‘Elbow Room’ Remains for Controversial Regulation
Jason Probst Jun 16, 2008
What exactly constitutes an illegal elbow to the back of the
head?
It depends who you ask.
That's the hot topic off the heels of June 7's Nate Marquardt-Thales Leites (Pictures) fight at UFC 85 in London, where
referee Herb Dean
(Pictures) took a point from Marquardt
for illegal elbows, and the deductions made the difference on the
scorecards. Leites, who was otherwise on the short end of a
competitive but uphill battle, took a split duke by scores of
28-27, 28-27 and 27-28.
"It was a foul. I'd warned him about it. I had to take a point," Dean said. "I was not happy about it, unless it's something we have to do. I don't think of Nate as a dirty fighter. I've never seen him be a dirty fighter before. I think all these things were just borderline."
A resolution could to be in sight though. The Association of Boxing Commissions will meet in Montreal from July 2-5 to review this regulation, among others.
Recently-retired, 15-year veteran referee "Big" John McCarthy has been asked to present proposed amendments to the nearly 80 North American state and tribal boxing commissions that make up the ABC. McCarthy has convened with various ABC officials for the last few months, and all parties involved are hoping that MMA can obtain a universal rule set to be adopted across jurisdictions, which exists in boxing.
Until July though, it appears what constitutes a legal or illegal elbow to the back of the head will be open to debate.
In a June 10 article on Sherdog.com, McCarthy questioned the deduction for Marquardt's elbows at UFC 85, which landed close to the ear but not directly in the rear of the skull along what McCarthy explained as a "Mohawk" shaped-area.
According to Dean, McCarthy's "Mohawk" definition is incorrect, and that the illegal area begins behind the ears in a sort of headphone-like arc, essentially cutting the head in two zones -- legal and illegal.
A referee for nine years, Dean says that the "Mohawk" definition defining the illegal area has been replaced by a de facto verbal agreement between referees and commission officials in states such as California and Nevada.
The widely recognized "Unified Rules," authored in New Jersey, state that "strikes to the spine or back of the head" constitute a foul. Nevada's regulations mirror identical verbiage. The Nevada State Athletic commission's Web site also provides additional clarification to the regulation in a "MMA Explanations" section under its Frequently Asked Questions header. It states that, in accordance with the foul, "the back of the head is considered the direct center of the head with 1' inch of tolerance to either side."
A 2008 edition of Referee Rules and Guidelines, distributed by the California State Athletic Commission to its officials, also lists the centerline-1' inch description to define the back of the head.
However, Dean says the "Mohawk" definition was replaced by the current one two years ago following a presentation by Dr. Paul Wallace, a ringside physician for the California State Athletic Commission, prior to a 2006 UFC event in Anaheim.
"It's pretty much from the back of the ear to the back of the ear, and that's the back of the head. There's a tremendous amount of information and medical evidence that shows that blow to that area, not restricted to MMA, have a higher likelihood of causing neurological problems," Dr. Wallace said. "Which can include bleeding and death. I don't think anyone uses a definition of a Mohawk unless they trying to get a technical advantage. I always find it interesting you can ask a child where the back of the head will be and you find no confusion whatsoever. But those in the media seem to be dumbfounded when you ask. They ask about one inch, or two inches behind (behind the spinal column)."
Wallace added that the "ear" definition, in addition to being safer as the beginning of the no-go zone, is easier to apply as a universal standard.
"For most people, unless there's some type of deformity, we all have ears," he said. "But it's often easy, for anyone who's a commentator, or losing, to say it's okay I think all participants in competitive combat sports combat sports can win the fight without putting somebody in a position (of danger)."
For Dean, it changed his understanding of what an illegal elbow was. Dean said that Wallace's definition is in place by a mutual understanding between referees and commission officials in both California and Nevada, and that he has been using it since Wallace's presentation in 2006.
