Rogan and Yamasaki

MMAPlayground.com » MMA General » UFC Forum » Rogan and Yamasaki
« Previous Page | Next Page »
Aether
1/15/12 4:21:23PM
I don't know, I don't think anyone who is against what Joe did can offer any real argument as to why it was the wrong thing to do other than a base emotional reaction that I think comes from challenging an authority figure. The closest thing I've seen to a valid criticism is "unprofessional" which is up for debate.

A lot of people seem to have this view towards officiators like they should be beyond reproach, or that because their job is hard (and it is) that they shouldn't be criticized for making errors.

I think that's a bullshit way of approaching anything.

You only improve by attacking weaknesses. Things don't get better when someone fucks up and everyone is like "oh well he has a tough job, it's ok guys, leave him alone, it's mean to call him out in front of people." Nonsense. People should ALWAYS be ready to justify their decisions, no matter what kind of authority figure they are, and Mario's bumbling response showed that he had NO justification for his mistake beyond "it's a split second call".

The job is hard, that doesn't give these guys carte blanche to screw up, cost fighters money, put blemishes on their records, etc. More authority figures should be challenged and forced to justify their decisions, not just in MMA, but in all areas of life. The whole attitude that people with some certain qualification are above reproach is a really bad point of view IMO and one that hinders progress.

The fact that things like this are considered "unprofessional" and taboo is a big part of the reason that guys like keith kizer can publicly state that there is not a problem with officiating in MMA. If the general public is shown directly what the mistake is when it happened, there's a lot more awareness and pressure on them to fix any mistakes that are made. When we say "oh well, that's the decision I guess we'll have to file some secret paperwork in a month and an article will pop up on some MMA forums about the reversal when everyone forgets about it" nothing changes.
grappler0000
1/15/12 4:37:57PM
And just so everyone's on the same page, this is directly from the Unified Rules, which describes how small the current area is that is considered the "back of the head".


Illegal Strikes to the Back of the Head

The Committee has found a compromise between the Mohawk definition and the headphones definition. The Committee recommends a nape of the neck definition. Basically, the group concluded that a strike that touches the ear is generally acceptable. Strikes are not permissible in the nape of the neck area up until the top of the ears. Above the ears, permissible strikes do not include the Mohawk area from the top of the ears up until the crown of the head. The crown of the head is found where the head begins to curve. In other words, strikes behind the crown of the head and above the ears are not permissible within the Mohawk area. Strikes below the top of the ear are not permissible within the nape of the neck area.

grappler0000
1/15/12 4:43:08PM

Posted by Pookie

I think Erick landed about 4-5 more shots to the back of the head than Shogun did.



I think that's highly debatable. It's also worth noting that Silva was obvious intending to find a good home for his punches, where Shogun was just blasting away. I didn't use the example to take anything away from Shogun. It's just a GIF that I already had and happened to fit the scenario.
tn_rebel
1/15/12 4:49:16PM

Posted by Pookie

I think Erick landed about 4-5 more shots to the back of the head than Shogun did.



You should probably watch those fights again.
warglory
1/15/12 5:08:06PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by warglory

You know what, after watching that fight again and reviewing the slow mo towards the end, I can totally see how Yamasaki made that call. Those were not clear shots to the side of the head, they were hammerfists landing in the grey zone between the side and the back, along with forearm strikes that were clearly landing towards the back of the head. Since Prater was likely unable to continue due to his shoulder injury (at least that's what it looked like), the 5 minute time out was probably ignored.

I was initially against Yamasaki on this, but I think it was a fair call now, especially if what Yamasaki said is true, that he was letting Silva know in Portuguese not to hit the back of the head.



Without the benefit of playback, it can be a bit tricky to make the right call at times, but I still have trouble empathizing with Mario. Even if we can forgive him for making a bad judgement call, he still didn't perform due diligence once the fight was stopped. It wasn't the shots to the head that even caused Carlo to not be able to continue...it was a completely separate injury...similar to Jones/Hamill. That's inexcusable.

And although I don't want to see a guy get harmed by a punch to the back, there was nothing different in this fight than what happens at every single event. There have been literally hundreds of fights in the UFC with similar endings, but with much different results. If refs, or even just Mario, treated other fights in the same way, I'd be willing to listen to that argument, but where he decided to draw the line was very inconsistent with fights that he has reffed in the past.

