NSAC's Keith Kizer 'Very Unhappy' With Anderson Silva Following UFC 148

If Chael Sonnen is planning on appealing his loss to Anderson Silva, it doesn't appear as though he will have a very strong leg to stand on.

According to multiple reports, Sonnen's coach Scott McQuarry is pushing to appeal Sonnen's UFC 148 loss to the Nevada State Athletic because he believes Silva intended to knee Sonnen illegally while he was on the mat.

However, NSAC executive director Keith Kizer told MMAFighting.com on Monday that he has yet to receive any formal complaint from Sonnen's camp regarding the knee. He added that Sonnen has "very limited" grounds for appeal.

Kizer stated that there are four grounds for appeal in Nevada:

1) Failed drug test.
2) Miscalculation of a scorecard.
3) Collusion (official paid off).
4) Referee misinterprets a rule (for example: allows soccer kick when soccer is illegal).

As Kizer noted, this situation doesn't fall under those categories, so he didn't appear confident that Sonnen would be able to get the result overturned.


More Coverage: UFC 148 Results | UFC News
Download New MMA Fighting iPhone App

Meanwhile, Kizer said that he spoke to both Sonnen and Silva about Silva's shoulder strike at Friday's weigh-ins following Saturday night's title fight. Kizer, who stated he was "very unhappy with Anderson" due to his actions, said that Sonnen told him and NSAC chairman Skip Avansino following the fight that he didn't believe Silva should be fined for the strike, and, after talking to Silva, Kizer said the commission took Sonnen's recommendation to heart and decided against fining Silva.

"Chael willing to forgive Anderson went a long way with me and the chairman," he said. "He was very honorable, perhaps more than he needed to be, towards Anderson."

Kizer said that both he and the chairman issued stern warnings to Silva about his behavior during fight week.

"I told him if you ever do anything like that again you will not be invited to fight in Nevada again," Kizer said.

As for Silva rubbing Vaseline off his face and onto his body before the fight, Kizer said he noticed Silva has done that in the past but admitted this time it was "more blatant that we expected." He said UFC CEO Lorenzo Fertitta pointed it out to him before the fight and referee Yves Lavigne was quick to wipe off the middleweight champion before round one.

Kizer was so disappointed in Silva's actions overall that he added that, "if the next few Anderson Silva fights don't happen in Nevada, it won't bother me in the least."


Link

---

Posted by SmileR
1."I told him if you ever do anything like that again you will not be invited to fight in Nevada again," Kizer said.

2. "if the next few Anderson Silva fights don't happen in Nevada, it won't bother me in the least."

---

1.
2.

lol this has gotten so ridiculous... the shoulder to the face i get but i have never seen short grabbing and a supposed "illegal knee" get so much attention. I see someone get warned about the shorts or the cage just about every fight i watch. and the knee was legal god damnit

im so sick of Keith Kizer he holds personal grudges that effect the sport. the guys a mobster, do your job and lecture judges and refs stay out of fighters buisness but he wont because thats how fights are fixxed.this should have been in brazil but danas a liar, NSAC is gonna be less in the picture with all the world wide fights so who cares about what he says. fink...

---

Posted by submissionartist1

im so sick of Keith Kizer he holds personal grudges that effect the sport. the guys a mobster, do your job and lecture judges and refs stay out of fighters buisness but he wont because thats how fights are fixxed.this should have been in brazil but danas a liar, NSAC is gonna be less in the picture with all the world wide fights so who cares about what he says. fink...

---

State commissions will probably be pushed to other places. You dont forget who got you to where you are. Very mobster. I guess Pride wasnt much better though considering legit fight fixing.

"C'mon Doc" - Jason Guida to Kizer


I don't think Silva would care if his next couple of fights weren't in Nevada either.

This guy has become a joke imo. He does't give two shits when his judges and refs screw up majorly over and over and over again but this gets him upset and making threats?

Doesn't "grabbing the shorts" with no repercussions loosely fall into reason number 4? I think it does. The shorts grabbing incident was so excessive and blatant that if I was a ref I would have halted the fight and gave Silva a very stern warning.

Personally I think Sonnen's team has some legitimate gripes and that it is the fans who are making this whole thing ridiculous. Sonnen has the right to appeal and that is all that really matters.

