# Simms apealing ruling



## JDenz (Apr 29, 2004)

Sims Appeals Referees Decision; Feels Errors And Mistakes By McCarthy Impacted Outcome 
Submitted by: Joseph Cunliffe
Posted On 04/28/2004


Lancaster, OH -- In a 3 page letter dated April 14, 2004, attorneys for Wes Sims filed a letter of intent on their clients behalf with the Nevada State Athletic Commission to appeal the referees decision rendered in the Wes Sims vs. Mike Kyle fight held on April 2, 2004, at UFC 47: Its On! This appeal is based on guidelines as set forth in the NSAC Rules and Regulations, Section 467.770. 

Section 467.770 of the NSAC Rules and Regulations governs the factors to be considered by the commission for a change of decision after a contest or exhibition. More specifically, Section 467.770(3) provides that a fight decision can be changed if as a result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision. 

This appeal is premised on the fact that Sims, now 0-3 in the UFC, feels Referee John McCarthy made several errors in interpreting provisions of the NSAC Rules and Regulations. The errors made by McCarthy had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the fight and resulted in the incorrect decision that Kyle was the winner of the bout. Sims submits the following in support of this argument: 

At approximately 1:27 into Round 1, Kyle bit Sims on the upper left chest while Sims was attempting to submit Kyle. The bite mark on Sims chest was apparent during the fight and even more clearly apparent when the fight was stopped. While it may be within the sole discretion of the referee to determine whether a foul has been committed by a contestant, when the foul is a bite, and the bite leaves a clear impression on the opponents chest, the discretion of the referee subsides and his duty to not allow unfair practices that cause injuries to a contestant takes precedence. Section 467.682 of the NSAC Rules and Regulations governs the duties of referees, and specifically provides that a referee is responsible for enforcing the rules of the contest or exhibition. He shall not permit unfair practices that may cause injuries to an unarmed combatant. When McCarthy saw the bite mark on Sims chest, which at the very latest was before the announcement of the winner of the fight, McCarthy had the absolute duty to determine that the bite was an intentional foul as defined by NSAC 467.7962. At that time McCarthy should have made a determination of the effects caused to Sims by the intentional foul committed by Kyle. McCarthy also had the duty to determine what penalties, if any, were to be assessed to Kyle for the intentional foul of biting Sims. Unfortunately, no action whatsoever was taken by McCarthy as a result of the flagrant and intentional foul committed by Kyle. 

Amazingly, there was not just one instance of an intentional foul committed by Kyle in this fight. Kyle not only bit Sims early in the fight, but he attempted to bite Sims again near the end of the fight. At 4:49 into Round 1, Kyle clearly attempts to bite Sims again while at the same time throwing punches at Sims. At the point in time when Kyle attempts to bit Sims for a second time, Sims motions for McCarthy to step in and stop Kyle from biting him again. Again, while the argument can be made that it is within the sole discretion of the referee to determine whether a foul has been committed by a contestant, when a contestant is attempting to bite another contestant, it is obvious that all discretion ceases and the referees duty to enforce the rules, and more importantly, to protect the contestants, becomes mandatory. Such action by McCarthy in failing to consider the fact that Kyle had already bitten Sims and had attempted to bite Sims again was clearly not consistent with the NSAC Rules and Regulations, and further not consistent with the Commissions concern for the safety and welfare of the contestants. 

Finally, there is a major concern of McCarthys use of the restart rule. Pursuant to UFC rules, the referee may restart the round...if the fighters reach a stalemate and do not work to improve position or finish. The key word here is restart. Contestants in the UFC always start each round in their respective corners, and the referee always asks the contestants if they are ready to fight before he starts the fight. If a fight is to be restarted, it would seem only proper and appropriate that the fighters would be required to be in their respective corner. Even if the fighters were not required to go to their respective corners before restart, at the very least the referee should required to make sure both fighters are prepared to fight before starting the bout. 