Here is Shogun's finish of Liddell... coincidentally reffed by Yamasaki.

Liddell even cut his hair into a mohawk, to make it easier for Mario to discern.



I think those shots were far more discernible as being to the side of the face more so than the back of the head. There were clear shots to illegal areas of the head in last night's fight, along with plenty of iffy shots. It boils down to opinion really, and per Yamasaki, the only guy who mattered at that point in time, it was ruled a match ending foul.
warglory
1/15/12 5:13:11PM

Posted by Aether

I don't know, I don't think anyone who is against what Joe did can offer any real argument as to why it was the wrong thing to do other than a base emotional reaction that I think comes from challenging an authority figure. The closest thing I've seen to a valid criticism is "unprofessional" which is up for debate.

A lot of people seem to have this view towards officiators like they should be beyond reproach, or that because their job is hard (and it is) that they shouldn't be criticized for making errors.

I think that's a bullshit way of approaching anything.

You only improve by attacking weaknesses. Things don't get better when someone fucks up and everyone is like "oh well he has a tough job, it's ok guys, leave him alone, it's mean to call him out in front of people." Nonsense. People should ALWAYS be ready to justify their decisions, no matter what kind of authority figure they are, and Mario's bumbling response showed that he had NO justification for his mistake beyond "it's a split second call".

The job is hard, that doesn't give these guys carte blanche to screw up, cost fighters money, put blemishes on their records, etc. More authority figures should be challenged and forced to justify their decisions, not just in MMA, but in all areas of life. The whole attitude that people with some certain qualification are above reproach is a really bad point of view IMO and one that hinders progress.

The fact that things like this are considered "unprofessional" and taboo is a big part of the reason that guys like keith kizer can publicly state that there is not a problem with officiating in MMA. If the general public is shown directly what the mistake is when it happened, there's a lot more awareness and pressure on them to fix any mistakes that are made. When we say "oh well, that's the decision I guess we'll have to file some secret paperwork in a month and an article will pop up on some MMA forums about the reversal when everyone forgets about it" nothing changes.



The basis for Yamasaki screwing up isn't set in stone, sorry to say. This was not a clear cut fuck up by any stretch. I think everyone making a stink out of this decision need to watch this fight again, where clearly a judgment call could have been argued either way. Rogan's brash response is one that he does every time he has an emotional response. It's not his responsibility to call out a ref and question their judgment, because Rogan has never reffed a fight in his life.

It would be like if Yamasaki jumped on stage after a Rogan comedy set and called him out for not being funny in the mic, in front of the entire audience. Yamasaki has his opinion, but he's no comedian, so he has no business calling out someone who is, in public. Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself, until he can editorialize his opinions at a later time.
grappler0000
1/15/12 5:33:45PM

Posted by warglory

I think those shots were far more discernible as being to the side of the face more so than the back of the head. There were clear shots to illegal areas of the head in last night's fight, along with plenty of iffy shots. It boils down to opinion really, and per Yamasaki, the only guy who mattered at that point in time, it was ruled a match ending foul.



Opinions on the punches aside, Mario still didn't do his job properly. The head shots aren't what kept Carlo from continuing. That's a fact. So, the ultimate decision was still the wrong one, regardless of how we got there.
Aether
1/15/12 5:35:07PM

Posted by warglory


Posted by Aether

I don't know, I don't think anyone who is against what Joe did can offer any real argument as to why it was the wrong thing to do other than a base emotional reaction that I think comes from challenging an authority figure. The closest thing I've seen to a valid criticism is "unprofessional" which is up for debate.

A lot of people seem to have this view towards officiators like they should be beyond reproach, or that because their job is hard (and it is) that they shouldn't be criticized for making errors.

I think that's a bullshit way of approaching anything.

You only improve by attacking weaknesses. Things don't get better when someone fucks up and everyone is like "oh well he has a tough job, it's ok guys, leave him alone, it's mean to call him out in front of people." Nonsense. People should ALWAYS be ready to justify their decisions, no matter what kind of authority figure they are, and Mario's bumbling response showed that he had NO justification for his mistake beyond "it's a split second call".

The job is hard, that doesn't give these guys carte blanche to screw up, cost fighters money, put blemishes on their records, etc. More authority figures should be challenged and forced to justify their decisions, not just in MMA, but in all areas of life. The whole attitude that people with some certain qualification are above reproach is a really bad point of view IMO and one that hinders progress.

