Interesting rule in K-1 MMA

[Oliver Klosov]

No contest
When illegal action disqualifies both fighters, or the judges and/or K-1 decide to cease the fight because of an accident, or an accident which happened in the first (1) round causes either or both fighter(s) to be unable to continue to the next round, the fight shall be called No Contest. However, in case the accident occurs during or after the second round, a decision on the winner shall be made according to the fighters' performance during the first round and the time preceding the fight's cessation.


Similar to Boxing going to the cards after 4 rounds in case of an accidental headbutt.

Like or dislike this rule? Is it better to just have a no contest and rematch? Is this rule exclusive to K-1 or do Pride or UFC use it - I don't think they do, but I could be wrong.

[Oliver Klosov]

Okay, I'm retarded. I just read the pride rules and they have the same thing in it - I have just never seen it applied. nevermind.

[Johnny Toetags]

Hmmm, well there's pro's and cons.


Let's say fighter 1 clearly won the first round... and then clashes heads with fighter 2 in the second round. Fighter 1's efforts would be rewarded by that rule.


BUT...

Let's say fighter 1 clearly won the first round... BUTfighter 2 whoops his ass big time in round 2, and then later in the round they clash heads. Fighter 1's efforts would be rewarded by that rule.. but what about fighter 2?

[H]

to say if it is a good rule or bad rule is hard. on one hand a fighter could have totally dominated the first round then caught an accidental headbutt in the second and ends up with a giant gash in his head. in a case like that going to the scorecard is good. on the other hand, if both fighters were pretty much at a stalemate in the 1st and halfway thru the second until the headbutt occurred, then i think that may call for a rematch to happen since it was a stalemate. problem is you cant have it both ways. i guess the rule is good to have, though it leaves the opportunity for contraversy.

[Oliver Klosov]

I am having a hard time deciding if I like it or not - for the reasons you mentioned. I think it could be better if it were after 2 rounds you went to the cards. or maybe because of the sudden-ending nature of the sport it should just be a "no contest"

for instance if the Uno/Hansen fight had a stoppage because of an accidental headbutt Uno would walk away with the win - but since no incident occured they were allowed to fight the entire fight and Hansen was able to pull it out with that stunning KO.

I think I'm leaning to the "no contest" - as unsatisfying as it is.

[H]

I am having a hard time deciding if I like it or not - for the reasons you mentioned. I think it could be better if it were after 2 rounds you went to the cards. or maybe because of the sudden-ending nature of the sport it should just be a "no contest"

for instance if the Uno/Hansen fight had a stoppage because of an accidental headbutt Uno would walk away with the win - but since no incident occured they were allowed to fight the entire fight and Hansen was able to pull it out with that stunning KO.

I think I'm leaning to the "no contest" - as unsatisfying as it is.

the unpredictability of the sport makes this one hard. Uno vs Hansen is a good example though. that fight was Uno's but he was gasses and decided to look away to his corner 2 seconds from the bell and ate that knee. i think the rule would be good to set if the fight goes the first 2 rounds. if you make it a no contest reguardless, then there will be uproars of pissed off people cause their fighter was dominating. to make both sides happy id like to see it goto after 2 rounds. that way the rule can benefit both the winning fighter, and give the other the benefit of the doubt that a KO could have happened if the cut didnt.

[Oliver Klosov]

the unpredictability of the sport makes this one hard. Uno vs Hansen is a good example though. that fight was Uno's but he was gasses and decided to look away to his corner 2 seconds from the bell and ate that knee. i think the rule would be good to set if the fight goes the first 2 rounds. if you make it a no contest reguardless, then there will be uproars of pissed off people cause their fighter was dominating. to make both sides happy id like to see it goto after 2 rounds. that way the rule can benefit both the winning fighter, and give the other the benefit of the doubt that a KO could have happened if the cut didnt.

yeah, but on the other hand, they also have the "no draw" rule - so in the event of a close/even fight and this occurs and they have to declare a winner that would piss people off too. No one is ever happy when a fight ends that way.

but I do think after the 2nd is more acceptable than after the 1st.

