MMA Instant Replay Approved By Nevada State Athletic Commission
by Kelvin Hunt on Aug 19, 2009 8:25 PM EDT
in News
Email
PrintVia MMAWeekly:
According to a new rule passed by the Nevada State Athletic Commission Wednesday, referees in Nevada now have the opportunity to get a second look at a fight’s end to determine its legality.
The final wording as passed: "A referee at the conclusion of a contest or exhibition stopped immediately due to an injury to an unarmed combatant pursuant to NAC 467.718 and after making a decision, may view a replay if available in order to determine whether the injury in question was caused a legal blow or a foul."
The rule addresses several controversial stoppages in recent history where a fighter lost a contest because the referee couldn’t see an injury that forced a bout’s stoppage.
A referee may now use instant replay to determine whether the action that caused the injury was legal or a foul and make a decision on the fight’s result. Only a referee can decide whether to order a replay.
I think this is the correct step to take considering all the inadvertent eye pokes and low blows that happen in MMA. We've seen it affect the outcome in fights like Al Turk/Cro Cop and Anthony Johnson/Kevin Burns. Hopefully now those type of things can be avoided. However, keep in mind this is only in the state of Nevada as of right now though.
9 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
See, I think this should only be done if it’s across all commission states. This is something that can affect records and outcomes. To just have it in one state is kind of an outlying thing.
Yea
Usually the other commission states follow suit once either Nevada or New Jersey decide on something though.
http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@KelvinHunt
by Kelvin Hunt on Aug 19, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Was this the only rule passed so far? It is the only rule being reported, there were several intrusting rule changes up for voting today
Umm
5 round non title fights were approved as well I think.
http://www.mmaforreal.com
Follow Me On Twitter@KelvinHunt
by Kelvin Hunt on Aug 19, 2009 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Only for those fights deemed ‘worthy’. It’s too open ended, you can’t have such a subjective rule. Rules are meant to be a strict guideline that don’t favor either side. You know we are going to hear alot of “It should have been 5 rounds, I had him gassed but ran out of time” or “I dominated the whole fight but he caught me in a small mistake after the fight should have been over”. This is going to be a major source of controvercy.
The only way this rule could work is if it is limited to #1 contender bouts where the winner is contractually guaranteed an immediate title shot in his next fight. You can’t leave any grey areas where an athlete is going to get screwed, this is a professional sport not the WWE.
I like it, as well as the other rules passed… but like Matt mentioned, it doesn’t mean much unless it’s good across the board. A lot of fights happen in Nevada, but not all of them. It’s weird enough when something goes down in a new area like Canda or Pennsylvania, and we’ll get oddball variances like no foot-stomps. It’s progress, for sure, but at the same time, when it’s only passed in one state it doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Live previews and reviews of all major fights!
LightsOutRadio.com
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