As far as Kizer goes, he is just voicing his opinion and there is nothing wrong with that. Saying Kizer is a "mobster" though is absolutely ridiculous and possibly even libelous....and...LOL... if he really is a "mobster"....you might just want to watch what you say.

This situation is getting old, but it is getting old because of all of the BS and ignorant things I am hearing from the fans.

Am I the only one who likes the dirty fighting stuff? Kizer can bitch all he wants, but if you can grab shorts and get away with it, if you can smear a little vasoline on you and get away with it, if you can push or shoulder punch at the weigh-ins and get away with it....so be it. Let's not turn into a bunch of pansies.

---

Posted by Sir_Karl

Doesn't "grabbing the shorts" with no repercussions loosely fall into reason number 4? I think it does. The shorts grabbing incident was so excessive and blatant that if I was a ref I would have halted the fight and gave Silva a very stern warning.

Personally I think Sonnen's team has some legitimate gripes and that it is the fans who are making this whole thing ridiculous. Sonnen has the right to appeal and that is all that really matters.

.

---

When have you ever seen a fight overturned for a fence grab or holding shorts? Your out of your mind if you think they should review it. You might as well just review every fight then. and call them all no contests.

---

Posted by Budgellism

This guy has become a joke imo. He does't give two shits when his judges and refs screw up majorly over and over and over again but this gets him upset and making threats?

---

A joke??? Sorry friend, but a man with this kind of hair is a joke to nobody. Ever.

Ken Kizer must have me confused with somebody who gives a shit about what he thinks

I do not know which annoys me more, the retardedness of Kizer's statement or the fanboyism by some people here. If the knee was an illegal knee, then it clearly applies to rule #4. For Kizer to blow it off is a freaking joke. I personally watched the knee like 15+ times and I have come to the conclussion that Anderson got lucky that he missed the head, as IMO he threw an illegal knee that didnt land. Technically, from my POV, the thigh landed, not the knee.

On the fanboy side, PEOPLE GET REAL!!!! I like Anderson, and I think he is top 2 or 3 all time with Fedor and GSP. BUT Anderson did some pretty dirty thiings in this fight. The shorts grab I can deal with, I think that is just a reaction that many people do. HOWEVER the purposeful greasing up, apparently not just in this fight, is uncalled for. IMO he should get disciplined for it. I am pissed that Kizer knew this and did nothing before. The knee on top of this pisses me off. Anderson has been in the UFC long enough to know not to throw that knee. He also had plenty of time to look at Sonnen and decide what to throw. I am not saying he for sure threw an illegal knee to cheat, but the argument can be made IMO.

---

Posted by postman

---

Posted by Sir_Karl

Doesn't "grabbing the shorts" with no repercussions loosely fall into reason number 4? I think it does. The shorts grabbing incident was so excessive and blatant that if I was a ref I would have halted the fight and gave Silva a very stern warning.

Personally I think Sonnen's team has some legitimate gripes and that it is the fans who are making this whole thing ridiculous. Sonnen has the right to appeal and that is all that really matters.

.

---

When have you ever seen a fight overturned for a fence grab or holding shorts? Your out of your mind if you think they should review it. You might as well just review every fight then. and call them all no contests.

---

Sure you hear a warning for holding the shorts about every fight but a vast majority of those grabs were unintentional and they lasted for a split second.


That obviously wasn't the case this time. Anderson grabbed and held onto the shorts to gain an advantage. And imo and a lot of others too he successfully accomplished that

wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wahwah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah


get over it people, shorts grabbing happens in almost every fight, im sure there are several you dont even realize hell i see it allllll the time sometimes its hard to see and out of view.....i think were just gonna have to say
ALL CURRENT FIGHTS ARE A NC! because in the past shorts have been held so now we have to erase all records and start over.

The knee was LEGAL! you can not argue intent the knee was LEGAL! Silva is the most accurate and deadly striker in UFC and MMA history the chances of him throwing a knee to the head and missing that much please get real. it was obvious to anyone who isnt biased that the knee was legal and there was no intent for the head.....im sure in the back of Anderson's mind he was saying! I HAVE HIM HURT I HAVE ALMOST WON! QUICK THROW AN ILLEGAL KNEE GET DISQUALIFIED AND LOSE MY TITLE! YES!... get real

the grease is not a big deal, he doesnt get to put it on his face, he doesnt like the amount they put on his face it doesnt feel good, it bothers him so he wipes a little off and puts it on his body its not enough to make a difference what so ever but hey good for them to go ahead and wipe it off anyway so there was no controversy.........


get over it people Chael lost he accepts it, there was nothing dirty other then an excessive shorts grab which happens all the time. Its done its over let it die your crying isnt going to change fact.

