PDA

View Full Version : NSAC Adds Instant Replay, Clarifies Greasing Rule, Asks, ‘Happy Now, BJ?’



Tony
20-08-2009, 11:01
NSAC Adds Instant Replay, Clarifies Greasing Rule, Asks, ‘Happy Now, BJ?’


http://cdn.cagepotato.com/www/sites/default/files/burns-johnson.jpg
('After further review, the ruling in the cage is reversed. Anthony Johnson will not be charged with a timeout, and Kevin Burns may now be referred to as "Pokey" for the rest of his career.')
There’s a saying in our little world: as the Nevada State Athletic Commission goes, so goes MMA. Nah, I just made that up right now, but it might as well be a saying. The NSAC plays a pivotal role in dictating general policy in the fight world, and for the most part they’ve set the gold standard that California has repeatedly failed to live up to (http://www.cagepotato.com/2008/05/16/sean-sherk-may-sue-the-csac). Now they’re really getting with the times and adding instant replay for MMA (they're not the first (http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=3225&zoneid=13), however), but only for specific circumstances. Keith Kizer explains when replay can be used (http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/news/viewarticle.php?id=2946):


“It will be on the immediate ending of a fight due to injury and the referee feels that it would be beneficial to him or her to review the tape to see what the cause of the injury was. What caused that injury - was it a foul, was it a legal blow?”
In other words, Kevin Burns’ TKO victory via eye-poke against Anthony Johnson could be reviewed, but we’re not going to be running the tape back to every inside leg kick to see if was really a groin shot – unless it’s a groin shot that ends the fight, in which case it will probably be pretty obvious.
So that’s good news, right? No more “lack of remedy” (http://www.cagepotato.com/2008/09/15/anthony-johnson-loses-appeal-loss-via-eye-pokes-will-stand/) problems for fights that end with fouls, and the next time somebody callously forces their eye into one of Cro Cop’s fingers (http://www.cagepotato.com/cro-cop-stretches-truth-exciting-new-ways) there will actually be some consequences beyond just blurred vision. But the NSAC didn’t stop there, they also clarified their rules on greasing so they apply specifically for MMA and not just boxing:

“Boxing rules state that you can’t have excessive greasing. But we clarified that today and made it specific to MMA, that you cannot have any type of foreign substance on your body, hair, gloves or clothing that could result in an unfair advantage. But again it is up to the referee as the sole arbiter to judge whether or not any such foul took place and if it did, how it should be handled.”
We all know what the genesis of this rule clarification is, but does it actually solve anything?
In the case of GSP the NSAC wiped him down with a towel when they became aware that there was Vaseline on his back. Typically these greasing accusations imply that the guilty party found a way to get slippery other than wantonly applying some greasing agent between rounds, so in order for the referee to do anything he’d have to be able to see that the fighter has grease coming out of his pores, which seems tough to do. Call me crazy, but I don’t think this minor concession is going to be enough to get B.J. Penn to call off his fatwa against the state of the Nevada.