The fact that things like this are considered "unprofessional" and taboo is a big part of the reason that guys like keith kizer can publicly state that there is not a problem with officiating in MMA. If the general public is shown directly what the mistake is when it happened, there's a lot more awareness and pressure on them to fix any mistakes that are made. When we say "oh well, that's the decision I guess we'll have to file some secret paperwork in a month and an article will pop up on some MMA forums about the reversal when everyone forgets about it" nothing changes.



The basis for Yamasaki screwing up isn't set in stone, sorry to say. This was not a clear cut fuck up by any stretch. I think everyone making a stink out of this decision need to watch this fight again, where clearly a judgment call could have been argued either way. Rogan's brash response is one that he does every time he has an emotional response. It's not his responsibility to call out a ref and question their judgment, because Rogan has never reffed a fight in his life.

It would be like if Yamasaki jumped on stage after a Rogan comedy set and called him out for not being funny in the mic, in front of the entire audience. Yamasaki has his opinion, but he's no comedian, so he has no business calling out someone who is, in public. Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself, until he can editorialize his opinions at a later time.



Well you'll find that you're in the overwhelming minority in thinking that this wasn't a clear cut mistake.

The situations you mentioned are also not comparable at all, since Joe Rogan is paid to commentate on what's happening in the fights and interview the people involved afterwards. The referee's conduct is a very direct part of the fight, if they do their job correctly there should be nothing to talk to them about, if they don't, they become the key reason why the result is the way it is and speaking to them about why they made their decision is the most relevant possible information the commentator/interviewer can provide to the viewers.

"Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself, until he can editorialize his opinions at a later time."

And this sentence encapsulates everything that I think it wrong with our society's view towards authority. Firstly why does saying it later on make it better? Why does he need to wait and write an article after the fact? He's a commentator, it's his job to talk about what's happening and interview the relevant parties, that's why they give him a microphone and a paycheck and send him into the ring after the fight. I believe you added that addendum so that the sentence wouldn't be:

"Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself."

Which effectively means:

"He has "x" title, you don't, so shut your mouth and don't ask questions."

Everyone just look forward, don't ask questions, this is how it is because the guy in the uniform says so.
Aether
1/15/12 5:47:15PM
Also, whether Yamasaki was wrong or not isn't relevant to whether Rogan was wrong for asking him to defend his controversial decision. The referee can sometimes be the person who has the relevant information that the commentator is trying to pass on to the viewers.

Although Yamasaki's response was pretty telling. If Yamasaki was confident in his decision he should've been able to defend it when it was questioned. He couldn't.
Aether
1/15/12 5:51:48PM
I'm waiting for someone to present a logical argument for why what rogan did was wrong.

"he's not a ref" is not adequate, sorry.

Can anyone present a logically sound argument, not based on emotion as to why Rogan should not have interviewed a referee about a highly controversial decision?
Kpro
1/15/12 6:20:02PM
These type interviews where refs are put on the spot and basically torn down by the way they ref'd the fight happens more often than you'd think in boxing, even though most AC's do not allow their refs to be interviewed. This isn't unprecedented territory for a combat sport by any means, though in boxing generally they'll at least have a warning they're about to be asked questions by whoever if holding the mic, but the questions and/or way the interviewer refers to the ref are often worse than what Joe said.
Kpro
1/15/12 6:27:03PM
"He (Yamasaki) is a great guy, and I'm always happy to see him," Rogan wrote on the Underground Forum. "When I step into the Octagon however, I represent the people watching at home that might have obvious questions, and when something is controversial I'm forced to confront it honestly because that's what I would want to hear from a person in my position if I was a fan watching it at home.

"It was obviously a controversial call, and I'm sure some of you agree with it, but I certainly think it's also possible to argue that it was a bad call. That was my perspective, so I had to express it. I'm not a perfect person, and I f*** up all the time. It's a part of life.

"I think Mario Yamasaki is one of the best in the world at refereeing MMA. No doubt about it. He's got great insight to the sport, he's a lifelong martial artist, and he's a really smart guy.

"What I was acting from, is that I saw an incredible young talent get denied a KO victory for a questionable call. When I entered into the Octagon and was told of the official ruling that Silva was going to be disqualified for illegal blows to the back of the head everyone that I was around who heard the news opened their mouths in shock. Everyone said, "What?"

