# Automatic point deduction for grabbing the cage?



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

I was just watching the Ricco/McSweeney fight for the first time. At one point in the first round, McSweeney grabs the cage and it clearly prevents a takedown. I think a point should be taken away without warning if someone grabs the cage to try and stop a takedown. It is incredibly cheap and there isnt a whole lot of incentive not to do it at the moment. Most of the time, fighters get several warnings and are even told that they are going to lose a point the next time they do it in a fight. That gives them free reign to keep grabbing the cage until they know they are about to lose a point. If you take a point away the first time it is done, fighters will stop doing it. Thoughts?


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

It isn't that straight forward in my opinion, alot of the time it's pure reflex on the fighters part. If a referee can judge whether it was reflex or not that would be best. If it is in fact that, then a warning should suffice. If on the other hand it's blatent (grabbing before he's even off balance) then a point should be deducted straight away.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

Maybe it was just my intense hate for McSweeney that made me start thinking that way. He stopped himself from being taken down twice in the first round by grabbing the cage, he def should have lost a point.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

I'm probably the minority, but I say away with the rule. It's the environment they fight in, why not allow them to use it. Not like it makes that big of a difference anyways.


----------



## K R Y (Nov 19, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> Maybe it was just my intense hate for McSweeney that made me start thinking that way. He stopped himself from being taken down twice in the first round by grabbing the cage, he def should have lost a point.


Oh absolutely, I hate Sweeny as well haha. But for the general rule I think fighters should be fine with a warning IF it 100% looks like it was reflex and after being told to let go they do without hesitation.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

I agree in cases were fighters make it a habit, look at Kenny Florian, nobody grabs the cage more than KenFlo and yet he never seems to get a point deduction.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

I think having the ref have some discretion is better than automatic but the refs should be quicker to take a point away. In a close round getting or not getting a takedown makes a huge difference.

On a side note, what about Ricco? I thought there was some talk of him getting back into the UFC. He is on an 11 fight win streak (admittedly against weak competition).

On another side note it is gratifying to see McSweeney lose his 3rd in a row, a class A douche all the way.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

I realize I'm gonna get a lot of heat for this, but...

Get rid of the cage and nobody will grab it. Problem solved.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

Drogo said:


> I think having the ref have some discretion is better than automatic but the refs should be quicker to take a point away. In a close round getting or not getting a takedown makes a huge difference.
> 
> On a side note, what about Ricco? I thought there was some talk of him getting back into the UFC. He is on an 11 fight win streak (admittedly against weak competition).
> 
> On another side note it is gratifying to see McSweeney lose his 3rd in a row, a class A douche all the way.


I think the UFC would be happy to bring Ricco back if he could get down to 205. Right now, he is two small to be real competitive with the good heavys in the UFC, but he could do very well and out grapple most people if he could make LHW. Just my guess.


----------



## khoveraki (Jun 28, 2009)

I hate all this "reflex" talk. We train in the cage for take-downs all the time and nobody is in there grabbing the cage. I don't see how you could just all of a sudden develop that reflex in the fight.



Unless these guys are grabbing the cage in training this is intentional foul. Fighters understand that grabbing the cage will likely keep them from getting take down, and won't get them a point reduction until the third time or so.



Make it an instant point deduction and watch just how easily these fighters resist grabbing the cage. The "reflex" will disappear, I guarantee it.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> I think the UFC would be happy to bring Ricco back if he could get down to 205. Right now, he is two small to be real competitive with the good heavys in the UFC, but he could do very well and out grapple most people if he could make LHW. Just my guess.


Actually Ricco has said that the UFC very likely does not want him back ever. The story was something along the lines of him betting like 200,000 on himself when he fought Couture and the fact that because of the Fertitta's casino connections and the fragile state of mma at the time that he could have seriously damaged the credibility of the company.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

I disagree. I don't think grabbing the cage is a big problem, in fact I wouldn't mind if it were 100% legal to grab the fence, but not hold onto it. 

If anything like this were to be administered I would suggest it be for illegal strikes to downed opponents and for fighters who have violated some rule in multiple fights. Kongo would not be graced for ever hitting an opponent in the groin, he would simply be deducted a point, burns would not be warned for poking someone in the eye he would just be deducted a point.


