Rule Changes Possible Following Johnson-Burns Decision

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Rule Changes Possible Following Johnson-Burns Decision
MMAcca
9/15/08 2:13:42PM
On July 19th Anthony Johnson was defeated by Kevin Burns at UFC Fight Night 14 via technical knockout, but that isn’t the entire story of a loss that could ultimately result in rule changes both in Nevada where the bout took place and possibly elsewhere.

Following repeated warnings throughout the opening rounds for incidentally poking Johnson in the eyes Burns dropped Johnson to the canvas with a deep-but-accidental eye gouge in the third frame. After collapsing in pain Johnson was unable to defend himself or continue the fight so the referee waived the fight off and awarded a TKO victory to Burns.

Immediate replays of the finish showed that Johnson was downed by a finger to the eye, not a punch as the originally believed, but the decision was final and Burns was declared the victor via technical knockout.

Fans questioned the ruling, asking why Johnson wasn’t declared the winner via disqualification as he was defeated using a banned maneuver or at the very least why the bout wasn’t declared a no contest. Johnson and his agent, Ken Pavia, challenged the rendered decision, filing an unsuccessful appeal with the Nevada State Athletic Commission of the July loss.

The NSAC last week denied the appeal due to a “lack of remedy”.

The current MMA rules in Nevada do not allow for the athletic commission to change a decision rendered at the end of any contest or exhibition unless one of three situations occur:

* The Commission determines that there was collusion affecting the result of the contest or exhibition;
* The compilation of the scorecards of the judges discloses an error which shows that the decision was given to the wrong unarmed combatant; or
* As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.




LINK
jiujitsufreak74
9/15/08 2:50:12PM
hopefully they can change the rules and revisit this appeal in the future and overturn the decision.

also, the 3rd condition is a little confusing to me because it is worded very strangely. to me, it seems like the Burns/Johnson fight fits into that condition
Rush
9/15/08 3:01:39PM

Posted by jiujitsufreak74

hopefully they can change the rules and revisit this appeal in the future and overturn the decision.

also, the 3rd condition is a little confusing to me because it is worded very strangely. to me, it seems like the Burns/Johnson fight fits into that condition



My guess is that if his appeal was rejected, he cannot file it again.
jiujitsufreak74
9/15/08 3:08:33PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by jiujitsufreak74

hopefully they can change the rules and revisit this appeal in the future and overturn the decision.

also, the 3rd condition is a little confusing to me because it is worded very strangely. to me, it seems like the Burns/Johnson fight fits into that condition



My guess is that if his appeal was rejected, he cannot file it again.



that crossed my mind, but if they are going to change the rules as a result of this fight i'm sure they can reexamine it under the new rules.

another slim possibility is that Kevin Burns decides to be the bigger man and appeal it himself. if he did that he would have my utmost respect.
Aether
9/15/08 3:12:59PM

Posted by jiujitsufreak74

hopefully they can change the rules and revisit this appeal in the future and overturn the decision.

also, the 3rd condition is a little confusing to me because it is worded very strangely. to me, it seems like the Burns/Johnson fight fits into that condition



Nah, I had to read it a second time because I initially thought the same thing, but it doesn't.

* As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter , the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

That's the key, his incorrect decision was not as a result of a misinterpretation of the rules, but rather because he simply thought it was a punch and not an eyepoke. Their excessively verbose wording makes it a little confusing, I made the same mistake on my first pass.
jiujitsufreak74
9/15/08 3:14:49PM

Posted by Aether


Posted by jiujitsufreak74

hopefully they can change the rules and revisit this appeal in the future and overturn the decision.

also, the 3rd condition is a little confusing to me because it is worded very strangely. to me, it seems like the Burns/Johnson fight fits into that condition



Nah, I had to read it a second time because I initially thought the same thing, but it doesn't.

* As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter , the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

That's the key, his incorrect decision was not as a result of a misinterpretation of the rules, but rather because he simply thought it was a punch and not an eyepoke. Their excessively verbose wording makes it a little confusing, I made the same mistake on my first pass.



thanks for the clarification, i figured i was missing something
CantAndleDaRiddum
9/15/08 4:04:26PM
good deal

great sign of a growing sport having staying power is changing its rules to better the sport

The-Don
9/15/08 4:24:42PM

Posted by jiujitsufreak74


Posted by Aether


Posted by jiujitsufreak74

hopefully they can change the rules and revisit this appeal in the future and overturn the decision.

also, the 3rd condition is a little confusing to me because it is worded very strangely. to me, it seems like the Burns/Johnson fight fits into that condition



Nah, I had to read it a second time because I initially thought the same thing, but it doesn't.

* As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter , the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

That's the key, his incorrect decision was not as a result of a misinterpretation of the rules, but rather because he simply thought it was a punch and not an eyepoke. Their excessively verbose wording makes it a little confusing, I made the same mistake on my first pass.



thanks for the clarification, i figured i was missing something





I had the same inital thought... but even if this decision is not changed it is still a good thing if it leads to rule change that would allow a replay in cases like this.. granted I think this fight should be a NC but if they revisit this fight after then you will have all kinds of other fights people want over turned.. the new rule when and if made should be for all future fights.. with maybe this one being the exceptions as it was the one that instigated the change..
breakdown5
9/15/08 5:17:08PM
Hopefully this does result in a rule change. That Johnson fight ended in the worst way possible. I really didn't think that anything would come of his appeal, but this still sucks.
Mchubb316
9/15/08 11:53:39PM
I hope at the very least they make a rematch. The right thing would be to change the outcome of the fight to a no contest, but rules are rules.
Related Topics