hopefully he clears the cobwebs before his next appearance. I guess if he learns from his mistakes, something postive comes out of the experience.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

---

Posted by grappler0000

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.

---

You're not willing to answer the predicament I placed you in which tells me you are somewhat afraid of what instant replay can do and mean in a sport such as MMA. Murphy's law says what I have propose will happen and it probably has happened but not in those exact time frames. You and I know there are countless illegal strikes thrown during finishing flurries.>>>> If you want to right the wrong, here's your chance. I'll say to you what I said to Pmoney. Are we to allot a few illegal strikes to fighter A and declare him the winner or should we call a halt to the fight and deduct points and see if the battered fighter is able to continue - which you and I know most fighters will not be the same after he has been dismantled and the continuation of the fight will likely favored the fighter who has committed the foul. Which ever route you choose, it's still shady even with the help of instant replay.

I bring up these so called ridiculous situations because if we were to someday use instant replay, it would most likely be used on them.

Regarding controversy: I am willing to bet you if and when Instant Replay is adopted by MMA and the athletic's commissions surrounding them, you will have outrage from cornermen which we have not seen the light of in MMA history - and I don't think I would need to explain why that would be the case.

---

Hardly. The reason I didn't answer your question because it has nothing to do with the conversation. All answering will do is take the conversation in a different direction. You're asking me to play referee...that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll give you two different scenarios:

Scenario 1 - Your exact scenario in real time.

Scenario 2 - Your exact scenario in replay.

Explain to me the difference. The same sequence of events occurred. The only difference is with a second viewing, you'll be better equipped to make the right call. And instant replay has been adopted by the UFC for foreign events and Nevada has allowed it for 2.5 years. Where are all of the side effects. If you can't identify them, I'd say there's our answer.

---

Posted by grappler0000

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

---

Posted by grappler0000

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.

---

You're not willing to answer the predicament I placed you in which tells me you are somewhat afraid of what instant replay can do and mean in a sport such as MMA. Murphy's law says what I have propose will happen and it probably has happened but not in those exact time frames. You and I know there are countless illegal strikes thrown during finishing flurries.>>>> If you want to right the wrong, here's your chance. I'll say to you what I said to Pmoney. Are we to allot a few illegal strikes to fighter A and declare him the winner or should we call a halt to the fight and deduct points and see if the battered fighter is able to continue - which you and I know most fighters will not be the same after he has been dismantled and the continuation of the fight will likely favored the fighter who has committed the foul. Which ever route you choose, it's still shady even with the help of instant replay.

I bring up these so called ridiculous situations because if we were to someday use instant replay, it would most likely be used on them.

Regarding controversy: I am willing to bet you if and when Instant Replay is adopted by MMA and the athletic's commissions surrounding them, you will have outrage from cornermen which we have not seen the light of in MMA history - and I don't think I would need to explain why that would be the case.

---

Hardly. The reason I didn't answer your question because it has nothing to do with the conversation. All answering will do is take the conversation in a different direction. You're asking me to play referee...that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I'll give you two different scenarios:

Scenario 1 - Your exact scenario in real time.

Scenario 2 - Your exact scenario in replay.

Explain to me the difference. The same sequence of events occurred. The only difference is with a second viewing, you'll be better equipped to make the right call. And instant replay has been adopted by the UFC for foreign events and Nevada has allowed it for 2.5 years. Where are all of the side effects. If you can't identify them, I'd say there's our answer.

---

You want instant replay and I don't. Our wants will not change in this debate and this will be my last post on the subject because I am exhausted.

You say Nevada has allowed instant replay for 2.5 years for ufc events I assume. According to my knowledge, the officiating committee has not used it yet in any ufc event. Is there a reason? Could it be they think like me and know the poison it can bring?

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

You want instant replay and I don't. Our wants will not change in this debate and this will be my last post on the subject because I am exhausted.

You say Nevada has allowed instant replay for 2.5 years for ufc events I assume. According to my knowledge, the officiating committee has not used it yet in any ufc event. Is there a reason? Could it be they think like me and know the poison it can bring?

---

I'll just leave you with this...the truth may be hard to swallow at times, but it is never poison.

Edit: to answer your question though, the first instant replay in the UFC in Nevada was used in '09. Ironically it was when Mazzi DQ'd Jones. So, although he used IR properly to identify the truth, he didn't follow proper protocol for fouls just like Mario did this time around.

---

Posted by grappler0000

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.

---

This.

---

Posted by tn_rebel

I think the knee is what ended the fight.

---

And this.

---

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.

---

Not this.

When your job or income or safety is on the line you want the right call to be made.

If you hurt Mario Yamasaki's feelings by second guessing him but get the right call for Silva, I 'd say its a good day.

---

Posted by KungFuMaster

Nevada has allowed instant replay for 2.5 years for ufc events I assume. According to my knowledge, the officiating committee has not used it yet in any ufc event.

---

It was first used in 2009 shortly after being approved, during the Jones/Hamill fight by Steve Mazzagatti. At first, Jones was deducted one point for the 12 to 6 elbows infraction, but Hamill indicated to Steve Mazzagatti that he had dislocated his shoulder earlier in the fight and was unable to continue. After hearing this, Steve watched multiple times and in slow motion to determine Jones elbows were 12 to 6.

Though, again, he failed to follow a step by step basic procedure to determining a DQ as Hamill clearly told him he couldn't continue due to a dislocated shoulder. After verifying the elbows were 12 to 6, Mazzagatti called for a DQ.

That was the first instance of many it has been used in the UFC, and it was still incorrectly ruled a DQ, but refs have had use of it for quite a while to get the kinks out and realize what their job is when ruling a DQ instead of a No Contest.

By all accounts I've seen, the UFC did not have it in place for UFC 142 event though it would've been legal to use, so this will most likely get it set in place for foreign events. Instant replay wasn't needed in either case to realize the correct ruling was a NC in either the Silva or Jones fight, so this is more about referee mistakes than instant replay And NOT split-second referee mistakes.

Referee's will most likely all be clearly re-informed of the basic step by step process it takes to rule a DQ over a NC. As Silva & Jones' cases were both No Contests, incorrectly ruled as DQ's, as proven by the fighters who won by DQ's statements made while still in the cage before the result was decided.