"I still had a problem with it, because it was different from what I'd been enforcing. And I spoke with (CSAC Executive Officer) Armando Garcia, (NSAC Executive Directors) Mark Ratner and Keith Kizer and told them this is what Armando wants us to enforce in California," Dean said. "Will we be enforcing it in Nevada? They said, yes, if they're enforcing it in California, we'll enforce it in our states. So I guess by Dr. Wallace's definition, it was a foul. By the Mohawk definition, it isn't."
Both Kizer and Garcia assert that the "Mohawk" definition has been replaced -- at least verbally -- by a "headphone" or "horseshoe" zone, where illegal blows start an inch or two behind the ears.
Kizer said that the NSAC's printed rules governing elbow strikes merely bans them to "the back of the head," but that area is not further described in terms of the geography of the skull. He also said that Dean did pass on the new definition of the illegal area to Nevada officials after Wallace's presentation in Anaheim.
Nevada-based referee Steve Mazzagatti, however, cited adherence to the "Mohawk" zone, but believes the difference between the two definitions is nil.
The written definition is what Nevada's Mazzagatti said he's using as the rules, not the Wallace presentation as entailed by Dean to Nevada officials. But Mazzagatti said the range of potential in the foul area in both definitions is the same.
"I explain that to fighters, if I catch them targeting the back of the head, I will take a point with no warning," Mazzagatti said. "I hold a cell phone right to base of my skull (to explain the foul area). If the guy's falling on the ground and he turns his head, that's his fault, but if you hit it again, that your fault. If you can't land another legal blow using the elbow, you have to find another strike to use. That Mohawk area is off-limits."
Mazzagatti added that the Nevada rules also state that anything below the ears, anywhere is illegal since it is considered an attack on the spinal column. He also said that a restart into the standing position is one option instead of a deduction.
"Right now neutral is considering standing. The dominant fighter, we always try to take their position away. So we can stand them up if the dominant fighter fouls. If the offending fighter is on the bottom, we take the point away and the fight isn't stopped," Mazzagatti said. "When we meet before the fight, I tell them, 'If a guy grabs the fence, just keep working to slam him.' I'll take the point away, but we don't want to stop the fight. This sport is evolving so fast, and the officiating needs to evolve. This ABC meeting in Montreal, Big John can go down there and lobby for things to be included (in their rules)."
"You don't want a fight or a foul to be different in different states," Kizer said. "Herb made a good call." Kizer added that it's still a mystery to him why in boxing, anything behind the ears is universally accepted as an illegal blow, but in MMA the confusion remains about where strikes can legally be landed. Officials in all states will probably have to work together in the coming months to coordinate their mutual definitions, he said, to avoid confusion.
Garcia, Kizer's counterpart in California, said that Dr. Wallace's revised definition is currently the accepted standard in his state, as well. But, like Nevada, the printed rule definition remains somewhat confusing when contrasted with the "headphone" or "horseshoe" concept of where elbows are legal.
"(There was) nothing in the books," Garcia said via email. "(The horseshoe) was a clarification. It was accepted after the medical explanation and it is in use. There is nothing clearly defined in regs. Regs only state the foul. We define the foul as such to help referees in enforcing the foul rule and judges to determine legal blows."
Dean added that, at the end of the day, a referee has to enforce the rules he's assigned to uphold, and that's why he deducted the points in the fight, which took place in England. Currently, no governing body regulates the sport in the United Kingdom, so it's the call of the individual promotions to disseminate how the rules will be interpreted.
Dean also said that he admires McCarthy and what "Big John," a fixture of the UFC from 1994-2007, has done to establish officiating -- as a profession that has evolved along with the fighters. He said that McCarthy is someone that he and many other referees owe a debt to, regardless of differences of opinion they may have.
"I have a lot of respect for Big John. He's done so much for this sport people don't even know the things he's done. It was very hard to do his job, especially in the beginning. He paved the way for the rest of us," Dean said. "Before the sport was regulated, he had to bring order to every alpha male in the country to fight. I think that if he's going to critique what us refs do, if he's retired, he'd be the one to do it. If he's not retired, he shouldn't. I don't know. But if he is going to start say whether things were a foul or not, I think he should be aware of the foul areas we are enforcing by the rules of the athletic commission, and not hold us to his Mohawk rule. If he's going to make comments about the calls I make, I'm making a call because that's what athletic commissions want me to enforce."
