Regulation of Amateur MMA - Fight Rules

Posted on October 17, 2010 by David Nelmark

I've posted a lot about the Iowa Athletic Commission's endeavors to regulate amateur mixed martial arts matches and subject them to the same scrutiny as professional matches.  Despite the loss of some small promotions that exclusively showcased amateur fighters, I stand by my statement that the regulation of amateur MMA is "good for the development of mixed martial arts in the state of Iowa."  The real question, in my view, is whether amateur MMA should be subject to the same regulations as professional MMA and, in particular, whether the matches themselves should be governed under the same rules.

The Association of Boxing Commissions has a set of unified rules for mixed martial arts, that are followed in most states, including Iowa.  ABC does not have a similar set for amateur MMA, but it does offer a list of "suggested" amateur fouls that, in addition to professional fouls, also prohibits:

  1. Elbow and forearm strikes
  2. Neck cranks
  3. Heel hooks
  4. Knees to the head
  5. Hand chokes
  6. Spine attacks
  7. Strikes to or around the knee joint.
  8. Dropping an opponent on his or her head or neck.

Effective January 1, 2010, the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board passed a separate set of rules governing amateur MMA. The passage of amateur rules by New Jersey is significant because, in 2000, New Jersey was the first state to regulate professional MMA and its rules served as a template for the ABC unified rules. 

The New Jersey amateur MMA rules closely parallel the ABC's list of suggested fouls, which is not surprising since Nick Lembo, counsel for the NJSACB, is also chair of ABC's MMA Rules Committee.   Some differences are that New Jersey also prohibits kicks to the head and any strikes the head of a downed opponent.  

Many states do not have separate rules for amateur MMA, but most allow promoters to impose their own rules, as long as they are more restrictive than the state's rules. 

It makes perfect sense to have more rules in place to protect the safety of amateur fighters. That said, every additional foul that is added to the rules creates a bigger divide between the amateur and professional ranks.  When amateur matches are designed, in part, to give fighters experience before turning pro and facing harder competition, the benefits of amateur experience are lessened if the two types of fights have substantially different sets of rules.

Comments are on, readers.  What additional rules do you think should be in place for amateurs?

Tags: , , , , ,

Jon Jones Files Appeal Over DQ Loss to Hamill

Posted on December 17, 2009 by David Nelmark

At the finale for the 10th season of The Ultimate Fighter, Jon "Bones" Jones, took on Matt "The Hammer" Hamill.  Jones dominated the fight and was nearing a stoppage victory when referee Steve Mazzagatti halted the contest as a result of illegal "12 to 6" elbows a/k/a "striking downward with the point of the elbow" which is prohibited by the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts.  Mazzagatti took away a point, but when he returned to Hamill, he concluded that Hamill could not continue and stopped the fight.  Jones did a celebratory cartwheel and viewers headed into the commercial break thinking Jones' perfect record was intact.  However, when Bruce Buffer announced the results, Hamill was given the victory by virtue of a disqualification.

MMAJunkie.com has a great recap of what happened during the break.  In short, Mazzagatti took advantage of a new Nevada State Athletic Commission rule that allowed him to consult instant replay.  When he looked at the tape, he decided the illegal elbows were what prevented Hamill from continuing, and he thus ruled the fight a DQ.  NSAC Athletic Director Keith Kizer backed up Mazzagatti saying that if the fight was stopped as a result of an illegal blow, there was no choice but to render a disqualification.

Now, Jones's managers have filed an appeal with the NSAC seeking to overturn the result.  Their arguments include the fact that Mazzagatti tried to ascertain whether Hamill (who is deaf) could continue by verbally asking him the question.  Hamill can read lips, but had blood in his eyes and might not have seen Mazzagatti let alone understood the question.  Based on the timing of the halt in the action, Hamill likely thought he had lost by TKO.  The complaint also asserts that prior, legal elbows and/or a shoulder injury sustained during a throw by Jones caused the damage that prevented Hamill from continuing.  Both of these arguments are persuasive, but they are factual questions.   

NAC 467.770 states that, absent collusion, a disciplinary violation such as a failed drug test, or a scoring error:

The Commission will not change a decision rendered at the end of any contest or exhibition unless . . . [a]s the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

Accordingly, as I read this provision, the NSAC cannot overturn Mazzagatti's decision just because it thinks a different blow ended the fight.  It has to decide that he misinterpreted a rule.  This is where the plot thickens.

If Mazzagatti had believed the foul was accidental, the fight would have been ruled a no contest pursuant to NAC 467.7966.   So, to disqualify Jones, Mazzagatti had to determine the foul was intentional.  I have no beef with such a determination because, while Jones might not have known he was committing a foul, he certainly intended to drop the 12 to 6 elbow and, like all laws, ignorance of an MMA rule is no excuse.  But, Mazzagatti's earlier actions implied that the foul was not intentional.  

Before stopping the fight after Hamill failed to respond to his question, Mazzagatti deducted a single point from Jones during the break in the action.   (Fight is available here on YouTube, until it gets pulled for infringing Zuffa's copyrights.)  He pulls Jones off of Hamill at 1:07 and then very clearly says "1 point" at the :57 mark. 

NSAC 467.698 states:

If the referee determines that a contest or exhibition may continue despite an injury caused by an intentional foul, the referee shall immediately inform the Commission’s representative and the judges and shall deduct two points from the score of the unarmed combatant who committed the intentional foul.

Although a mandatory two point deduction for an intentional foul does not appear in the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts, it seems to be clearly the rule in Nevada.  (Some Nevada rules for unarmed combat state that they don't apply to MMA, but 467.498 contains no such caveat.) Thus, a one-point deduction implies that the foul was accidental (which leaves the amount of the deduction in the discretion of the referee pursuant to NAC 467.7964).

I don't know that Mazzagatti's mistake rendered the result an "incorrect decision" but it appears that he did make at least one misinterpretation of the Nevada rules.  Dana White is likely not surprised.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,