# quick question on cuts and fouls



## mrhnau (Feb 2, 2007)

Had a question about the UFC.

If a fight is stopped due to cuts, who wins? The one that cut the other? Determined by points? If points, what happens if the first jab opened up a brutal cut?

What happens if a fight ends due to an accident foul? Such as an eye gouge or groin strike? Would it be points? Again, what is it happens exceptionally early in a fight?

Thanks!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 2, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Had a question about the UFC.
> 
> If a fight is stopped due to cuts, who wins? The one that cut the other? Determined by points? If points, what happens if the first jab opened up a brutal cut?
> 
> ...


 
If  a fight is stopped for a cut then the cut itself has been deemed too deep or interfering with vision as to endanger the fighter.  Therefore the fighter with the cut loses the fight.

If a fight were to end on a foul and that is the reason for the fight being lost.  Then I believe the person who committed the foul would be the loser. (I am not 100% sure on this one but it makes sence)


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2007)

A cut serious enough to cause the doctor to stop the fight is considered a fight ending injury, the person bleeding loses.


----------



## mrhnau (Feb 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> A cut serious enough to cause the doctor to stop the fight is considered a fight ending injury, the person bleeding loses.



Thanks  How about fouls?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Thanks  How about fouls?


 
Not sure about UFC rules but ours state that if a fight ends in injury because of a foul the person committing the foul is disqualified. If the 'foul' is unintentional ie a thumb in the eye causing a fight to be stopped it may be declared  a no contest. It all depends on the circumstances. The ref will decide how bad the foul is, they may warn first, letting the fight continue or may disqualify immediately.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Thanks  How about fouls?



If it was an intentional foul and the fighter is unable to continue then the offender is disqualified.  If they are able to continue they will have points deducted.

If it was a accidental foul it depends on the round.  If it was in the first 2 rounds of a 3 round fight, or the first 3 of a 5 it is declared "No Contest", if it was in the 3rd of 3, or 4/5 of 5 it goes to the judges for scoring



> 1. If a contest or exhibition of mixed martial arts is stopped because of an accidental
> foul, the referee shall determine whether the unarmed combatant who has been fouled can
> continue or not. If the unarmed combatants chance of winning has not been seriously
> jeopardized as a result of the foul and if the foul did not involve a concussive impact to
> ...


 - http://boxing.nv.gov/docs/MMA RULES Expained.pdf

Another larger, rules source:

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-467.html#NAC467Sec698


----------



## zDom (Feb 2, 2007)

From what I've heard during interviews of fighters, there are many who strike using elbows in specific ways with the intention of opening up a cut for a victory.

I think this detracts from the "as real as it gets" goal of these events as a cut is often a nuisance or disadvantage (blood in the eyes), but not necessarily a fight-ender.

Maybe they should start requiring them to wear "elbow gloves" to prevent them from using this strategy


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2007)

on the subject of cuts, here is a article by a cutman about when and why to stop a fight due to one:

http://www.thecutman.com/goodmanarticle.htm

Cuts around the eye are very dangerous and it is not merely because blood in the eyes is a nuisance that fights get stopped.


----------



## Rook (Feb 2, 2007)

zDom said:


> From what I've heard during interviews of fighters, there are many who strike using elbows in specific ways with the intention of opening up a cut for a victory.
> 
> I think this detracts from the "as real as it gets" goal of these events as a cut is often a nuisance or disadvantage (blood in the eyes), but not necessarily a fight-ender.
> 
> Maybe they should start requiring them to wear "elbow gloves" to prevent them from using this strategy


 
The rule has more to do with preventing political interferance from people who see blood and think of animals than anything else.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 2, 2007)

I don't think so, there have been some pretty nasty looking cuts not get stopped, just depends on where they are and if there is any danger from them.


----------



## rutherford (Feb 2, 2007)

I've definitely seen more than one match that started with a guy wearing white shorts and ended with him wearing red shorts.


----------



## zDom (Feb 2, 2007)

Rook said:


> The rule has more to do with preventing political interferance from people who see blood and think of animals than anything else.



I agree.

But the result has still been the "cut the guy with the elbow to win the fight" strategy being used by some fighters.

(As opposed to "knock 'em out" or "make 'em submit)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> I don't think so, there have been some pretty nasty looking cuts not get stopped, just depends on where they are and if there is any danger from them.


 
A recent UFC fight on the Tuf show with Bam,Bam. (cannot remember his name)  He was cut but they allowed it to continue on due to the fact that it was not bothering him.  Lots of blood but he still dominated the fight.


----------