At 4:39 into Round 1 of the Sims-Kyle fight, McCarthy enforces the restart rule. McCarthy allows Kyle to get up and walk toward his corner. McCarthy allows Sims to get up and walk toward his corner. However, before Sims reaches his corner, and while Sims is facing away from Kyle, McCarthy signals for the fight to restart. Kyle charges at Sims while Sims is clearly not prepared to fight. By restarting the fight while Sims was still walking to his corner and had his back turned towards Kyle, McCarthy could very well have caused Sims to suffer a serious injury. Such action by McCarthy, while perhaps unintentional, was not consistent with his duties as a referee, and surely not consistent with the Commissions concern for the safety and welfare of the contestants. 

If one looks at history of combat sports and the use of the restart rule, it is fundamental that the referee shall ensure that neither fighter gains an advantage from his movement before restarting with fight. If the Commission would look at the history of the use of the restart rule within the UFC, it would be clear that the UFC has always followed this fundamental concept of not allowing either fighter to gain an advantage from the use of restart. Even looking at other fights in UFC 47, the use of the restart rule followed this basic and fundamental concept. In the Edwards-Franca fight in UFC 47, the restart rule was enforced twice, and in both instances the referee made sure that both fighters were prepared to fight before he allowed the fight to restart. 

In the Sims-Kyle fight, the procedure used by McCarthy when he enforced the restart rule clearly gave an advantage to Kyle and was the significant factor in the end result of the fight. McCarthy allowed Kyle to charge at Sims and have an unimpeded and, in essence, a free shot at Sims. Sims was unable to recover after taking the hits from Kyle that came immediately after the restart. The fundamental rule of the use of the restart was not followed by McCarthy in this fight. Kyle not only gained a huge advantage after the restart, he actually won the fight due to the advantage he gained by being allowed to punch at Sims when Sims was not prepared for the restart. Again, it seems that although maybe unintentional, the actions of McCarthy were clearly not consistent his duties as a referee, and further not consistent with the Commissions concern for the safety and welfare of the contestants. 

In conclusion, Sims feels that the errors and mistakes of McCarthy in interpreting the rules and regulations of the NSAC had a tremendous impact on the outcome of the fight and resulted in the incorrect decision that Kyle was the winner of the bout.


----------



## kenpo12 (Apr 30, 2004)

WHAT?!  I saw the teeth marks and it didn't look like an intentional bite.  Has anyone here been bit intentionally?  I have and it leaves a much worse looking mark.  
  Simms seems to be a big cry baby and always crying foul.  When he lost Frank Mir the first time due to DQ he said Mir put a thumb in his eye and that's why he fouled Mir.  Now he's appealing a call by McCarthy, C'mon.  No one is going to want to fight him anymore if he keeps this up.  I have yet to hear anyone else claim they were fouled by Frank Mir or Mike Kyle, and yet Simms was supposedly fouled by both of them.  If he's being honest then I hope things work out for him but is seems a bit fishy to me.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 1, 2004)

Simms. It's a fight. People get hurt, and even play dirty. Get over it.


----------



## tumpaiguy (May 6, 2004)

True, it's a fight.  But a fight with rules nonetheless.  The bite mark was pretty good for having a mouthpiece in.  Do I like Simms? No.  But Just looking at Kyle's reaction after Rogan asked him about it was enough to know he did it intentionally.


----------



## JDenz (May 9, 2004)

Ya that is the trut.  It pissed off some of the other guys to.    Check and see what Ricco had to say about it.  He was definitly not that happy. lol.


----------



## James Kovacich (May 10, 2004)

It was abite but with the mouthpiece. He couldn't of taken it out and put it back. His face was jammed in his chest. Simms have even of caused with the pressure from his choke. It's possible. The second instance I don't think was  an attempt a a bite, it was just way to of a bizarre of an attempt if it was.

As far as Kyles attitude. Some have it and some don't. I rate his attitude right alongside Simms.

I don't have anything against Simms in the least. I just think that they rushed his carreer and now he's trying to make up for it. Even the best of them have to loose. I think he should learn from it and move on.


----------