"When I leaned over to explain it to Goldie (Mike Goldberg) he couldn't believe it either. I had to ask Mario about it. I didn't know how he was going to respond, but I had to ask him."

LINK
TeamDEY
1/15/12 6:37:36PM

Posted by Aether

I'm waiting for someone to present a logical argument for why what rogan did was wrong.

"he's not a ref" is not adequate, sorry.

Can anyone present a logically sound argument, not based on emotion as to why Rogan should not have interviewed a referee about a highly controversial decision?



What are you talking about? Rogan is not a ref, that is a huge argument. No one has ever called out Steve Mazzagatti for all of the horrible judgments he has made (on the spot). Was Yamasaki wrong? who knows, but Rogan has no right to call out a ref and make him speak on the mic at that point in time. I still really like Rogan but he went out of his boundaries to call out Yamasaki on the point. You shouldn't call out the ref ever.
warglory
1/15/12 6:38:17PM

Posted by Aether

Also, whether Yamasaki was wrong or not isn't relevant to whether Rogan was wrong for asking him to defend his controversial decision. The referee can sometimes be the person who has the relevant information that the commentator is trying to pass on to the viewers.

Although Yamasaki's response was pretty telling. If Yamasaki was confident in his decision he should've been able to defend it when it was questioned. He couldn't.



How can you say what Yamasaki should have said? He was put on the spot, in front of a hostile crowd and made to answer for his job in front of everyone. It's tough to formulate coherent reasoning when put on the spot.
warglory
1/15/12 6:47:07PM

Posted by Aether


Well you'll find that you're in the overwhelming minority in thinking that this wasn't a clear cut mistake.



Really? Because all the message boards I go to seem to be far more divided than you seem to assume in this statement.



The situations you mentioned are also not comparable at all, since Joe Rogan is paid to commentate on what's happening in the fights and interview the people involved afterwards. The referee's conduct is a very direct part of the fight, if they do their job correctly there should be nothing to talk to them about, if they don't, they become the key reason why the result is the way it is and speaking to them about why they made their decision is the most relevant possible information the commentator/interviewer can provide to the viewers.



No, it's perfectly comparable. We assume Yamasaki has paid to see Rogan's comedy routine, therefore his opinion is perfectly valid and may represent the rest of the audience, but jumping up and calling someone out on the spot is not appropriate if you have no idea what it takes to be in that person's shoes. Joe Rogan is not hired to be a journalist who seeks out scoops and brings the latest news to the people, he's there because he's a personality who knows the fight game well. After calling out Yamasaki, Rogan said (and I paraphrase), "Well I thought it was a bad call" on the mic, for everyone to hear, after calling out the ref. Okay, fine, he's entitled to his opinion, but he was out of order doing it when he did.



"Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself, until he can editorialize his opinions at a later time."

And this sentence encapsulates everything that I think it wrong with our society's view towards authority. Firstly why does saying it later on make it better? Why does he need to wait and write an article after the fact? He's a commentator, it's his job to talk about what's happening and interview the relevant parties, that's why they give him a microphone and a paycheck and send him into the ring after the fight. I believe you added that addendum so that the sentence wouldn't be:

"Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself."

Which effectively means:

"He has "x" title, you don't, so shut your mouth and don't ask questions."

Everyone just look forward, don't ask questions, this is how it is because the guy in the uniform says so.



So the next time a fighter lays n prays his way to victory, and say Rogan thinks it's BS, you're okay with him going in there questioning his tactics and then following it up by saying it was a bad performance, right after the guy just finished his fight? Because that's the exact same scenario.
State_Champ
1/15/12 7:39:39PM

Posted by Kpro

"He (Yamasaki) is a great guy, and I'm always happy to see him," Rogan wrote on the Underground Forum. "When I step into the Octagon however, I represent the people watching at home that might have obvious questions, and when something is controversial I'm forced to confront it honestly because that's what I would want to hear from a person in my position if I was a fan watching it at home.

"It was obviously a controversial call, and I'm sure some of you agree with it, but I certainly think it's also possible to argue that it was a bad call. That was my perspective, so I had to express it. I'm not a perfect person, and I f*** up all the time. It's a part of life.