----------



## KillerShark1985 (Jan 6, 2010)

I think a warning the first time and then point deduction if it happens again after is a more fair system, kind of like 2 yellows make a red kind of offence imo.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well the thing with Ricco versus MacSweeney was that it was in an unsanctioned jurisdiction. Britain doesn't have a sanctioning body and BAMMA has their own rules that are merly modeled after the Unified Rules. Under the Unified Rules it's an automatic point.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Actually it is not an "automatic" point deduction. It is at the referee's discretion. Automatically taking a point is not as cut and dry as you might think. Since fighters are allowed to press off of the cage, often times it looks like they are grabbing the cage. Secondly as some have indicated grabbing for something when you are fighting is instinct. If you are falling backwards and you grab the cage it is not very likely to impact position. 

However if grabbing does affect the position, you take away the position of advantage and then assess a point deduction. The other consideration is if grabbing the cage doesn't affect the ultimate position but requires one competitor a substantial amount of (additional) energy to achieve the takedown then you have to do something, because you cannot allow an unfair advantage on the basis of violating the rules.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

I think that it should be up to the official to enforce an artificial position should the grab potentially give the transgressor an advantage. Even if its unfair (let's say they grab the cage on a weak takedown attempt, which wouldn't have led to a takedown) still put the transgressor in a full guard scenario. The burden of punishment is on the person who breaks the rules.

Second offence should be a point deduction.


----------



## mma_official (Feb 6, 2009)

Iuanes said:


> I think that it should be up to the official to enforce an artificial position should the grab potentially give the transgressor an advantage. Even if its unfair (let's say they grab the cage on a weak takedown attempt, which wouldn't have led to a takedown) still put the transgressor in a full guard scenario. The burden of punishment is on the person who breaks the rules.
> 
> Second offence should be a point deduction.


You hit the nail on the head; the issue is one of fairness. Since we don't know who would have ended up on top we can't arbitrarily say I'm going to give fighter 'A' top position. The rule of thumb is if the offender ends up on top, then stand them up (taking away the advantage they gained by cheating) and give a hard warning or take a point. If the offender lands on the bottom, leave them on them bottom and if it was egregious take the point without a halt to the action.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> I was just watching the Ricco/McSweeney fight for the first time. At one point in the first round, McSweeney grabs the cage and it clearly prevents a takedown. I think a point should be taken away without warning if someone grabs the cage to try and stop a takedown. It is incredibly cheap and there isnt a whole lot of incentive not to do it at the moment. Most of the time, fighters get several warnings and are even told that they are going to lose a point the next time they do it in a fight. That gives them free reign to keep grabbing the cage until they know they are about to lose a point. If you take a point away the first time it is done, fighters will stop doing it. Thoughts?


fighters do it all the time. i tend to agree but at this time its up to ref's discretion and would take a lot of work to change the unified rules to force the point deduction.



Toxic said:


> Actually Ricco has said that the UFC very likely does not want him back ever. The story was something along the lines of him betting like 200,000 on himself when he fought Couture and the fact that because of the Fertitta's casino connections and the fragile state of mma at the time that he could have seriously damaged the credibility of the company.


haha, wow. never heard that. why wouldnt he use a proxy for such a bet? stupid to be that obviously shady.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well remember that the Ricco versus McSweeney fight took place in the UK. Even though alot of the UK promotions follow the Unified Rules, it's not completely enforced there cause of a lack of any sports commissions. Out there it's at will.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well the thing with Ricco versus MacSweeney was that it was in an unsanctioned jurisdiction. Britain doesn't have a sanctioning body and BAMMA has their own rules that are merly modeled after the Unified Rules. Under the Unified Rules it's an automatic point.


Is it? because I've seen refs warn guys many times without deducting a point here in the US.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well as stated earlier it's up to the refs discretion. They might've made a call that wasn't exactly accurate. But it's not up to us.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well as stated earlier it's up to the refs discretion. They might've made a call that wasn't exactly accurate. But it's not up to us.


well you just stated (in the post I quoted) that in Unified Rules regions it's an automatic deduction, which is what I was referring to. It's not an automatic deduction if the ref is allowed to warn the fighter.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

It depends on the situation. In the Evens versus Ortiz match when Tito grabed the cage he was deducted a point without warning. In other instances they have been warned so it's up in the air.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> It depends on the situation. In the Evens versus Ortiz match when Tito grabed the cage he was deducted a point without warning. In other instances they have been warned so it's up in the air.


