Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
electricslurpee

Mazzagatti penalty point, agree or disagree, and why?

Recommended Posts

i've felt for a long time that illegal blows whether they are intentional or not should result in an immediate point deduction.

 

Opinion: the immediate deduction may seem harsh to some people

 

Fact: fouls can & have completely change the complexion of fight

 

like it or not, the ref is there for the safety of the fighters and i believe Mazzagatti made the right call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately I disagree. I don't have a problem with him taking a point immediately (even if he didn't do it immediately, because he warned him multiple times during, and after the first round), but the shot he took the point on didn't look illegal to me. That's where I had the problem win the whole situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elbow that he took a point on wasn't illegal and the point of the elbow didn't even look like it landed anyway. It looks like he threw it but missed and just caught him with the back of the arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that confuses me is the "12 to 6". In my opinion, Travis brownes elbows in both his wins over barnett and gonzaga were illegal. Because from his point of view they were 12 to 6, portioned to where his body was. To us it looked 9 to 3. I think the rule is dumb either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly one of the worst decisions in history...and thats just the decision to make it 3 rounds. What the hell where they thinking? I get sometimes judges can score fights oddly based of a range of different aspects but that fight? in that setting? My god, that's the holocaust of judging right there.

 

And Dana looked a punch drunk idiot in that episode only wanting a slug fest and disrespecting grappling. Zapata got completely dominated for 3 rounds. Speechless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dana was right. He needed to warn the guy that if he does it again he will take a point instead of doing a dozen half assed warnings then spazzing and taking a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing that confuses me is the "12 to 6". In my opinion, Travis brownes elbows in both his wins over barnett and gonzaga were illegal. Because from his point of view they were 12 to 6, portioned to where his body was. To us it looked 9 to 3. I think the rule is dumb either way.

 

The position of the body makes no difference. If the elbow goes up to down in a straight line ( i.e. 12 to 6 ) it's illegal.

 

I think the rule makes sense in that when people are doing takedowns and they are incorrectly bending over instead of keeping posture with the back straight they expose the back of the head and spine to 12 to 6 elbows. 12 to 6 elbows slamming down with speed and weight make some sort of neck spine injury much more likely in the heat of the moment where with someone moving around accuracy can be off and the way you can slam an elbow straight down has way more distance, momentum, weight the whole chain of the body is more involved so it can be much more dangerous. So i see the point of it despite Rogan always protesting about they're not as hard ( which is BS ).

 

That being said me personally i hate it when fighters get so into MMA 'sport' instead of the vale tudo anything goes perspective. I don't like when fighters do things like hunching over for takedowns exposing themselves to elbows to back of head or spine or giving their back to stand up exposing themselves to soccer kicks & knees or staying in turtle after a sprawl exposing themselves to knees to the dome instead of pulling guard or putting a hand/knee down so they don't get knee'd in the face or getting on their knee to not get up kicked etc.

 

To me those are bad technical habits and you should just assume the other person will foul. Sort of playing around the rules and playing this sort of game does not make a better fighter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dana was right. He needed to warn the guy that if he does it again he will take a point instead of doing a dozen half assed warnings then spazzing and taking a point.

 

I disagree with that completely. He warned him multiple times during the first round, and after the first round, he took a moment, and talked to him, warning him again. The guy had plenty of warning.

 

If anything, I think guys get too many warnings in MMA before a point deduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you he warned him multiple times but he never took charge like he should have telling him he will take a point next time.

 

Big John, Herb etc. would have made it perfectly clear they were taking a point next time he does it.

 

Steve just kind of warned him like a shy kid with self esteem issues then got mad and spazzed out with a crackling voice of a prepubescent teenager.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole 'warning' argument you guys and Dana were talking about is wrong imo. You'll find the warning in the rule book and Mazaghatti telling him countless times. I wasn't aware Zapata was a retard and couldn't understand instruction??

 

Dana looks like a bish most of the time anyway but he really looked like one in this episode. It looked like he didn't respect grappling at all and just wanted a slugfest.

 

The most embarrassing thing is Zapatas twitter where he states 'the power of the elbow', lol. Those elbows couldn't even drop Matt Brown if you hit him in the body. :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was a crock of crap. Dana definitely disrespected the grappling aspect. Zapata got owned for the first two rounds. Why have a third. Grappling and ground control are part of the game. As usual Dana came off looking like an idiot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this was a crock of crap. Dana definitely disrespected the grappling aspect. Zapata got owned for the first two rounds. Why have a third. Grappling and ground control are part of the game. As usual Dana came off looking like an idiot.

 

Humping someones back does not win a fight

 

Elbows to the dome will though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this was a crock of crap. Dana definitely disrespected the grappling aspect. Zapata got owned for the first two rounds. Why have a third. Grappling and ground control are part of the game. As usual Dana came off looking like an idiot.

 

Humping someones back does not win a fight

 

Elbows to the dome will though

 

Sorry, no. Stephens completely nullified him. Anyone who knows MMA know who won the fight. Anyone who disagrees are trolling. :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...