Pick'em Leagues: THE BIG SHOW CASUAL BEST OF THE REST Single Event PvP: FANTASY POOLS Betting Leagues: THE BIG SHOW BEST OF THE REST
  MMA Playground 4.0 is live!     Returning members: check out the patch notes     New members: visit our getting started guide, read the FAQ's and start playing!

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

Print  
  Page 2 of 2     1     2  
Posted By Message

george112

The Playground OG

george112 Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,264
Career:1,205-781
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: The Original Gangsters
Chips:
1,038

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

_______________________________________
Ron Paul 2016

Post #16   11/26/12 1:55:59PM   

bjj1605

Heavyweight Champ

bjj1605 Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,190
Career:1,495-875
Joined:Oct 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
675
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.

Post #17   11/26/12 2:11:39PM   

jay98107

MMA Sensei

jay98107 Avatar
9
 
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:1,041
Career:2,742-1,520
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: Playground Legends
Chips:
266

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.



Post #18   11/26/12 2:40:31PM   

pmoney

P$ Pimpin'

pmoney Avatar
8
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,893
Career:1,426-871
Joined:Oct 2010
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
1,251
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...

Post #19   11/26/12 4:12:25PM   

george112

The Playground OG

george112 Avatar
2

 
 
 


 
 
Posts:5,264
Career:1,205-781
Joined:Jan 2007
Camp: The Original Gangsters
Chips:
1,038

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.

_______________________________________
Ron Paul 2016

Post #20   11/26/12 4:57:03PM   

grappler0000

MODular Approach

grappler0000 Avatar
24
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:10,127
Career:2,668-1,480
Joined:Mar 2007
Camp: The Ringers
Chips:
2,476
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.

Last edited 11/26/12 6:54PM server time by grappler0000
Edit note/reason: n/a

_______________________________________

Post #21   11/26/12 6:52:47PM   

bjj1605

Heavyweight Champ

bjj1605 Avatar
6





 
 
 


 
 
Posts:3,190
Career:1,495-875
Joined:Oct 2007
Camp: Dark Horse
Chips:
675
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.

Post #22   11/26/12 7:08:05PM   

isk

In Full Mount

isk Avatar
 
 
 


 
 
Posts:542
Career:-
Joined:Dec 2007
Chips:
225
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.

Post #23   11/27/12 3:21:59PM   
 
  Page 2 of 2     1     2