Quebec commission declines to hear Alessio Sakara's UFC 154 appeal request

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Quebec commission declines to hear Alessio Sakara's UFC 154 appeal request
FastKnockout
11/25/12 4:43:12PM
Patrick Cote's controversial UFC 154 disqualification victory over Alessio Sakara will stand.

On Friday, Quebec's La Regie des alcools des courses et des jeux (the baord that governs combat sports in the province) declined to hear Sakara's protest that referee Dan Miragliotta mishandled the bout, which took place Nov. 17 at Montreal's Bell Centre.

French-language outlet LaPress.ca was the first to report the board's decision.

Link
isk
11/25/12 5:03:24PM
Absolutely agreed with Sakara's camp. The match should be a No Contest, with a rematch lined up as soon as both guys are healthy and available. We'd probably resolve some unfinished business, as I seriously doubt we'd see a trilogy of weirdness similar to Santos/Prindle.
george112
11/25/12 5:04:26PM
Oh well. It wouldn't have changed anything had they looked at it. He still broke the rules. Not sure what he was trying to accomplish with the appeal.
jae_1833
11/25/12 6:34:11PM
I think they would have stood by the call because they already discussed it with the ref when it happened so they saw it as pointless......we will still get a rematch I am sure.
frizzzlecake
11/25/12 7:14:42PM

Posted by george112

Oh well. It wouldn't have changed anything had they looked at it. He still broke the rules. Not sure what he was trying to accomplish with the appeal.



To take a unjust loss off his record. Dan shit the bed clearly, he didn't open his mouth once saying any of the strikes were bad, but then goes and say's he's DQd?


I remember when Shane Crawin Mauled Mir's back of the head, and Dan was there and if I remember right was telling Shane to watch the back of the head.

Sakara shouldn't be penalized for a ref's inconstant behavior.

It's like the NFL overturn's someone's victory because a ref clearly missed a blown call.

just how i feel about it.
george112
11/25/12 7:25:05PM
Yeah the ref messed up but sakara knows the rules. He should get a loss off his record because he had a brain fart?

The rules don't say you can punch a guy in the back of the head until the ref says stop.


That's my take on it


I get what your saying about the NFL but in the NFL or any other sport where something gets overturned, either the player or the ref fucked up. In the sakara fight BOTH the ref AND the fighter fucked up.
telnights
11/25/12 9:04:05PM
I will say the same thing I said in the last topic about this.


Sakara broke the rules its that simple. He knows the rules its not like he wasn't informed on them many times. Cote was unable to continue due to those illegal strikes so it is a DQ. Now Dan Miragliotta I feel is one of the worst refs in MMA and him not giving Alessio a warning was a mistake but it doesn't change the fact the fight was ended due to many illegal strikes.

I still feel it was the right call. If a fight ends due to a clearly illegal strike/s it should always be a DQ.
Samps
11/26/12 12:16:12AM
Jones/Hamill. Forgot who the ref was, but there was no warning given to Jones. They stopped the bout and officially ended it once it was clear Hamill could not continue. This is the same situation, where there was no warning and the fight continued, it was just that the fight was ended due to illegal shots. And I feel that this fight will be just like the Jones/Hamill fight, no true fan will say Cote BEAT Sakara, just like how Hamill didn't BEAT Jones, they simply have wins over them.
Bubbles
11/26/12 12:37:47AM
what about Erick Silva vs Carlo Prater? Same thing. A fight stopped due to illegal strikes is a DQ
grappler0000
11/26/12 12:06:08PM
Jones/Hamill was different. There were illegal strikes. The fighter couldn't continue. BUT, his inability to continue had nothing to do with the illegal strikes. Chalk that one up to a ref that screwed up big time.

Cote/Sakara was appropriately called a DQ. For those that think it should've been a NC, that's just not how the rules were written. If a ref determines the strikes to be intentional, he MUST disqualify the offender. I'll just quote myself from another thread:


The most important part of that is, of course, "intentional". While Sakara may or may not have intentionally cheated, he did "intend" to throw the strikes where they landed...which was in a foul zone. There is no arguing that. I think people have a hard time differentiating between the two. Forgetting the rules or having a brain-fart doesn't save you from committing an "intentional foul".


You DO NOT have to give a fighter a warning in order to produce a DQ. This seems to be the line of thinking that is tripping many people up. The only time that comes into play is if a point is taken and then the offender commits the same foul again. In that situation, whether the foul was intentional or not, if the other fighter is unable to continue, then the ref is forced to call a DQ.
BuffaloDave
11/26/12 12:48:00PM
While I don't think that Sakara should win any appeal, I think the Quebec commission shows a little bias, by not letting Sakara plead his case.

At least let him and his team explain themselves, in turn the commission can do the same, about there decision to call it a DQ.
BillsNewAccount
11/26/12 12:58:05PM
Should have been a DQ. They gave the win to Hamil because a def guy looked ready to cry and if you don't agree with that decision you have no heart and are a monster.
bjj1605
11/26/12 1:17:44PM
I wonder how the appeal was worded.

Here are my thoughts:

1) There is absolutely no doubt that the shots were illegal. If they even mentioned that they weren't in the appeal then I'm not surprised they wouldn't hear it.

2) The ref is not OBLIGATED to give a warning prior to a DQ. If an intentional illegal strike ends the fight, it's a DQ.

3) I don't think those shots were intentionally aimed at the back of the head. This fight should have been a No Contest. If an accidental illegal strike ends the fight, it is supposed to be a NC.