Okay, everyone needs to take a step back and look at this from an unbiased viewpoint.

1. Chael took it like a man and even stuck up for Anderson

2. Kizer is absolutely right

You guys are failing to look at this for what it is. Anderson was warned multiple times for illegal grabs and then proceeded to reach forward and blatantly grab his short with complete disregard for the rules.

Forget that Chael "cheated" before. We're talking about TRT vs. grabbing things illegally multiple times in a fight. Chael is the only one NOT throwing hysterics about this and that should tell you something about why people are displeased with Anderson.

Chael can file an appeal if he wants. The strike was questionable because of the intent. I can find at least 4 people on this site saying, "I won't be surprised if Anderson throws an illegal soccer kick for the first time in a title fight"

If even the fans thought Anderson would throw an illegal move, then Anderson does perform several illegal moves, and throws a dead-away knee to Chael, what do you think Chael was thinking?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking that was going to land on his chest. That is what everyone else, ASIDE FROM CHAEL, is pissed about.

Was it legal? Sure looks like it. Did Anderson come close to winning that fight honorably? Not in the slightest. But Chael isn't the one upset about it.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The strike was questionable because of the intent.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking that was going to land on his chest.

---

I would disagree with your second statement, but more importantly the intent of the strike or where the strike did not land is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the strike itself was against the rules.

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The strike was questionable because of the intent.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking that was going to land on his chest.

---

I would disagree with your second statement, but more importantly the intent of the strike or where the strike did not land is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the strike itself was against the rules.

---

Not to them. They have already said the strike was legal. They're pissed about intent or perceived intent.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The strike was questionable because of the intent.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking that was going to land on his chest.

---

I would disagree with your second statement, but more importantly the intent of the strike or where the strike did not land is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the strike itself was against the rules.

---

Not to them. They have already said the strike was legal. They're pissed about intent or perceived intent.

---

And they can remain pissed. There's no rule against wanting to beat your opponent to death with soccer kicks and knees. Doing it is entirely different.

EDIT: Keith Kizer is a goof. If Anderson Silva wanted to make millions of dollars for Nevada again, Kizer would salivate as the ink was drying.

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

The strike was questionable because of the intent.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking that was going to land on his chest.

---

I would disagree with your second statement, but more importantly the intent of the strike or where the strike did not land is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the strike itself was against the rules.

---

Not to them. They have already said the strike was legal. They're pissed about intent or perceived intent.

---

And they can remain pissed. There's no rule against wanting to beat your opponent to death with soccer kicks and knees. Doing it is entirely different.

---

I'm sorry you can't see the thin line here. You're usually the one who is able to highlight these things. Throwing a knee straight at a downed opponent, regardless of where you "intend" to hit him is pretty sketch. It requires everyone to truly believe you had no intentions of ever hitting him in the face, and nobody believes that after Anderson's comments.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm sorry you can't see the thin line here. You're usually the one who is able to highlight these things. Throwing a knee straight at a downed opponent, regardless of where you "intend" to hit him is pretty sketch. It requires everyone to truly believe you had no intentions of ever hitting him in the face, and nobody believes that after Amderson's comments.

---

I see your point, and while there is some validity to the idea that Anderson Silva may have possibly wanted to permanently main Chael Sonnen's visage, I think hypotheticals like that are what fuel this endless and fruitless horse-flogging. More importantly, the NSAC should be more concerned with discerning the facts, not the intentions of a couple angry fighters holding a contest where life-taking could have possibly been (or not been, who knows) on the mind of one or the other.

Silva has thrown a lot of strikes but seems fairly accurate with where he wants them to land is my personal bias, but once again I do not think it should matter as Kizer and Sonnen's camp are just fueling the post-fight hysteria by trying to define what was in his mind.

The shorts-grabbing is the only thing that should be in dispute after Sonnen vs. Silva II.

