Couture takes pointed offense at NJ rep’s remarks

The Unified Rules of mixed martial arts were refined on Tuesday at the annual convention, after the Association of Boxing Commissions voted everyone to 1, with two abstentions, on recommendations propose by the Rules and Regulations Committee. The one dissenter was the influential state of New Jersey, represented by Rhonda Utley-Herring, who has assisted four Commissioners in NJ, since June of 1984.

While Utley-Herring’s acumen in boxing is vast, her background in mixed martial arts is perhaps far less so. At one point she got into a disagreement with John McCarthy about the birth of MMA regulation, and asked the assembled “can someone please educate this man?”

It was not clear Ms. Utley-Herring knew who McCarthy was. John McCarthy has been involved in the sport since before UFC 1, worked in a professional capacity at all the early UFCs, was the person testifying in court before the early legally contested UFCs, and did his level best to push the rules and the sport towards regulation since ever since. Asking a crowd to “educate” John McCarthy about the origins of MMA regulation is like asking a crowd to educate James Madison about the origins of the US constitution. Speaking frankly, the rhetorical flourish was not coherent, and served to be counter productive in terms of establishing the credibility to argue against a group consisting of:
Randy Couture
Brian Dunn
Robert Hinds
Jeremy Horn
Matt Hughes
John McCarthy
Kevin McDonald
Dr. David Watson
Sean Wheelock
Matt Woodruff

Another figure Ms. Utley-Herring argued with but did not appear to recognize was Randy Couture.

Utley-Herring was provided time to present the case against the rules change, and began by slighting the fighters on ABC president Mike Mazzulli’s committee. Her remarks were neither accurate nor effective.

“I’m very happy to see that fighters are addressing this group and asking to amend rules,” said Uttley-Herring, as transcribed by Marc Raimondi for MMA Fighting. “And one thing I can say about that is thank God for commissions. Because many fighters would rather they didn’t have a commission, would rather we didn’t have rules and regulations, would rather that we didn’t put them on suspension. Some fighters would rather be able to fight with bullets in their brains, with early CTE symptoms. And again, thank God for commissions. As regulators, I am asking all of you to dig way down deep inside and ask yourselves, ‘are you doing the right thing when you vote for these amendments?’ As regulators. Because what I saw here today and what I saw yesterday was not regulators.”

She went on to make arguments that, while not compelling to the group, were at least rational. She argued that allowing heel kicks from guard to the kidney area was not advisable given the current climate around sports injury, and further, that kidney strikes should be removed from MMA. And she argued against the new rules definition for a grounded opponent. She also agreed with some of the changes. And misgivings about the word “damage” expressed by the NJSAC were in fact adopted.

After introductory remarks, she read verbatim from a comprehensive message, copied below.

With regard to the ABC’s proposed MMA rule changes, please be advised that the NJSACB is not in favor of all the rule changes. the NJSACB only objects the proposals which, if passed, would negatively impact fighter health and safety.

The NJSACB is not opposed to removing the grabbing of the clavicle as a foul rule. We agree that we have never seen this foul called.

This agency is not opposed to restricting the type of shirt that female contestants wear in an attempt to minimize “wardrobe malfunction” concerns.

We are not opposed to the eye poke/fingers amendment. This amendment is intended to lessen eye poke fouls and reduce the potential for eye injuries.

The NJSACB is also not opposed to the scoring criteria clarifications, but is opposed to codifying the word “damage” itself as a scoring component in the official rule set. This agency prefers the use of words like impact and effect, for legal and other reasons, and believes that such words can suffice. Any potential gaps or questions could be clarified in judges training seminars. However, we note that this objection may be based on opinion and we may be arguing semantics here.

The NJSACB is definitely opposed to allowing heel kicks to the kidneys and is opposed to rule changes which make it more likely that grounded fighters may be legally kneed and kicked in the head. This opposition is based on expert medical advice. Simply put, we are opposed to rule changes which place the competitors health and safety at greater risk of harm.

We are certain that other States, tribal nations, and provinces share our same concerns here. This will lead to the loss of unified rules throughout North American. We feel that unified rules are in the best interest of the growth of the sport. For example, the NFL and the NBA have the same game rules no matter where the game is played. Thus, absent overwhelming need, we are against changes which will cause deviation in rule sets based on location.

With direct regard to heel kicks to the kidney, this was voted to be a foul during the creation of the unified rules and was voted to remain a foul upon submission of the comprehensive 2009 ABC MMA Rules Review report. Kidney strikes of any kind are not legal, or are very limited, in other combat sports. The kidney is a target that is sensitive to immediate traumatic events, and long term health issues. Every nephrologist contacted was and remains against allowing this activity. Please bear in mind that the sport has evolved and grown without the legal use of the strike and we do not see an overriding need or desire to allow placing the contestants further in harms way. We have sent contestants to the hospital for kidney problems post fight and for passing blood in their urine for a post fight drug test. We have also seen dehydrated fighters not pass pre-fight screening and be hospitalized for kidney issued related to weight cutting and dehydration. If the heel hook rule is to be modified, then it should be modified on the side of greater health and safety and not less. Therefore, it is suggested that knees, elbows and punches to the kidneys also be disallowed. Implicit in the initial draft of the unified rules was the understanding that it would be unlikely that a competitor would be kicked directly to the kidneys, as that would mean the competitor would be running with his back turned to his opponent. The exception might be a round house kick, although the majority of the power would most likely be absorbed by the abdomen or anterior rib cage. The unified rules therefore singled out heel kicks as the most likely direct cause of trauma to the kidneys during an MMA bout. Major trauma and repeated multiple minor injuries to the kidneys have been associated not only with short term medical problems (blood in the urine, kidney rupture, sub capsular bleeding), but also long term issues such as hypertension. It is our duty to protect our athletes, not only during the bout, but to try to ensure that they will be able to live comfortably after they decide to retire from combative sports. This means minimizing long term risks to the best of our current knowledge when we consider rule changes.

