NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer Discusses The DQ In The Jones vs. Hamill Fight
Posted by Larry Csonka on 12.06.2009
And the use of replay…
- Nevada State Athletic Commission Keith Kizer spoke after last night's Ultimate Fighter 10 Finale show, here are the highlights…
On The Decision In The Hamill vs. Jones Fight: "It's completely up to the referee," Kizer said. "When Mazzagatti came around and looked at the replay, they were actually showing a perfect angle. Good work by the cameramen, I must say. [Mazzagatti] saw that, and it was pretty straightforward from there."
On The Use Of Instant Replay At The Show: "Once Mr. Jones got off Mr. Hamill, (Mazzagatti) took the point away, and when he went back to check on Mr. Hamill, he saw he wasn't in condition to continue because of the facial wounds," Kizer said. "[Mazzagatti] used instant replay to determine whether the intentional fouls contributed to those wounds, and they definitely did. He made the call he had to make."
On Why It Is A DQ: "At the end of the day, you have the illegal elbows that cut [Hamill] up, and that's why it was stopped. The only call you can make in that situation is a disqualification. There was a deep, jagged cut on the bridge of the nose," Kizer said. "Obviously (there's) a lot of blood there. Steve stopped the fight initially to take the point away. He looked at [Hamill], and he couldn't continue. [Mazzagatti] had to make an initial call and then came down to look at the instant replay. I think, in the end, there was also damage there to the shoulder that didn't come into play with the stoppage. The only time you have a no contest is if it's an accidental foul," Kizer said. "If the referee calls it accidental, it would be no contest if it happens before the end of the second round (in a three-round bout). If it happens in the third round, you go to the scorecards. An intentional foul, if the fighter can't continue due to the intentional foul, in whole or in part – in any round – it's a disqualification."
Should The Fight Have Been Stopped Before The Illegal Blows?: "I don't think [the fight should have been stopped]," Kizer said. "If you look at the ending there, there was a lot of nice blocking by Mr. Hamill."
On Using Replay: "I still hope it's a very seldom-used deal," Kizer said. "But I think when we added it, that's exactly what we talked about – see the cuts and what caused it, or see the eye pokes. Was it an eye poke or a punch? Here's a place where you had to see what caused the cut. No one knew about the shoulder at the time of the stoppage. It was all about the crimson mask. His eyes were filled with blood. Obviously there were a lot of good, lawful elbows before that, but where did the multiple elbows land? There were actually three of them, and at least two landed in that area."
This guy is so full of shit... Crimson mask? There was blood going into the eyes, yes. But a crimson mask is what Joe Stevenson had after Penn got done with him.
There have been MANY fights stopped even if the fighter has been covering up. It's about trying to get out of there, not just weathering the storm.
Fire Mazzagatti, and kick this douchebag to the curb while you're at it.
Posted By: Guest#2050 (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 03:08 PM
Just questioning how there was alot of good blocking by Hamill when he said his shoulder was dislocated and he couldn't move his arm?
Posted By: Flying Dutchman (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 04:07 PM
How does this differ from the Anthony Johnson fight where he lost due to an illegal eye poke? Same circumstances, different result.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 06:41 PM
do none of these clowns actually know the rules? the correct ruling is a no contest.
Posted By: Andy (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Um he was bleeding way b4 the illegal elbows
Posted By: Iceberg (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 09:02 PM
"How does this differ from the Anthony Johnson fight where he lost due to an illegal eye poke? Same circumstances, different result.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 06:41 PM"
Which Mazzagatti also reffed, yet awarded the win to Burns.
Posted By: III (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 09:21 PM
maybe Mazzagatti had so much backlash from the johnson/burns fight that he learned a rule or two.
Posted By: FDF (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 01:05 AM
"How does this differ from the Anthony Johnson fight where he lost due to an illegal eye poke? Same circumstances, different result.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on December 06, 2009 at 06:41 PM"
It's cause they didn't have the instant replay then.
The fight ended on 2 illegal elbows. That is why it's a DQ. Same as if he was winning and almost had him done, THEN KICKED HIM IN THE JUNK! both are a DQ
Posted By: Guest#8833 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 02:00 AM
"Once Mr. Jones got off Mr. Hamill, (Mazzagatti) took the point away, and when he went back to check on Mr. Hamill, he saw he wasn't in condition to continue because of the facial wounds,"
Except Hamill couldn't continue due to a SHOULDER INJURY!!
Posted By: Guest#3855 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 09:33 AM
Andy, you're the clown dude. The guy explained exactly why it was a DQ and not a no contest, and I'd trust the guy who knows the rules over some idiot commenter who can't even read the article properly.
Schmuck.
Posted By: dennett316 (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 11:16 AM
There are a lot of factors involved with this. As a spectator I thought Hammill was doing a decent job weathering the storm. Most of the punches were deflected enough sot that most seemed to not him completely. Jones made many clean shot and him with many deflected shots, but I could honestly say Hammill's defensive nature would have kept it going as well. After the fight was stopped, Hammill was clearly injured and I am certain because of his hearing impairment he just thought the fight was stopped. If he knew that the ref was just taking a point away and had intentions of continuing the fight he might have made an effort to stand up. However he was hurting, the ref stopped Jones, it would be an easy assumption for Hammill to just lay there and wait for his cornermen to help him up.
I feel terrible that Jones lost the fight due to illegal strike. It was clear that he thought the fight should been stopped and he had a valid argument. Much more controversial stoppages have been made. Could Mazzagati have stopped the fight sure, probably without much debate as well, but I thought he was finally showing some balls by letting Hammill try to defend himself. I know that Jones wishes Steve was a little more cautious on this night, but he wasn't. He was thorough and unfortunately he made the only legal he could once the fight was stopped.
Posted By: Seriously (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I think it BS - should be no contest.
Posted By: Brian (Guest) on December 07, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.