I think they should have heard the appeal based on point three.
bjj1605
11/26/12 1:20:41PM

Posted by BillsNewAccount

Should have been a DQ. They gave the win to Hamil because a def guy looked ready to cry and if you don't agree with that decision you have no heart and are a monster.



Is this serious or were you trolling?? If you were trolling you definitely got me worked up.

Do you think Matt Hamill would want to be treated differently because he's deaf? I don't.

The downward elbows were illegal, yes, but they shouldn't be. I can dislike the rule that lead to the decision.

Matt Hammill is a professional fighter and ground and pound is part of the game. If he didn't want to get punched or elbowed I don't think he would be in the UFC. He's tougher than you're giving him credit for.
BuffaloDave
11/26/12 1:24:02PM

Posted by bjj1605


3) I don't think those shots were intentionally aimed at the back of the head. This fight should have been a No Contest. If an accidental illegal strike ends the fight, it is supposed to be a NC.

I think they should have heard the appeal based on point three.



I agree, and have said since it happened they weren't intentional, but you said it, . "If an accidental illegal strike ends the fight, it is supposed to be a NC", problem is it wasn't a strike, it was strikes, that's why I feel a DQ was fine here.
george112
11/26/12 1:55:59PM

Posted by BuffaloDave


Posted by bjj1605


3) I don't think those shots were intentionally aimed at the back of the head. This fight should have been a No Contest. If an accidental illegal strike ends the fight, it is supposed to be a NC.

I think they should have heard the appeal based on point three.



I agree, and have said since it happened they weren't intentional, but you said it, . "If an accidental illegal strike ends the fight, it is supposed to be a NC", problem is it wasn't a strike, it was strikes, that's why I feel a DQ was fine here.

exactly

Sakara threw what was it like 7 shots!!??

I'm not buying they weren't intentional. He was going for the head. At the beginning he was hitting on cotes shoulder blades he adjusted his aim and started raining shots to the back of the head.

Easy to play the victim after the fact. DQ was the absolute right call
bjj1605
11/26/12 2:11:39PM
But where is that in the rules?

You've got to be consistent and that means following written guidlines so fighters know what to expect.

He was excitedly trying to finish the fight. Yes, he was trying to punch him in the head. Was he maliciously aiming for the BACK of his head? I don't think so.

I think he was just dropping shots on the available area and he wasn't aiming carefully enough because he was trying to finish the fight.

I don't think the fight would have gone any differently if he had thrown the same number of shots to the side of the head.
jay98107
11/26/12 2:40:31PM

Posted by BillsNewAccount

Should have been a DQ. They gave the win to Hamil because a def guy looked ready to cry and if you don't agree with that decision you have no heart and are a monster.



pmoney
11/26/12 4:12:25PM
I still say that was a bullshit DQ, just like Silva-Prater. Only like three strikes landed to the back of the head, and from my perspective that was because Sakara was aiming for the ear and Cote was moving, causing the strikes to land in an illegal area unintentionally.

I need to rewatch the fight again, but let's give Sakara the benefit of the doubt here. He was damn near unconscious himself when trying to finish Cote, that could make his aim a little off...
george112
11/26/12 4:57:03PM

Posted by bjj1605

But where is that in the rules?

You've got to be consistent and that means following written guidlines so fighters know what to expect.

He was excitedly trying to finish the fight. Yes, he was trying to punch him in the head. Was he maliciously aiming for the BACK of his head? I don't think so.

I think he was just dropping shots on the available area and he wasn't aiming carefully enough because he was trying to finish the fight.

I don't think the fight would have gone any differently if he had thrown the same number of shots to the side of the head.



Well I know in the rule book it doesn't say you can punch the back of the head just because your excited and trying to finish the fight.

Sakara had a plethora of other ways to finish the fight the most obvious to me would have been a RNC. Cote was on all fours just begging to get choked. But instead he punched the back of the head and knocked him out. Unlucky as it was for him that's the way it happened. Coincidentally it was against the rules so it was a DQ. I just can't grasp people's arguments against it. It should be a NC because he had a lapse in judgement?? Wtf is that? Fighting is sakaras job. He should know the rules. And I can bet money he won't ever do that again.
grappler0000
11/26/12 6:52:47PM
Anderson Silva was DQ'd in his first fight with Okami. He was confused over the upkick rules, but ignorance is no excuse. It doesn't dismiss him from an "intentional foul". That's why malice has nothing to do with this. Someone doesn't have to be willfully cheating in order for it to be considered an intentional foul. Sakara is a former pro-boxer. Are you telling me that he hit the back of Cote's head with pinpoint accuracy, time and time again...but he was making an effort to strike elsewhere? Of course not. Cote wasn't shifting around or flailing his head. Every punch that hit the back of his head landed where Sakara intended to throw it. That constitutes an "intentional foul", whether Sakara realized he was breaking the rules at the time or not. And an intentional foul that ends a fight is an automatic DQ.

bjj1605
11/26/12 7:08:05PM
Ya I guess I can see that.

Kinda redefines "intent" though. I don't think he intended to foul Cote.

In any case, I think the NC vs DQ question should have at least been looked at by the commission. Sure the strikes were illegal, but whether they were "intentional" is at least open to debate IMO.
isk
11/27/12 3:21:59PM
More transparency would be welcome, at least, like for the commission to step up and say "we're upholding the DQ because __________." As it is now, all they're doing is saying "no" and moving on.

Really good points in this thread, as I've questioned my own call for DQ / NC in this case. Silva / Okami was clear, Okami was done and out of the fight after that upkick and there weren't any follow-up strikes. This is a bit more gray in that Cote was already in trouble and wasn't rendered unconscious or limp after the hammerfists (not to mention the lack of warning from the ref). It's a pickle.