It depends who you ask.
Advertisement
"It was a foul. I'd warned him about it. I had to take a point," Dean said. "I was not happy about it, unless it's something we have to do. I don't think of Nate as a dirty fighter. I've never seen him be a dirty fighter before. I think all these things were just borderline."
Elbowing opponents in the head is perhaps one of the last gray
areas in the evolving rule set of mixed martial arts, with
fighters, officials and fans employing different definitions of
what defines legal and illegal strikes.
A resolution could to be in sight though. The Association of Boxing Commissions will meet in Montreal from July 2-5 to review this regulation, among others.
Recently-retired, 15-year veteran referee "Big" John McCarthy has been asked to present proposed amendments to the nearly 80 North American state and tribal boxing commissions that make up the ABC. McCarthy has convened with various ABC officials for the last few months, and all parties involved are hoping that MMA can obtain a universal rule set to be adopted across jurisdictions, which exists in boxing.
Until July though, it appears what constitutes a legal or illegal elbow to the back of the head will be open to debate.
In a June 10 article on Sherdog.com, McCarthy questioned the deduction for Marquardt's elbows at UFC 85, which landed close to the ear but not directly in the rear of the skull along what McCarthy explained as a "Mohawk" shaped-area.
According to Dean, McCarthy's "Mohawk" definition is incorrect, and that the illegal area begins behind the ears in a sort of headphone-like arc, essentially cutting the head in two zones -- legal and illegal.
A referee for nine years, Dean says that the "Mohawk" definition defining the illegal area has been replaced by a de facto verbal agreement between referees and commission officials in states such as California and Nevada.
The widely recognized "Unified Rules," authored in New Jersey, state that "strikes to the spine or back of the head" constitute a foul. Nevada's regulations mirror identical verbiage. The Nevada State Athletic commission's Web site also provides additional clarification to the regulation in a "MMA Explanations" section under its Frequently Asked Questions header. It states that, in accordance with the foul, "the back of the head is considered the direct center of the head with 1' inch of tolerance to either side."
A 2008 edition of Referee Rules and Guidelines, distributed by the California State Athletic Commission to its officials, also lists the centerline-1' inch description to define the back of the head.
However, Dean says the "Mohawk" definition was replaced by the current one two years ago following a presentation by Dr. Paul Wallace, a ringside physician for the California State Athletic Commission, prior to a 2006 UFC event in Anaheim.
"It's pretty much from the back of the ear to the back of the ear, and that's the back of the head. There's a tremendous amount of information and medical evidence that shows that blow to that area, not restricted to MMA, have a higher likelihood of causing neurological problems," Dr. Wallace said. "Which can include bleeding and death. I don't think anyone uses a definition of a Mohawk unless they trying to get a technical advantage. I always find it interesting you can ask a child where the back of the head will be and you find no confusion whatsoever. But those in the media seem to be dumbfounded when you ask. They ask about one inch, or two inches behind (behind the spinal column)."
Wallace added that the "ear" definition, in addition to being safer as the beginning of the no-go zone, is easier to apply as a universal standard.
"For most people, unless there's some type of deformity, we all have ears," he said. "But it's often easy, for anyone who's a commentator, or losing, to say it's okay I think all participants in competitive combat sports combat sports can win the fight without putting somebody in a position (of danger)."
For Dean, it changed his understanding of what an illegal elbow was. Dean said that Wallace's definition is in place by a mutual understanding between referees and commission officials in both California and Nevada, and that he has been using it since Wallace's presentation in 2006.
"I still had a problem with it, because it was different from what I'd been enforcing. And I spoke with (CSAC Executive Officer) Armando Garcia, (NSAC Executive Directors) Mark Ratner and Keith Kizer and told them this is what Armando wants us to enforce in California," Dean said. "Will we be enforcing it in Nevada? They said, yes, if they're enforcing it in California, we'll enforce it in our states. So I guess by Dr. Wallace's definition, it was a foul. By the Mohawk definition, it isn't."
