Rule Changes Possible Following Johnson-Burns Decision
On July 19th Anthony Johnson was defeated by Kevin Burns at UFC Fight Night 14 via technical knockout, but that isn’t the entire story of a loss that could ultimately result in rule changes both in Nevada where the bout took place and possibly elsewhere.
Following repeated warnings throughout the opening rounds for incidentally poking Johnson in the eyes Burns dropped Johnson to the canvas with a deep-but-accidental eye gouge in the third frame. After collapsing in pain Johnson was unable to defend himself or continue the fight so the referee waived the fight off and awarded a TKO victory to Burns.
Immediate replays of the finish showed that Johnson was downed by a finger to the eye, not a punch as the originally believed, but the decision was final and Burns was declared the victor via technical knockout.
Fans questioned the ruling, asking why Johnson wasn’t declared the winner via disqualification as he was defeated using a banned maneuver or at the very least why the bout wasn’t declared a no contest. Johnson and his agent, Ken Pavia, challenged the rendered decision, filing an unsuccessful appeal with the Nevada State Athletic Commission of the July loss.
The NSAC last week denied the appeal due to a “lack of remedy”.
The current MMA rules in Nevada do not allow for the athletic commission to change a decision rendered at the end of any contest or exhibition unless one of three situations occur:
- The Commission determines that there was collusion affecting the result of the contest or exhibition;
- The compilation of the scorecards of the judges discloses an error which shows that the decision was given to the wrong unarmed combatant; or
- As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.
When asked by MMAFrenzy.com (www.mmafrenzy.com) whether the rules may be modified for decisions such as the one rendered in Johnson-Burns to be altered following a review process Nevada State Athletic Commission Executive Director Keith Kizer simply replied “perhaps”.
Though any potential rule changes likely won’t happen for some time, the decision rendered in Anthony Johnson’s loss to Kevin Burns highlights the need for MMA rules to be an evolving system that can accompany change. Keep in mind, MMA remains a young sport. It’s rules aren’t yet completely refined and further rule changes will be necessary to keep the integrity of mixed martial arts intact.
Loading ...
I definitely thinking that an evolving system is a good idea, especially at this young stage in the sport. NBA, NFL, NASCAR, MLB, NHL, pretty much all of the other major sport leagues/associations are constantly looking at the rules and how they can improve their product. The UFC and MMA in general should take a lesson from their success (and failures in some cases) continue to look at ways to make sure that they put on the best show possible.
@Justin – Right on. Look at all the major leagues and the changes they’ve implemented in the last few years. NASCAR went to a playoff system and the NFL, MLB, and college football all added instant replay.
In order to become a mainstream sport MMA needs to undergo some rule changes along the line to allow for the sport to evolve as more quirks arise such as this one.
This isn’t just a MMA thing, those NAC rules apply to all “unarmed combat sports”. You could have the same issue in boxing, obviously not an eye poke, but a missed call by the ref… say a low blow.
I think that one of the biggest changes for the rules needs to be the allowance of knees the head of a grounded opponent. PRIDE functioned very well for years allowing both the knees as well as kicks to head of a downed opponent.
While i definitely do NOT think that ’soccer kicks’ or kicks to head of a grounded opponent should be allowed, i do feel the knees would be a huge help. Allowing fighters to use their knees in those situations would really help to avoid a lot of the stalemates that happen with many of the wrestler’s in MMA.
I am glad to see something come out of it.I still wished they had enough common sense to allow Nick to work Nate’s corner for that UFN Finale last year. No matter what you think of the Nick that was just morally wrong to punish Nate by default.
I think Ruble got hella played. It’s good to have the rule changes, but i don’t kicks to the head to a downed opponent?? That’s just gay dude and i don’t agree with that
The ultimate goal of MMA is to have the best fights possible where the superior fighter is victorious. Any system that allows a technique like a finger in the eye (whether intenitonal or accidental) takes away from that goal. Even though the comissions hands were tied once the bout was stopped, that type of tactic needs to be decided by the referee. First time, accident and warning. Second time, deduction of a point. Third time DQ. In a combat sport like MMA accidents happen… but if a fighter can’t be in control enough to stop himself after three times he is a danger to his opponents to have in the ring.
I wonder what the effect of this will be on Kevin Burns career. He stated after the fight that he can only throw open hand strikes. I wonder if, to the UFC, that makes him a potential threat for this same type of incident to happen to other fighters that face him. If the answer to that is yes, I don’t know that they would want to risk other fighters having to get surgery like Johnson did, even if they still get credit for the win.
Re Justin…
I was under the impression he was throwing open palms in stead of closed fist jabs because of an injury, not a permanent condition. If it’s a permanent thing you could be right. If it’s the result of a training injury that is something totally different. Either way, if you’re going to throw open palm strikes, you need to do it right. You can’t do it with your finger tips leading the way.
MMAFan,
Maybe it was just a training injury and I misheard him during the event. I hope so, because if not it could pose career problems for him, besides not having a real jab.
