Posted by State_Champ
I liked this part in particular:
"Rule Most in Need of Amendment: Knees to the Head of Downed Opponent
Let's say you're a fighter. You're caught in a front head lock. You're bent over at the waist. If you touch the ground with one hand, you can't be kneed in the head. If you don't, it's open season on that vulnerable target. Does this distinction in the rule really make sense? Positively not.
We aren't protecting fighters from that position. If a fighter doesn't touch the ground, that position from the front head lock is still good for kneeing. How on earth does that make sense? If we're banning strikes in certain positions, it's because they offer an untenable amount of risk. Soccer kicks? Too dangerous because of the lack of defense relative to the power of the offense. Stomps? Absurdly risky and unnecessary as the head has nowhere to recoil when struck.
Who are we really protecting by dictating all one needs to do to avoid knees in a particular instance is to touch the ground? Either strikes from that position are damaging or they aren't.
The entire thing creates an unfair advantage and invents a stall position without any real tip of the hat to the actual enforcement of safety. It's the consequence of improperly defined rules and needs changing. Immediately."
Posted by Svartorm
Removing that rule is an absolute game changer too. Fighters would HAVE to avoid that position because you'd either a) catch knees to the face non-stop or b) have to drop to a knee which actually opens you up for transitions and subs.