---

Posted by lohmann

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I'm sorry you can't see the thin line here. You're usually the one who is able to highlight these things. Throwing a knee straight at a downed opponent, regardless of where you "intend" to hit him is pretty sketch. It requires everyone to truly believe you had no intentions of ever hitting him in the face, and nobody believes that after Amderson's comments.

---

I see your point, and while there is some validity to the idea that Anderson Silva may have possibly wanted to permanently main Chael Sonnen's visage, I think hypotheticals like that are what fuel this endless and fruitless horse-flogging. More importantly, the NSAC should be more concerned with discerning the facts, not the intentions of a couple angry fighters holding a contest where life-taking could have possibly been (or not been, who knows) on the mind of one or the other.

Silva has thrown a lot of strikes but seems fairly accurate with where he wants them to land is my personal bias, but once again I do not think it should matter as Kizer and Sonnen's camp are just fueling the post-fight hysteria by trying to define what was in his mind.

The shorts-grabbing is the only thing that should be in dispute after Sonnen vs. Silva II.

---

I disagree. I am not suggesting they alter the outcome of this fight, but I do think they need to eliminate straight-away knees to a downed opponent in the same ways that they eliminated 12-6 elbows.

Asking a fighter to assume that another fighter doesn't want that knee to hit his face, but rather his chest, is far too much to ask for in a fight. Especially something like a title fight against a hated rival. As a general rule of thumb, if a rival throws something like that in head-to-head competition, they have bad intentions. This holds true for almost all intense rivalries in sports.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

I disagree. I am not suggesting they alter the outcome of this fight, but I do think they need to eliminate straight-away knees to a downed opponent in the same ways that they eliminated 12-6 elbows.

---

If the Unified Rules eliminated them tomorrow, that would still make them legal last Saturday. Changing the rules is always a game discussion, and I think it's the duty of the NSAC to figure out when rules need to be changed as the sport remains still in its infant stages. I disagree with your proposal though; I think knees should be allowed to the head of a downed opponent as should 12-6 elbows. Soccer kicks I feel a little different about.

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

Asking a fighter to assume that another fighter doesn't want that knee to hit his face, but rather his chest, is far too much to ask for in a fight. Especially something like a title fight against a hated rival. As a general rule of thumb, if a rival throws something like that in head-to-head competition, they have bad intentions. This holds true for almost all intense rivalries in sports.

---

The knee hit his chest despite Silva's intention to break Sonnen's face with it.
The knee hit his chest because Silva wanted to plant it there.

What's the difference to the referee?

I think we should just agree to disagree here. Nothing more I can really say.

Since I pretty much just said I don't want/expect the outcome of the title fight to be changed, that kills that.

Secondly, because 12-6 are ALREADY illegal, banning dead-away knees to a downed opponent is not only logical, it follows.

Third, you keep talking about Silva when I've said that I'm talking about moving forward. You can't possibly know what Silva was thinking and to try and assume you know, based on a guy that you're not close friends with's previous actions is absurd. Silva's knee isn't in question here, as I will state for the 4th time.

What's in question is the intent of the NEXT guy. Or the NEXT time.

Also, it's time to stop referring to MMA as a sport in its infancy. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation with 20 years of events behind them. Even by human standards they're an adult.

i don't think it would have changed the outcome but it doesn't change the fact he was trying to cheat, wiping Vaseline and grabbing shorts is illegal. I figured chael needed 5 rds of perfection's to beat silva and didn't happen but to just dismiss the fact he was grabbing his shorts to hold in place and greasing seems novice. no it should not be changed to a NC (the very thought of it is ridiculous), but silva should be looked at closer now for the greasing since they say he does it regularly (why the hell hasn't this been addressed) and be given a formal warning so if he does it again it will be a point.

---

Posted by Manak

i don't think it would have changed the outcome but it doesn't change the fact he was trying to cheat, wiping Vaseline and grabbing shorts is illegal. I figured chael needed 5 rds of perfection's to beat silva and didn't happen but to just dismiss the fact he was grabbing his shorts to hold in place and greasing seems novice. no it should not be changed to a NC (the very thought of it is ridiculous), but silva should be looked at closer now for the greasing since they say he does it regularly (why the hell hasn't this been addressed) and be given a formal warning so if he does it again it will be a point.