"I think Mario Yamasaki is one of the best in the world at refereeing MMA. No doubt about it. He's got great insight to the sport, he's a lifelong martial artist, and he's a really smart guy.

"What I was acting from, is that I saw an incredible young talent get denied a KO victory for a questionable call. When I entered into the Octagon and was told of the official ruling that Silva was going to be disqualified for illegal blows to the back of the head everyone that I was around who heard the news opened their mouths in shock. Everyone said, "What?"

"When I leaned over to explain it to Goldie (Mike Goldberg) he couldn't believe it either. I had to ask Mario about it. I didn't know how he was going to respond, but I had to ask him."

LINK




Thanks, Kpro!
KungFuMaster
1/15/12 8:15:41PM
I am so tempted to whip up a drawn out post to counter those who are in favor of Rogan roasting Yamasaki but I know the effort will be futile. This issue is solely based on ethics, opinions, and perspective, all of which are subject to vary from person to person.

I love Rogan but I did not like what he did and IMO, he could have approached the situation with better ethics and professionalism.

Mario Yamasaki was deemed human last night - but he was not the only one.
Kpro
1/15/12 8:18:15PM
I like that it's getting this much board action across the net and hopefully pushes along instant replay quicker for all states/countries the USA goes to.
Aether
1/15/12 8:32:21PM

Posted by warglory


Posted by Aether


Well you'll find that you're in the overwhelming minority in thinking that this wasn't a clear cut mistake.



Really? Because all the message boards I go to seem to be far more divided than you seem to assume in this statement.



The situations you mentioned are also not comparable at all, since Joe Rogan is paid to commentate on what's happening in the fights and interview the people involved afterwards. The referee's conduct is a very direct part of the fight, if they do their job correctly there should be nothing to talk to them about, if they don't, they become the key reason why the result is the way it is and speaking to them about why they made their decision is the most relevant possible information the commentator/interviewer can provide to the viewers.



No, it's perfectly comparable. We assume Yamasaki has paid to see Rogan's comedy routine, therefore his opinion is perfectly valid and may represent the rest of the audience, but jumping up and calling someone out on the spot is not appropriate if you have no idea what it takes to be in that person's shoes. Joe Rogan is not hired to be a journalist who seeks out scoops and brings the latest news to the people, he's there because he's a personality who knows the fight game well. After calling out Yamasaki, Rogan said (and I paraphrase), "Well I thought it was a bad call" on the mic, for everyone to hear, after calling out the ref. Okay, fine, he's entitled to his opinion, but he was out of order doing it when he did.



"Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself, until he can editorialize his opinions at a later time."

And this sentence encapsulates everything that I think it wrong with our society's view towards authority. Firstly why does saying it later on make it better? Why does he need to wait and write an article after the fact? He's a commentator, it's his job to talk about what's happening and interview the relevant parties, that's why they give him a microphone and a paycheck and send him into the ring after the fight. I believe you added that addendum so that the sentence wouldn't be:

"Rogan's not a ref, he needs to keep his opinion resigned to himself."

Which effectively means:

"He has "x" title, you don't, so shut your mouth and don't ask questions."

Everyone just look forward, don't ask questions, this is how it is because the guy in the uniform says so.



So the next time a fighter lays n prays his way to victory, and say Rogan thinks it's BS, you're okay with him going in there questioning his tactics and then following it up by saying it was a bad performance, right after the guy just finished his fight? Because that's the exact same scenario.



Your logic is so badly flawed, man. Every comparison you make lacks any logical foundation. A fighter lay and praying is not comparable to a referee making the wrong call. Lay and praying is one valid method of winning a fight, it is not contrary to the fighter's job description. A ref making a bad call is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he is being paid to do. The fighter is being paid to fight, lay and praying is a style of fighting, a ref is being paid to enforce the rules correctly, enforcing the rules incorrectly is not a valid method of enforcing the rules correctly. Do you not see how your comparisons are not relevant? The context is so dramatically different that the one thing that is similar no longer has the same meaning.
Aether
1/15/12 8:39:12PM

Posted by TeamDEY


Posted by Aether

I'm waiting for someone to present a logical argument for why what rogan did was wrong.

"he's not a ref" is not adequate, sorry.

Can anyone present a logically sound argument, not based on emotion as to why Rogan should not have interviewed a referee about a highly controversial decision?