Both Kizer and Garcia assert that the "Mohawk" definition has been replaced -- at least verbally -- by a "headphone" or "horseshoe" zone, where illegal blows start an inch or two behind the ears.
Kizer said that the NSAC's printed rules governing elbow strikes merely bans them to "the back of the head," but that area is not further described in terms of the geography of the skull. He also said that Dean did pass on the new definition of the illegal area to Nevada officials after Wallace's presentation in Anaheim.
Nevada-based referee Steve Mazzagatti, however, cited adherence to the "Mohawk" zone, but believes the difference between the two definitions is nil.
The written definition is what Nevada's Mazzagatti said he's using as the rules, not the Wallace presentation as entailed by Dean to Nevada officials. But Mazzagatti said the range of potential in the foul area in both definitions is the same.
"I explain that to fighters, if I catch them targeting the back of the head, I will take a point with no warning," Mazzagatti said. "I hold a cell phone right to base of my skull (to explain the foul area). If the guy's falling on the ground and he turns his head, that's his fault, but if you hit it again, that your fault. If you can't land another legal blow using the elbow, you have to find another strike to use. That Mohawk area is off-limits."
Mazzagatti added that the Nevada rules also state that anything below the ears, anywhere is illegal since it is considered an attack on the spinal column. He also said that a restart into the standing position is one option instead of a deduction.
"Right now neutral is considering standing. The dominant fighter, we always try to take their position away. So we can stand them up if the dominant fighter fouls. If the offending fighter is on the bottom, we take the point away and the fight isn't stopped," Mazzagatti said. "When we meet before the fight, I tell them, 'If a guy grabs the fence, just keep working to slam him.' I'll take the point away, but we don't want to stop the fight. This sport is evolving so fast, and the officiating needs to evolve. This ABC meeting in Montreal, Big John can go down there and lobby for things to be included (in their rules)."
"You don't want a fight or a foul to be different in different states," Kizer said. "Herb made a good call." Kizer added that it's still a mystery to him why in boxing, anything behind the ears is universally accepted as an illegal blow, but in MMA the confusion remains about where strikes can legally be landed. Officials in all states will probably have to work together in the coming months to coordinate their mutual definitions, he said, to avoid confusion.
Garcia, Kizer's counterpart in California, said that Dr. Wallace's revised definition is currently the accepted standard in his state, as well. But, like Nevada, the printed rule definition remains somewhat confusing when contrasted with the "headphone" or "horseshoe" concept of where elbows are legal.
"(There was) nothing in the books," Garcia said via email. "(The horseshoe) was a clarification. It was accepted after the medical explanation and it is in use. There is nothing clearly defined in regs. Regs only state the foul. We define the foul as such to help referees in enforcing the foul rule and judges to determine legal blows."
Dean added that, at the end of the day, a referee has to enforce the rules he's assigned to uphold, and that's why he deducted the points in the fight, which took place in England. Currently, no governing body regulates the sport in the United Kingdom, so it's the call of the individual promotions to disseminate how the rules will be interpreted.
Dean also said that he admires McCarthy and what "Big John," a fixture of the UFC from 1994-2007, has done to establish officiating -- as a profession that has evolved along with the fighters. He said that McCarthy is someone that he and many other referees owe a debt to, regardless of differences of opinion they may have.
"I have a lot of respect for Big John. He's done so much for this sport people don't even know the things he's done. It was very hard to do his job, especially in the beginning. He paved the way for the rest of us," Dean said. "Before the sport was regulated, he had to bring order to every alpha male in the country to fight. I think that if he's going to critique what us refs do, if he's retired, he'd be the one to do it. If he's not retired, he shouldn't. I don't know. But if he is going to start say whether things were a foul or not, I think he should be aware of the foul areas we are enforcing by the rules of the athletic commission, and not hold us to his Mohawk rule. If he's going to make comments about the calls I make, I'm making a call because that's what athletic commissions want me to enforce."
Related Articles
