# Instant Replay for MMA



## AceHBK (Jul 27, 2009)

Well looks like the Nevada State Athletic Commission is looking at and could vote on implementing instant replay into MMA matches. I am a fan of instant replay b/c it allows mistakes to be corrected but in MMA I think it is something that can't be done right. There is a reason why there is no instant replay in boxing and MMA doesn't need it as well.

Your thoughts?


http://mmajunkie.com/news/15644/nsa...ust-instant-replay-included-on-the-agenda.mma


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 27, 2009)

For the narrow scope described (to examine whether a stoppage was the result of a foul or not), I think it's a good idea.  I watched a fight recently where the broadcast replays were pretty clear that the alleged foul (a knee to the head of a downed opponent) actually may not have happened; replay might have changed the outcome of that fight.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 27, 2009)

I am all for it if done correctly. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Most major sports are moving in this direction in an attempt to ensure that the right calls are made!


----------



## terryl965 (Jul 27, 2009)

This is a move in the right direction and I hope the transition goes well.


----------



## mwd0818 (Jul 27, 2009)

I think it should be allowed but really, what are you reviewing?  I think really the only thing that should be reviewed is fights that are stopped because a man takes advantage of illegal strikes that the referee missed.  Other than that, I can't think of much other reason.

I've been a sports official for 12 seasons (ice hockey mainly, but also most of the other major sports at some point), and I will say that instant replay is good in one way - you want to get the calls right, but it can also paralyze a game.  They should be reserved for the most important calls, but also should not question judgement, which is a big part of an official's job.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 27, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> For the narrow scope described (to examine whether a stoppage was the result of a foul or not), I think it's a good idea.  I watched a fight recently where the broadcast replays were pretty clear that the alleged foul (a knee to the head of a downed opponent) actually may not have happened; replay might have changed the outcome of that fight.




I agree on that, but what I hope doesn't happen is breaks in the fight while the referee and judges review the tape and the fighters are left sitting around.


----------



## AceHBK (Jul 27, 2009)

My thing is, how can you tell what is intentional and what isn't?  This leaves A LOT of gray area and open for all sorts of interpretation depending on who is doing the reviewing.  Only the fighter knows what he did was intentional or not.

They made a example with Kevin Burns vs. Anthony Johnson in their first fight in which Johnson lost and both guys knew it was because of eye poke he couldn't continue.  In that case replay shows eye poke and should have been no contest.

Same thing with the last Cro Cop fight, no contest instead of giving CroCop the win.

Those are the only 2 examples of where replay could have changed something but that is it.  Anything else, replay is a bad idea.


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 27, 2009)

It looks like this is the proposed rule:


> Sec. 7.  NAC 467.682 is hereby amended to read as follows:
> 
> A referee may view a replay, if available, at the conclusion of a contest or exhibition stopped immediately due to an injury to an unarmed combatant pursuant to NAC 467.718 in order to determine whether the injury in question was caused by a legal blow or a foul.
> 
> ...



It looks pretty narrowly written, to apply only when the fight ends due to injury, and it appears to have been caused by a foul.  I can see it being stretched if it works well -- but if the commission holds the line on keeping it to a very narrow set of circumstances, I think it can work.

And, to me, if the review is inconclusive, the original call stands.  Nor does it require a review; if it's clear in the first place, there's no need.  (Think the blatant knees to the head that Frank Shamrock threw against Renzo Gracie.)  If the ref isn't certain, he can review it, and see what happened from other view points.  I don't see it changing a lot of outcomes... but could be important once in a while.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jul 27, 2009)

I like the idea of the replay as currently, fouls that aren't called immediately simply are allowed.  The Burns x Johnson fight is a great example.  Even though Johnson got eye gouged, he still has a loss on his record from that fight because the ref didn't see it.  A couple of others I can think of, Couture x liddell 2, randy got gouged, then caught with a punch on the chin, al-turk x crocop, you have to set the way back machine, but Severn vs Taktarov, etc.   This has been happening as long as the sport has been a sport.  About time it got addressed.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 28, 2009)

Andrew Green said:


> I agree on that, but what I hope doesn't happen is breaks in the fight while the referee and judges review the tape and the fighters are left sitting around.


 

That's my main concern too.  It shouldn't occur during the fight and as they have suggested it, would only come into play if the fight has been stopped already.

I remember watching a boxing match and the guy faked getting hit low because he was getting his butt kicked.  He kept on laying on the ground taking a REALLY long time.  They showed the replay on it and the guy was NOT hit in the groin, but actually was hit with a really good hook to the liver.  The fight should have been over at that point, but because the ref didn't see it and the guy cried foul, he was given a long time to recuperate.  It would have been nice if there could have been some sort of replay to review it while the guy was down and force him to stand back up and continue to fight or get counted out.


----------