Well yeah, that's what I meant. An automatic deduction would mean the ref would be required to subtract the point any time he noticed a cage grab.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Ok, I'm with you right there. But my point is that not all promotions outside the United States would follow that change. Promotions inside the United States would have to abide by it.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Ok, I'm with you right there. But my point is that not all promotions outside the United States would follow that change. Promotions inside the United States would have to abide by it.


... and we have come full circle. my point was that promotions in the united states dont necessarily abide by it, even in Unified Rules states. are you saying now that you were referring to a proposed change, rather than a current rule?


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Wait, is it a current required rule to automatially deduct a point or to give a warning? Cause if it is a rule then it should be enforced. If not then a warning is valid before a point deduction.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Wait, is it a current required rule to automatially deduct a point or to give a warning? Cause if it is a rule then it should be enforced. If not then a warning is valid before a point deduction.


...


... 

no, i dont think it is a rule. but you said it was an automatic deduction under unified rules. thats what i thought we've been discussing this whole time.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I just looked up the Unified Rules and grabbing the cage counts as a foul. So under those rules it should be a point deduction should you grab it. BAMMA probably doesn't feel that way though.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> I just looked up the Unified Rules and grabbing the cage counts as a foul. So under those rules it should be a point deduction should you grab it. BAMMA probably doesn't feel that way though.


a foul does not equal an automatic point deduction. a groin kick is a foul too and GSP did like two of them against Hughes without a deduction just as an example. Kongo got Crocop in the nuts a ton of times.

it seems like perhaps i misunderstood what you meant by automatic deduction and that's the confusion here.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well it depends on whether its intentional or not. Normally a groin kick is unintentional so something like that would be an unintentional foul. On average, grabbing the fence is an intentional foul so that should be an automatic point deduction.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well it depends on whether its intentional or not. Normally a groin kick is unintentional so something like that would be an unintentional foul. On average, grabbing the fence is an intentional foul so that should be an automatic point deduction.


yeah, but that's still ref discretion. in other words, it's completely up to the ref's opinion in UR regions. nothing is guaranteed.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

It's up to the refs discretion in any region. He obviously didn't feel that the circumstances in the Ricco verus McSceeney fight warrented deducting a point. It was the case though in the Rashad versus Tito fight though and had an effect.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

mma_official said:


> You hit the nail on the head; the issue is one of fairness. Since we don't know who would have ended up on top we can't arbitrarily say I'm going to give fighter 'A' top position. The rule of thumb is if the offender ends up on top, then stand them up (taking away the advantage they gained by cheating) and give a hard warning or take a point. If the offender lands on the bottom, leave them on them bottom and if it was egregious take the point without a halt to the action.


Ok, but what happens when a fighter grabs the cage and successfully thwarts a takedown? Is it too harsh here to give a point deduction but too lenient to do nothing? In my opinion, the onus of unfairness goes to the transgressor. If you don't want to be put on the ground arbitrarily, then don't grab the cage.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well they shouldn't grab it cause its against the rules. I think the cage should be made of some material that makes it impossible to grab. There might be a time when that is possible.


----------



## Iuanes (Feb 17, 2009)

Like what? The only think I can think off would be a soft plexi-glass substance that would be rigged to give a little. Easier said than done.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Iuanes said:


> Like what? The only think I can think off would be a soft plexi-glass substance that would be rigged to give a little. Easier said than done.


and they'd have to wipe down the wall surface thoroughly to make it visible through blood, sweat, spit, snot, and oil at least between every round (and it would still be a problem very quickly during rounds with any amount of clinching). not really feasible, they can barely keep the mat clean as it is.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. For now we have to make due with a fence which can be grabed. Wasn't a problem in the early days.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world. For now we have to make due with a fence which can be grabed. Wasn't a problem in the early days.


that's cause no one had realized how it could prevent wrestlers from dominating. remember (I think it was UFC 11) when that dude just held onto the cage and walked around the perimeter to keep from getting taken down by his opponent before the no grab rule was implemented?


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Either way it's up to the discretion of the ref and for the present there isn't much we can do about that. At some point someone needs to propose some rule changes at the ABC annual meeting. Though that hasn't always proved effective.


----------

