Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Nevada State Athletic Commission approve new rules

Options
  • 20-08-2009 10:10am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭


    Just read on MMA Weekleys twitter that the NSAC has passed 2 new rules that could be very big.
    1 permits the use of Instant Replays in instances where an illegal move is suspected to have had a direct impact in the ending of a fight.
    The other allows 5 round non-championship fights where the competitors are "championship quality" so we could be getting 5 round superfights in the future :)


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭PADRAIC.M


    sweet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,871 ✭✭✭Karmafaerie


    Instant replay sounds good in theory.
    But how would it work?
    If a fight is stopped, they can hardly just start up again.
    A rocked or gassed fighter would have a chance to recover.

    I'd say this'll lead to a lot more NC fights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    I dont think Instant Replay is the best way for them to phrase it.
    I think its more a case of a fights ending being directly influenced by something like an unseen eye poke/groin strike can be appealed afterwards


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Dancor


    Good news about the replays IMO. Dont think we need 5 rounds for non championship fights though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    I dont think Instant Replay is the best way for them to phrase it.
    I think its more a case of a fights ending being directly influenced by something like an unseen eye poke/groin strike can be appealed afterwards

    It can only be used for fights that end via injury. The referee decides whether he wants to look at a replay or not. If he looks at it then he makes his decision there and then, there is no appeals process. Either the non-injured fighter would win via TKO, it would be a no contest because of an accidental foul, or it would be a DQ for an intentional foul

    New Jersey has had the same rule in place for nearly three years. I can only remember it being used once though

    The five round non-championship fights aren't a bad thing. I think that they should only be used for the main event on a card with no title matches though. Like Sanchez vs Guida recently, who wouldn't have liked to see two more rounds of that? Or Franklin vs Wanderlei/Henderson, those were reasonably tight fights where another couple of rounds could have decided a more clear cut winner

    The only problem there is that most UFC title fights take place in Vegas and I'm not sure how many cards they'd have there that don't have a title fight. So this rule mightn't have any effect on us at all. Unless the UFC decides to make a semi-main event a 5 round fight, which I can't see happening due to time restraints on PPV


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,843 ✭✭✭GSPfan


    dancor wrote: »
    Good news about the replays IMO. Dont think we need 5 rounds for non championship fights though.

    We definitely need 5 round fights for non championship main events. Rich Franklin and Dan Henderson springs to mind. Franklin would have won that if it went another 2 rounds. Serra v Hughes is another one. It gives more of a chance of a finish instead of a decision in an important fight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,659 ✭✭✭unknown13


    The other allows 5 round non-championship fights where the competitors are "championship quality" so we could be getting 5 round superfights in the future :)

    I like the sounds of that rule, there are a few fights recently that should of been 5 rounds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Dancor


    GSPfan wrote: »
    We definitely need 5 round fights for non championship main events. Rich Franklin and Dan Henderson springs to mind. Franklin would have won that if it went another 2 rounds. Serra v Hughes is another one. It gives more of a chance of a finish instead of a decision in an important fight.

    No, all them lads knew they had three rounds to win before fighting. You cant say ''oh he would have one if it went on longer''


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,843 ✭✭✭GSPfan


    Well I can say it and I did! :) But I agree with ya that you can't just say "He would have won". I suppose I should have said that Rich Franklins odds of winning would be greatly increased against Dan Henderson in a 5 round fight.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,193 ✭✭✭Turd Ferguson


    When are they implimenting these rules? Could Randy v Nog be a 5 round fight?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    When are they implimenting these rules? Could Randy v Nog be a 5 round fight?

    No, that fight is on in Oregon, not Nevada

    I'd assume that the rules can be used from now, they've already been approved


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Good to see the sport moving forward. 2 more pro active rules :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,448 ✭✭✭Roper


    I like the 5 rounder one. It means that there could be really good headliner fights in cases where the championship bouts would be of a poorer quality. It may also open the door for title holding fighters taking on each other at different weight classes where the belt wouldn't be on the line.

    Sweet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭Fozzy


    I was taking a look at the commission's website, it says that they only have the power to make special attraction fights 5 rounds. So it will just be big fights that could be made longer, not that I think we'll be seeing much of it in the UFC. And not many other big promotions run in Nevada

    EDIT: Ok, I did a little bit of research on this to see how likely we are to see a 5 round non-title fight in the UFC

    I'm working under the assumption that they won't have a 5 round non-title fight on the same card as a title fight. The only time that I can remember them having two 5 round fights on the same card was UFC 100, and that was a special case. They were worried about time during that show so I can't see them wanting to do that again

    The last ten PPVs that they had in Nevada all had title fights. They usually hold them there because they can charge the most for tickets there. I didn't look back any further than that, it took me to UFC 74

    The non-PPV shows that they had in that time were TUF finales that didn't have fights that would have been approved for 5 rounds, the Silva vs Irvin show that might have been approved but it was over in a minute anyway, and shows headlined by the likes of Swick vs Kampmann and Diaz vs Neer

    The only fight that I can see that might have been made 5 rounds is the recent Guida vs Sanchez fight. And possibly the Chuck vs Wanderlei fight if the UFC weren't bothered about the timing on that show

    Maybe that's worthless research, but my point is that we shouldn't be expecting very many 5 round non-title fights at all


Advertisement