What are you talking about? Rogan is not a ref, that is a huge argument. No one has ever called out Steve Mazzagatti for all of the horrible judgments he has made (on the spot). Was Yamasaki wrong? who knows, but Rogan has no right to call out a ref and make him speak on the mic at that point in time. I still really like Rogan but he went out of his boundaries to call out Yamasaki on the point. You shouldn't call out the ref ever.



Only a referee could possibly understand the amazing complexities of whether the rules that are written down in a book for everyone to read are being enforced properly.
Kpro
1/15/12 8:54:27PM
Somethin in the air with all the MMA controversy the last week.

Today is argument day

Geoffo
1/15/12 9:40:48PM
Rogan is no BS. Everyone knows Silva won the fight.
Shit call for Yamasaki, even if there were blows to the head, Yamasaki should have stopped it mid-fight and gave Silva a warning.

The thing that bothers me most is that... Blows to the head weren't the deciding factor to ending the fight. Silva knee'd that mofo hard as hell.
Kpro
1/15/12 9:58:27PM

Posted by KungFuMaster

I am so tempted to whip up a drawn out post to counter those who are in favor of Rogan roasting Yamasaki but I know the effort will be futile. This issue is solely based on ethics, opinions, and perspective, all of which are subject to vary from person to person.



I know I'm not alone in wanting to hear your views KFM. I think it'd be great to hear your thoughts on the subject being a well respected member of the site.
Cooler
1/15/12 11:09:13PM
I side with Rogan on this one but only slightly because of his reasoning. He was trying to envoke the need for instant replay, he did it deliberatly and thats the only context I would want Rogan to rudely disrespect a refs decision and make him explain it. We need instant replay in this sport, and without it we will keep getting these shitty calls in those tough situations not to mention that most fighters dont have long careers so if a judge or a ref messes up one fight, they could mess up the guys whole career or ruin potential title shot etc. I tend to agree with Mazagatti's decisions but this one I dont agree with, barely any of them hit the side of the head and thats a stupid fuckin rule anyway. It doesnt matter to me about back of the head shots anyway, front head-shots hurt just as much to me.
eltdown
1/15/12 11:12:47PM
The crux of the matter is this: Rogan's being called unprofessional because he could've made the same points in a much better manner. It's absolutely fine that he asked to interview Yamasaki though - the referee can always refuse to comment.

The consequences for Silva are perhaps not as bad as people are making out: everyone who follows the UFC knows Dana will just go ahead and pay win bonuses in situations like this, and that Silva can appeal the decision (and has a good chance of it being changed to NC). It's clear that Silva hurt Prater badly with that knee first so there can be no "we'll never know what the result would've been".

Aether: may I address some of your points directly if I get the time? I didn't want to de-lurk then immediately post some frank counter-points, don't know if you're a sensitive soul.
KungFuMaster
1/15/12 11:22:14PM

Posted by Kpro


Posted by KungFuMaster

I am so tempted to whip up a drawn out post to counter those who are in favor of Rogan roasting Yamasaki but I know the effort will be futile. This issue is solely based on ethics, opinions, and perspective, all of which are subject to vary from person to person.



I know I'm not alone in wanting to hear your views KFM. I think it'd be great to hear your thoughts on the subject being a well respected member of the site.



Thank you for the vote of confidence, Kpro. I'm starting to feel itchy - all up inside.

But anyway, I don't think I can say anything new. I said a piece of mind in the spoiler's thread already and I reiterated it for this thread.

If I was going to WOW you with a post regarding this topic, it would be centered around the theme - etiquette. From there, I think you would know what my approach would be and how I would attack and counter those who were cheering for Rogan.

And even after all the hard work I put into the post, I may still get - "Your logic is flawed on so many accounts."
Bubbles
1/15/12 11:38:41PM

Posted by KungFuMaster


Posted by Kpro


Posted by KungFuMaster

I am so tempted to whip up a drawn out post to counter those who are in favor of Rogan roasting Yamasaki but I know the effort will be futile. This issue is solely based on ethics, opinions, and perspective, all of which are subject to vary from person to person.



I know I'm not alone in wanting to hear your views KFM. I think it'd be great to hear your thoughts on the subject being a well respected member of the site.



Thank you for the vote of confidence, Kpro. I'm starting to feel itchy - all up inside.

But anyway, I don't think I can say anything new. I said a piece of mind in the spoiler's thread already and I reiterated it for this thread.

