Modifiche al regolamento MMA

[AdReNaLiNa]

L’ABC (Association of Boxing Commissions) ha proposto di eliminare le gomitate al volto. Proposta che comunque dovrà essere visionata dalla NSAC.

Cosa ne pensate?

Poi vi dirò anche la mia..

[Krazypoison]

L’ABC (Association of Boxing Commissions) ha proposto di eliminare le gomitate al volto. Proposta che comunque dovrà essere visionata dalla NSAC.

Cosa ne pensate?

Poi vi dirò anche la mia..

io l'ho capita diversamente, in teoria adesso sarebbero anche permesse le gomitate dall'alto verso il basso (ovviamente nelle zone consentite, cioè ovunque ma non nel retro della testa e della schiena).
Questo è quello che ho capito da questo articolo postato su sherdog.com

"Within the revised regulations, verbiage was added to further define what constitutes an illegal strike to the back of a competitor's head. The revised rules now distinguish the back of the head as the "crown of the head down the centerline of the skill into the spine, with a 1 inch variance to each side." This is commonly referred to as the "Mohawk" definition.

This definition was of prime importance to commission members, who in recent months have diverged in their interpretation of the parameters of the illegal area with the existing text. In a June 23 article on Sherdog.com, the CSAC confirmed it had informally clarified the regulation with its officials based on medical data and recommendations to include the area from ear to ear, which is utilized in boxing. The NSAC had said it had informally adopted this definition to its jurisdiction as well.

Proponents supporting the ear-to-ear definition spoke of the need to preserve fighter safety, particularly in dealing with the tender area along the spine.

"Behind the ear should be illegal, period," said Arizona commissioner John Montano. "If you want to give one inch and the guy says, ‘I'm sorry. I missed it by an inch.' No, I'm not going to answer to somebody that missed it by an inch. It's very simple. Don't hit behind the ear and you won't miss it by an inch."

McCarthy, who presented the revisions to ABC members with Kliparchuk and Lembo, told the group that the "Mohawk" definition had always been the intended interpretation of the rule since its 2001 inception and had never been the cause of serious injury during the sport's tenure. McCarthy urged that altering the definition to include the entire back area would alter the mechanics of the sport.

McCarthy described the scenario in which one fighter can take another's back, but would no longer be able to punch his opponent from that position.

"If you start doing things to try and make boxing fit within MMA, you start to allow the rules to control a position so the fighter can actually go to that position because they realize they can not be attacked there. The opponent who had dominance over me now doesn't have the ability to do much to me," said McCarthy.

In addition, verbiage prohibiting elbow strikes in the downward "12-to-6 o'clock" motion was stricken, as the original rule's intention was to prohibit the technique to the restricted spinal cord area, not ban the actual movement itself. Elbow strikes of all kinds are now permissible, except to illegal areas.

Smothering the mouth or nose of an opponent has been added to the Unified Rules' fouls list, prohibiting a fighter from using his hand to prevent his opponent's ability to breathe. According to the new verbiage, this does not include choke attempts where a fighter's mouth is covered by his opponent's arm.

Fouls constituting unsportsmanlike conduct were consolidated together in the revised document, while the recovery period allowed to a fouled fighter was clarified in the new text. A fighter who has been struck with a low blow will have up to five minutes to recover. All other fouls will be assessed by a physician, who will make a determination within five minutes if the fighter is fit to continue.

A proposed amendment allowing knees to the head of a downed opponent did not make it into the revised regulations for a vote. ABC President Leuckenhoff said the technique had been discussed in the weeks prior to the conference, but it was decided the move would be too radical for some legislatures still considering the sport at this time."


Adrenalina, posta anche la tua fonte, così riusciamo a capire meglio come stanno le cose.

[Krazypoison]

in teoria anche in questo articolo c'è scritta più o meno la stessa cosa dell'articolo di sherdog

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=m ... &type=lgns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AdReNaLiNa]

Adrenalina, posta anche la tua fonte, così riusciamo a capire meglio come stanno le cose.

Io l'ho letto qua..
http://www.fightordie.it/index.php/arti ... er-le-mma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A questo punto credo che la fonte sia poco attendibile

[Krazypoison]

Adrenalina, posta anche la tua fonte, così riusciamo a capire meglio come stanno le cose.

Io l'ho letto qua..
http://www.fightordie.it/index.php/arti ... er-le-mma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A questo punto credo che la fonte sia poco attendibile

boh?!?!?
Alla fine negli altri 2 articoli non parla di gomiattae al volto, staremo a vedere come si evolve la situazione....
cmq spero che in america, e quindi nell' UFC, non vengano proibite anche le gomitate al volto, già l'assenza dei calci e ginocchiate a terra e quella regola "down on a knee" rendono un pò meno "reali" i combattimenti.

[Kiichi Miyazawa]

Beh, in genere Fight or Die non spara caxxate...

[LLGrappling]

Beh, in genere Fight or Die non spara caxxate...

Quoto.

Comunque, più si diffonderanno più regole metteranno, purtroppo....

[PrettyBoyOscar]

Io avevo capito come KrazyPoison... Anche perche' probabilemte abbiamo la stessa fonte..