[H]

its basically gonna be impossible to please everybody. so they make this rule to please, i dunno, whoever, and say fuck the rest get over it. really is no other way to do it. to be honest how i would do it, is if its a regular fight use the 2nd round rule i thought up, and if it was a championship bout, sorry. its a NC reguardless because i want a legitimate win for the belt. win by KO, TKO, Sub. if there was no winner after 3 id implement a manditory overtime round, before it went into the Judges hands. in championship fights especially i think the outcome should be kept as far away from the judges as possible.

[Oliver Klosov]

its basically gonna be impossible to please everybody. so they make this rule to please, i dunno, whoever, and say fuck the rest get over it. really is no other way to do it. to be honest how i would do it, is if its a regular fight use the 2nd round rule i thought up, and if it was a championship bout, sorry. its a NC reguardless because i want a legitimate win for the belt. win by KO, TKO, Sub. if there was no winner after 3 id implement a manditory overtime round, before it went into the Judges hands. in championship fights especially i think the outcome should be kept as far away from the judges as possible.

yeah, that's kinda why I favor the "NC" in all fights if this occurs.

I think Pride should go back to the OT rule for title fights. it kinda sets it apart from a normal fight and creates the "championship distance"

[H]

yeah, kinda how UFC seperates their championship fights with 5 rounds. fights for belts are different and need to be treated differently in terms of winning the fight. you want to make sure its a decisive win if somebody is going to dethrone your champion. you want to make that happen wether it be with overtime rounds, or just adding more rounds to the fights.

[Oliver Klosov]

I couldn't agree more. The title fights are special and should be treated as such.

[H]

yeah, and things like Couture vs Belfort where Belfort won from the fluke cut need to not ever happen. that fight should have been called off. i dont care what anybody says. there is no justification for a win like that, and it makes your organization look bad.

[Oliver Klosov]

yeah, and things like Couture vs Belfort where Belfort won from the fluke cut need to not ever happen. that fight should have been called off. i dont care what anybody says. there is no justification for a win like that, and it makes your organization look bad.

See, I have mixed feelings about that. because it was uberlame and the most unsatifying finish to an anticipated title fight - but the injury occured from a legal technique. There is no way to word that into a rule to make it a no contest. There is no other real option than to declare Vitor the winner. IMO.

[H]

See, I have mixed feelings about that. because it was uberlame and the most unsatifying finish to an anticipated title fight - but the injury occured from a legal technique. There is no way to word that into a rule to make it a no contest. There is no other real option than to declare Vitor the winner. IMO.

wasnt it proved that a deficiency in the gloves at the time caused the cut to occur? i agree it was a legal technique but in a situation like that, if infact i heard right that it was the glove and not vitors punch, the decision should have been changed after the event was over and tapes were reviewed.

[Oliver Klosov]

wasnt it proved that a deficiency in the gloves at the time caused the cut to occur? i agree it was a legal technique but in a situation like that, if infact i heard right that it was the glove and not vitors punch, the decision should have been changed after the event was over and tapes were reviewed.

on what grounds? the NSAC deemed the gloves legal before the fight. It was a design flaw that they have since remedied - but all the gloves were that way then.

[H]

on what grounds? the NSAC deemed the gloves legal before the fight. It was a design flaw that they have since remedied - but all the gloves were that way then.

you said it. on the grounds that there was a design flaw. they said that the cut would not have occurred without that design flaw. i guess im just one that wants to see fair fights all the time. if Vitors hand actually caused the cut id have no feelings on the fight whatsoever except that Vitor won by cut.

[Oliver Klosov]

you said it. on the grounds that there was a design flaw. they said that the cut would not have occurred without that design flaw. i guess im just one that wants to see fair fights all the time. if Vitors hand actually caused the cut id have no feelings on the fight whatsoever except that Vitor won by cut.

right, but they were previously approved. If there is no rule on the books about "design flaws" then you can't make a ruling on a rule that "should've existed" even then - who determines what a flaw is?

[H]

right, but they were previously approved. If there is no rule on the books about "design flaws" then you can't make a ruling on a rule that "should've existed" even then - who determines what a flaw is?

your right, its too much holes to jump through on that one. i guess this is one of those situations where u know it would be only right to the sport to call it a NC and rematch, but the rules state it is considered a fair victory.

[Oliver Klosov]

yeah, they did the only thing they could - call for a rematch as quickly as they could.

[ashrael]

I like the rule as long as there is a significant amount of time that the fighters are fighting. I don't think 5 minutes is enough; I would rather see it if it was after the 2nd round.