---

You're kind of missing the point here. Point deduction is stupid in a situation like this. Silva was never going to win by points. Never. He knew it was KO/Sub or he would lose a UD. Deducting a point does jackshit if the fighter isn't trying to/likely won't win a decision

---

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

---

Posted by Manak

i don't think it would have changed the outcome but it doesn't change the fact he was trying to cheat, wiping Vaseline and grabbing shorts is illegal. I figured chael needed 5 rds of perfection's to beat silva and didn't happen but to just dismiss the fact he was grabbing his shorts to hold in place and greasing seems novice. no it should not be changed to a NC (the very thought of it is ridiculous), but silva should be looked at closer now for the greasing since they say he does it regularly (why the hell hasn't this been addressed) and be given a formal warning so if he does it again it will be a point.

---

You're kind of missing the point here. Point deduction is stupid in a situation like this. Silva was never going to win by points. Never. He knew it was KO/Sub or he would lose a UD. Deducting a point does jackshit if the fighter isn't trying to/likely won't win a decision

---

I'm glad you put that in there because he COULD have won a decision.granted, be probably wouldn't have but without the fight going the distance we couldn't possibly know 100% that he wouldn't have, therefore a point deduction MAY have been a big deal. I agree that it most likely wouldn't have but I'm just playing devils advocate.

I'm past discussing the knee. I think it is a subject, which should be better described in the rulebooks, but I do not feel like discussing it regarding the Silva/Sonnen II fight.

The shorts grabbing was an extreme case of shorts grabbing. Both fighters were standing and one fighter was trying to move away while the other held his shorts and began striking. Very dirty. A warning should have occurred.

Finally, what I believe was the most important infraction is the greasing before the fight. Silva was obviously breaking the rules by spreading the Vaseline to body parts other than his head. Blatant cheating. This rule is clearly stated in the unified rules of mma. Lavigne caught it and wiped him down. A penalty should have occurred.

My point:

Shorts grabbing happens. Silva engaged in excessive shorts grabbing and should have been warned for the first infraction and deducted a point for a following infraction. The greasing should never have occurred. Why did Silva think he could get away with it? My thoughts, because there are no penalties for such infractions. Lavigne wiped him down, big deal.Breaking of rules should result in penalties otherwise the rules will continue to be broken.

I've seen fighters warned 6, 7, even 8 times for grabbing the fence. Take a point. Penalize them. They will stop. Why do officials and commissions not enforce the rules better than they do? That is my question.

---

Posted by MALICE

I'm past discussing the knee. I think it is a subject, which should be better described in the rulebooks, but I do not feel like discussing it regarding the Silva/Sonnen II fight.

The shorts grabbing was an extreme case of shorts grabbing. Both fighters were standing and one fighter was trying to move away while the other held his shorts and began striking. Very dirty. A warning should have occurred.

Finally, what I believe was the most important infraction is the greasing before the fight. Silva was obviously breaking the rules by spreading the Vaseline to body parts other than his head. Blatant cheating. This rule is clearly stated in the unified rules of mma. Lavigne caught it and wiped him down. A penalty should have occurred.

My point:

Shorts grabbing happens. Silva engaged in excessive shorts grabbing and should have been warned for the first infraction and deducted a point for a following infraction. The greasing should never have occurred. Why did Silva think he could get away with it? My thoughts, because there are no penalties for such infractions. Lavigne wiped him down, big deal.Breaking of rules should result in penalties otherwise the rules will continue to be broken.

I've seen fighters warned 6, 7, even 8 times for grabbing the fence. Take a point. Penalize them. They will stop. Why do officials and commissions not enforce the rules better than they do? That is my question.

---

Thats what i was trying to say but this is better put.. he was still breaking rules and whats the point of having them if they don't really get any repercussions

Good thread...BSB and lohman make great points.

It has made me rethink my earlier statement and revise it - i don't much care about a one-off shorts grab, but repeatedly doing it should result in rule-enforcement by the refs...no doubt about it, just like Manak said.

Regarding Kizer, i think i side with BSB a bit here. He may be guessing at Silva's intentions, he may be inferring, assuming, divining, however you want to characterize it - but as a commissioner of an AC he has a responsibility to send the message to the fighters that he's watching you and is prepared to penalize your actions (in a regulatory way) if you've said, and proven, that you're willing to break the rules. That message is intended to get him to stop doing it in the future so no action is necessary, and no rules are broken. That should be his position - stop it before it happens.

If Kizer isn't exactly the right person to send that message, i dunno who would be.