Lesnar wishes Dean was his ref against Mir the first time around

GSP didn't do anything i didn't think he would against Penn, except for the action on top. GSP takes anyone down but last time he just laid there against Penn. i'd like to know how the ref can warn GSP 3 times for shots to the back of the head and not do anything? what's worse is, he said he'd stand them up, no point deduction.

this is what the Lesnar fans were talking about when we said it was a BS stand up. where is the line drawn, 2 warnings? 3 warnings? and what's the deal with telling them you'll stand them up? what happened to point deduction? thank you UFC for once again showing there are no real set of rules.

Originally Posted by Hughes_GOAT

GSP didn't do anything i didn't think he would against Penn, except for the action on top. GSP takes anyone down but last time he just laid there against Penn. i'd like to know how the ref can warn GSP 3 times for shots to the back of the head and not do anything? what's worse is, he said he'd stand them up, no point deduction.

this is what the Lesnar fans were talking about when we said it was a BS stand up. where is the line drawn, 2 warnings? 3 warnings? and what's the deal with telling them you'll stand them up? what happened to point deduction? thank you UFC for once again showing there are no real set of rules.

what does it really matter,,he could have stood them up and took a point away at the same time,,BJ still gets a good thrashing and loses the fight anyway.

I thought Dean handled that well. It didn't alter the course of the fight, and he maintained control of the action. Better than having a ref interject themselves and become the story any day of the week, imo

Originally Posted by MMeh

I thought Dean handled that well. It didn't alter the course of the fight, and he maintained control of the action. Better than having a ref interject themselves and become the story any day of the week, imo

it's a rule that you can't hit behind the head, so either enforce it or don't have it.

Originally Posted by bradwright

what does it really matter,,he could have stood them up and took a point away at the same time,,BJ still gets a good thrashing and loses the fight anyway.

irrelevant, you either have rules and follow them or you're corrupt.

[rockdawg21]

Originally Posted by Hughes_GOAT

GSP didn't do anything i didn't think he would against Penn, except for the action on top. GSP takes anyone down but last time he just laid there against Penn. i'd like to know how the ref can warn GSP 3 times for shots to the back of the head and not do anything? what's worse is, he said he'd stand them up, no point deduction.

this is what the Lesnar fans were talking about when we said it was a BS stand up. where is the line drawn, 2 warnings? 3 warnings? and what's the deal with telling them you'll stand them up? what happened to point deduction? thank you UFC for once again showing there are no real set of rules.

[F34R]

Are you complaining about Lesnar losing? Or complaining about the very few inconsistencies in the fights?

I mean, cmon... it happens in EVERY sport when there are humans determining the outcome of a game by making decisions about a certain set of rules. It's NOT going to change. It won't EVER be 100% perfect. Unless you think you could be just that much better than these guys that do it already, I suggest you lighten up about it already. Sheesh.

For the record, UFC doesn't make the rules. It's the athletic comission of whatever state the event is being held in. I agree though, that it would be nice if the refs were more consistent but I'm not big on the "back of the head" rule when the "victim" is constantly moving into those shots.

The back of the head rule should be something like not punching the back of a head while a guy is trying to take you down. When you have the guy in mount and are trying to punch his face, but he's moving back and forth - should not apply.

[TexasRN]

Originally Posted by County Mike

For the record, UFC doesn't make the rules. It's the athletic comission of whatever state the event is being held in. I agree though, that it would be nice if the refs were more consistent but I'm not big on the "back of the head" rule when the "victim" is constantly moving into those shots.

The back of the head rule should be something like not punching the back of a head while a guy is trying to take you down. When you have the guy in mount and are trying to punch his face, but he's moving back and forth - should not apply.

I agree with you. I don't like seeing people get hit in the back of the head just due to the brain trauma it can cause BUT I also don't like that a fighter can be penalized for the other person turning their head in to those shots to take it there rather than be hit in the face or side of the head.


~Amy

Originally Posted by County Mike

For the record, UFC doesn't make the rules. It's the athletic comission of whatever state the event is being held in. I agree though, that it would be nice if the refs were more consistent but I'm not big on the "back of the head" rule when the "victim" is constantly moving into those shots.

The back of the head rule should be something like not punching the back of a head while a guy is trying to take you down. When you have the guy in mount and are trying to punch his face, but he's moving back and forth - should not apply.

i agree but i hate when refs are so inconsistent. it's almost as if they're paid off. it's not hard to take a point away for multiple illegal moves. he even warned GSP at least twice for grabbing Penn's shorts, LOL.