MMAPlayground.com

Forum Index > Community > MMA News Share Forum
Quebec commission declines to hear Alessio Sakara's UFC 154 appeal request   [View Full Version]
Pages: [1] 2
FastKnockout » Posted 9/24/10 8:39:00PM

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 » Posted 12/5/07 12:38:00PM

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 » Posted 1/24/07 7:00:00PM

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.

_______________________________________
Ron Paul 2016

jae_1833 » Posted 7/19/07 11:27:00AM

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 » Posted 5/25/12 8:57:00PM


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 » Posted 1/24/07 7:00:00PM

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.

_______________________________________
Ron Paul 2016

telnights » Posted 6/21/07 4:17:00PM

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.

_______________________________________
MMA Playground Mod
Telnights
MMAplayground Rules

Samps » Posted 9/26/11 2:46:00PM

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 » Posted 10/20/09 3:33:00PM

what about Erick Silva vs Carlo Prater? Same thing. A fight stopped due to illegal strikes is a DQ

_______________________________________
The best cure for insomnia is a lot of sex. Even if it doesn't end up putting you to sleep, you don't mind so much

Men be careful, female sexual predators are using a date rape drug called a Blowjob to trap men into scams called relationships.

grappler0000 » Posted 3/24/07 5:29:00PM

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 » Posted 8/14/11 9:31:00PM

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 » Posted 2/24/11 9:26:00PM

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 » Posted 10/11/07 4:18:00PM

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 » Posted 10/11/07 4:18:00PM


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 » Posted 8/14/11 9:31:00PM


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.

Pages: [1] 2


[View Full Version of this Page]