Finally, and with regard to allowing more head strikes, we note the elaborated reason. The reason is that certain fighters place a finger up or down at opportune times to supposedly draw the benefit of the foul. This issue was addressed and voted on at the 2014 ABC convention where it was voted that a fighter found to be “gaming the system” was simply to be considered a standing fighter and the strike was to be allowed. This was a matter to be addressed at the pre-fight referee rules meeting. Thus, there is no need as to go so far as to change the rule and legalize more striking to the head. In these days of learning more about head issues such as concussions and CTE, we must be cautious to now allow more striking to the head. We would be surprised to learn that ABC medical representatives like Dr. Goodman or the Association of Ringside Physicians would be in favor of this rule. To be in favor would be in opposition of past commentary provided by neurologists and ringside physicians affiliated with such institutions such as UCLA, Mount Sinai, the Cleveland Clinic, Rutgers‎ and other notable medical institutions. In fact, no medical institution ever contacted was in favor of the proposal at hand here. Absent overwhelming medical evidence, we are not in favor of any type of expansion of striking to the head, let alone a change that would allow powerful, potent knees to the head of a downed fighter. We should be wary of the NFL litigation, NHL and WWE head injury issues, and we should not be hasty with regard to matters involving the human brain and it’s well being.

NJ has a seminal place in the history and annals of the sport of mixed martial arts as the birthplace of the legalization of the unified rules, but we have never forgotten that we are NOT the contestants, but as officials and regulators, we hold their health and safety in our hands.

Commissioner Hazzard, Sr.
Deputy Commissioner Utley-Herring
Counsel Lembo

Despite some pointed disagreement, Ms. Uttley-Herring kindly thanked the committee chair afterwards for the opportunity to speak. In sum, it was an uneven presentation, but unfortunately, major gaffes generally define a delivery. If you speak well and at length, but then fall off stage, it is the latter that is remembered. If you ask a crowd to educate John McCarthy about the birth of regulation, that is what’s remembered.

And Ms. Uttley-Herring direct insinuation that athletes should not be included on a rules committee is, frankly, bizarre.

Kevin McDonald is an ex-fighter and current ref. Brian Dunn is an ex-fighter and current regulator. Matt Hughes is a retired fighter, currently employed by the largest stakeholder in the business. Randy Couture and Jeremy Horn fought forever, and remain involved in the game at the elite level. Lumping them in with magical people who would rather fight with a bullet in their brain is offensive, and Couture took public offense.

“Obviously, I fought in New Jersey, I fought in your great state,” said Couture. “As an athlete that’s been involved in this sport for over 15 years, I’m a little offended that you would assume that all us athletes and fighters don’t want to be regulated, that we have not done everything we can, in fact go to every single state meeting in the 50 states that have it improved and try to be regulated.

“You include us all in the same pool and I’m spending my time and energy over the last 17 years and frankly found the presentation to be a bit condescending. Just my opinion.”

“Your presentation was misinformed. If you were paying attention to the demonstration, we are not advocating creating positions or situations where fighters get kicked or kneed or punched in the head any more than they are. We’re, in fact, trying to clarify those rules and make it so that they don’t get punched in the head and they can’t play the gray line. As a fighter, I understand how they operate. They’re playing the gray line and they’re getting hit more now with the interpretation and the way the rules stand now.”

In the end, the changes passed 42-1, with two abstentions. The abstentions were due to a commission that no longer exists, in Tennessee, and a commissioner who had to depart early, whose deputy did not feel qualified to vote.

The Unified Rules of mixed martial arts now improved and clarified. However, the ABC has no authoritative power over state government regulatory agencies. The organization is held together by good will, rather than law. Good will was unfortunately in short supply at certain points during the process.

There is no legal means to compel New Jersey to adopt the new rules. And they are going to move through the agreeing states, tribal nations, and provinces at varying speeds, with some adopting on Monday, some on Jan 1, 2017, and through a variety of other processes. After a 42-1 vote, if New Jersey has real concerns about the Unified Rules remaining unified, the burden is upon them to adopt the changes. In a sport that already allows knees to the kidneys, middle kicks to the kidneys, elbows to the kidneys, and punches to the kidneys, it is not compelling to argue that a heel kick to the kidney region from bottom guard is so traumatic that it is worth sacrificing the unity of the Unified Rules over.