A somewhat contradictory and interesting look at the Kevin Burns/Anthony Johnson fight controversy courtesy of the Official Unified MMA rules definitions as written by the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board and via http://www.state.nj.us/lps/sacb/docs/martial.html . These are the official explanations on what the situation calls for as a ruling when an opponent is unable to continue do to an illegal maneuver. Section (a) and (b) both are applicable in this case, however seem to inherently oppose one another.
13:46-24A.16 Injuries sustained during competition
(a) If an injury sustained during competition as a result of a legal maneuver is severe enough to terminate a bout, the injured contestant loses by technical knockout.
(b) If an injury sustained during competition as a result of an intentional foul is severe enough to terminate a bout, the contestant causing the injury loses by disqualification.
As you can see the first entry seems to support the current official decision on the fight. While the second statement appears to call for a DQ loss to Kevin Burns, instead of the loss for Anthony Johnson. With Johnson’s management looking into the situation, it seems that an explanation from the Nevada State Athletic Commission may be the only way to clarify which ruling should be appropriate in the Burns/Johnson case.
Loading ...
July 21st, 2008 at 5:21pm
Amy, the definitions you’ve posted don’t support either decision from the criteria I’ve seen. What I’ve seen is as follows:
Anthony Johnson was injured by Kevin Burns as the result of a strike that was (A) unintentional and (B) illegal.
The first rule is eliminated because the eye gouge is not a “legal manuever.” As a result, Burns cannot be given the victory by way of a TKO.
The second rul is eliminated because the eye gouge was not an “intentional foul.” As a result, Johnson cannot be given the victory by disqualification.
So the only reasonable conclusion is a No Contest, which I was surprised they didn’t rule the fight initially.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:28pm
I agree, however I think the officials went with the first one because of either they thought the punch that followed the eye gouge actually had landed and that was the legal manuever, or the punch that Burns delivered when Johnson was on the ground was the legal manuever.
I think either of those was probably what prompted the TKO ruling in the firt place. And that the punch on the ground possibly could still verify the inital ruling, if the NSAC feels it should stand. That’s why I said both are applicable.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:45pm
I agree with you about what the refs thought. They’re initial thought process, though, is wrong.
Disability of a fighter by way of an illegal strike has never been ruled a stoppage before (see the Couture/Liddell fights), and it seems logical that the NSAC will overturn this ruling with a slow motion replay.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:57pm
Josh: You didn’t think the third shot was intentional? Maybe it wasn’t malicious, but didn’t Burns realize that nearly every palm strike of his would result in an eye gouge?
Here’s how I see it. If I attempt to kick the inside of your leg, by my leg is unable to perform the kick and I kick your groin…twice, shouldn’t I realize that I will be unable to kick you legally…and stop?!
July 21st, 2008 at 6:04pm
I don’t know. Ask GSP about the groin kicks. I’m sure he’s thought about it before.
Still, if the palm strike is a legit part of your game, it becomes reflexive, and that’s what I saw from Burns.
That said, I have no problem with him being DQ’d, as Anthony is a friend of mine, and I picked him to win that fight.
Still, I expect this to be a ruled NC. I don’t expect them to overturn the ruling to a DQ, just take the win away and be done with it.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:09pm
Thats just like what I said, nowadays it seems every other fighter does the palm thing, it would be hard to curb that with guys training like that for years.
It brings up an interesting subject on the tape replay issue, if they should possibly have that live to avoid these kinda of calls or just rely on it after the fact.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:10pm
Haha, dragging GSP through the mud, eh?
With the palm strike being reflexive, I could still be considered intentional. I’d like to see a NC as well…you should also ask Anthony why he’s so content with this loss? He should be calling the NSAC himself.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:16pm
I didn’t say anything that wasn’t true about GSP. We all saw the fight with Hughes. Matt might have dramatized them a little, but they were there.
He’s not content with his loss, but he’d rather get back in the gym and work. That’s just how he is.
July 21st, 2008 at 7:56pm
Well at least he has a good agent - Ken Pavia.