Justin,
I could be mistaken just as easily. I was ticked off that he wasn’t DQ’d and not listening real carefully. I did think Burns showed a lot of class by telling the crowd to quit booing and basically saying ‘It’s a fight guys. S**t happens when you’re fighting’.
And no kidding about it being a major problem for him besides the jab. I know if I were an opponent I’d be doing head kicks all night just to make his hand get up there and feel my shin!
Yeah, not a good career move. “I’m an MMA fighter, but I can’t punch with my left hand.”
I kind of thought this would be an instant replay sort of situation. Seems to me that instant replay would be good in situations like this.
I understood it to be a permanent injury and that Burns has to throw open strikes.
“When asked by MMAFrenzy.com (mmafrenzy.com) whether the rules may be modified for decisions such as the one rendered in Johnson-Burns to be altered following a review process Nevada State Athletic Commission Executive Director Keith Kizer simply replied “perhapsâ€.”
Kris,
Nice job! Well done.
Agreed, nice work Kris.
yeah that fight was BS burns should of been DQ, im sure he made some excuse that hes had a broken hand in the past thats no excuse if u can punch then dont fight.
Its a good move forwould for MMA.
It should of been a DQ or a No Contest.
Good. Its about time they adapt.
yeah Burns states he broke his hand in a “boxer’s fracture” and then as can happen with some fighters he came back before the bone had strengthened and it broke again. After you break a bone it becomes extremely brittle so it’s understandable why he throws like that but, that doesn’t negate the fact that the strike still has to be legal and if it cannot be then that means he has to hang them up.
Alfred C.- I would not bet on ever seeing leg strikes to the head of a downed opponent ever come back. Part of what helped the sport become legal again was by those rule changes: eye gouges, head butts, small joint manipulation, and leg strikes to the head of a downed opp. becoming illegal. To try and change something like that you would have to reregister with every state athletic commission and you know there will be a lot of states that won’t allow it so don’t bet on it. Even though I agree.
…also glad to see the rule changes. You have to have an evolving sport in order to be a long-term mainstay. From helmets and facemasks in football to batting helmets for players and coaches, you gotta constantly evolve.
So should the Nate Marquardt fight against Thales Lietes be looked at for appeal too since the ref said he hit him in the back of the head when the replay showed he didn’t costing Marquardt the decision loss?
So is this going to be like reviewing a play like in the NFL or am i just reading this wrong?
I don’t think it would reach that point this early B Free but, you do raise a valid point though. I would think it would apply only in TKO’s though because split decisions are inherently close and not decided by the referee. Also the Marquardt-Leites fight would actually fall under the old rule due to the aforementioned present criteria.
Maybe more along the lines of F1 where they review something after the fact and then decide that Ferrari should have won over Hamilton and take the win away later that week.
I’m afraid this fight is in the books. It’s done and over with, but if they make the rule change, and they haven’t made one yet, then MAYBE that kind of mistake won’t happen in the future. I think the best solution would be for the fight to go to the judges at the point of the inadvertant foul and let them decide who was ahead up to that point… Don’t hate me if you disagree, it’s just my opinion. It means nothing more than that.
Yea but don’t this make the rematch that much more interesting?
Instant replay in MMA is a BAD BAD BAD BAD idea! Instant replay in most sports is designed to overturn difficult calls to see (line calls in tennis, bad football spots, now determining home runs, etc). They are not used to undermine referee’s authority when it comes to determining inadvertent fouls vs intentional or repetitive fouls. I’ve met very few fighters that inentionally break the rules, but those that do do not last long in the sport. And guys… this is MMA… its FIGHTING. In the heat of battle things happen. And part of being a fighter is being able to put up with that and fight back and win anyway. I do think that the rules about DQ’s need to be more concrete and enforced. Taking several fingers to the eye in one round is pretty ridiculous. And I like the idea of judges being able to overturn a ref’s judgement. Ref’s (as good as UFC’s are) are human and can miss things. But instant replay… No, this isn’t the sport for that.
I don’t think we need instant replay, especially in a way that they would stop a fight and go to the replay, then get back to the action. Or even that they should use it for judging who won a fight. However, a means for reversing a bad call such as this, where a fight got stopped and gave one fighter a TKO victory via something that should have gotten him DQed is a good thing, but it should take place after the fight is over, much like the review process in some racing organizations. They take wins away after the fact if a fighter tests positive for drugs, they could take it away if they found that they won using an illegal strike/maneuver. We can all agree that we wouldn’t want to see a TKO stoppage for a groin shot (even though they wear a cup…), an eye gouging should be the same.
It should affect Kevin Burns career! It affected Johnsons! Burns is an mma that **** slaps. I’ve never heard of anything so absurd. Common you’re a freakin fighter. Too bad for Johnson but I’m sure the UFC will do him right. As for Burns, maybe he should switch to oil wrestling in a bar or something.
just call the bout a No Contest and move on already………. Accidents happen even though I saw that fight and it could have very well been intentional IMO .But thats about all you can do
@DolfanG and @Justin – Thanks. I’m trying to bring more original content to MMAFrenzy.com so your support is appreciated.
Kris,
You’re welcome, and thanks for having the site.