If I was to going WOW you with a post regarding this topic, it would be centered around the theme - etiquette. From there, I think you would know what my approach would be and how I would attack and counter those who were cheering for Rogan.

And even after all the hard work I put into the post, I may still get - "Your logic is flawed on so many accounts."



bah so what? i too am interested in your argument as i also side with pretty much Aether has posted. i will wait impatiently
KungFuMaster
1/15/12 11:46:24PM
We'll see how I feel tomorrow.

Warglory is a good poster and I believe if I do not respond, he will and he will do a good job.

BTW, I have been keeping track and I believe Warglory is winning.
Kpro
1/16/12 12:38:25AM

Posted by warglory

This was not a clear cut fuck up by any stretch.



You guys can have your discussion about Rogan's actions, but I have to jump in on Mario screwing up not a clear cut fuck up based on a large sample size of his previous reffed fights and his failure to follow proper ref protocol for the situation.

The referee will call for a time out if a fighter's ability to continue is in question as a result of apparent injuries. The ring doctor will inspect the fighter and stop the match if the fighter is deemed unable to continue safely, rendering the opponent the winner (someone please link me to where we know a doctor inspected Prater prior to Mario calling it a DQ).

In the event that a fighter is injured by illegal actions, then at the discretion of the referee and ring doctor, the round is resumed after enough time has been given for the fighter to recover. Prater stated the knee is what `did him in` and was also moving around and turning his head as the punches landed. Hard to deliberately hit the back of a rotating head, and somehow only hit it 2-3 times out of 12 even with the moving head which is a crazy low amount. He was obviously, to me, striking for side of the head.

If a foul incapacitates a fighter to where they can't recover, then the match may end in a disqualification IF the foul was intentional, or a no contest if unintentional. Mario has reffed many fights where he allows 4-5 time as many to the back of the head and then awards a TKO so his precedent was set as to what he considers unintentional over hundreds upon hundreds of fights.

To take it further, instant replay is used by the NSAC. The UFC was acting as its own commission under NSAC guidelines. Replay was an option that Mario could have utilized. And by all reports I've seen, he never even brought in the ringside doctor before making it a DQ (i'd again love to see a link that shows any doctor checked on Prater before the DQ had already been decided) which is Mario absolutely not following protocol and not utilizing the doctor or replay that were available to him.

He was wrong on so many levels I can't even count. Breaking his precedent set across hundreds of fights for unintentional strikes to the back of the head that should've been a Win or No Contest at worst, possibly not having the ringside doctor inspect Prater `prior` to issuing the DQ. Not utilizing instant replay that could've been used. Most of all just making a call that its inentional, as he's known to often allow strikes to the back of the head while an opponent is rotating their head and turtled. Other fights he's reffed he would award a TKO to the guy in Silva's position.

Just like in baseball, strike-zone's differ by umpire but that's fine as long as they're consistent with it over time and equal with it for both teams. Mario clearly went out of his way to make this an anomaly to his decade of consistent TKO calls in that situation.

That's a clear cut fuck up based on the sample size of Mario's previous hundreds of major promotion fights reffed and failure to follow proper protocol and/or use tools at his disposal to be sure he got the call right.

Ok, you guys can go back to the Rogan/Yamasaki talk now.
Kpro
1/16/12 1:12:05AM

Posted by Aether


Posted by warglory

So the next time a fighter lays n prays his way to victory, and say Rogan thinks it's BS, you're okay with him going in there questioning his tactics and then following it up by saying it was a bad performance, right after the guy just finished his fight? Because that's the exact same scenario.



Your logic is so badly flawed, man. Every comparison you make lacks any logical foundation. A fighter lay and praying is not comparable to a referee making the wrong call.



It's actually exactly the same. Lay and Praying is the wrong call. So is what Mario made. Lay and Prayers spend most of the fight horizontal. Mario sleeps horizontally. LNP'ers stay juuuuust active enough to not get stood up, Mario can stand up but also lie on the ground if he chooses. LNP'ers have a martial arts background, so does Mario. LNP'ers are boring to watch, to most of us so is Mario. LNP'ers even think Woodley is the worst LNP'er, so does Mario. Basically crushed your ideas with logic like they were cheap wine glasses. LNP'ing and Mario's bad calls are exactly the same thing.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
Related Topics