Ref Eduardo Herdy does it again, CABMMA overturns result again

The first fight of UFC Fight Night 100 on Saturday in Sao Paulo, Brazil, ended awkwardly. The USA’s Darren Stewart accidentally headbutted Brazilian opponent Francimar Barroso, but referee Eduardo Herdy missed it. Barroso clutched his face and was quickly taken down. After a flurry of blows, Herdy stopped the fight, and awarded Stewart the TKO.

Barroso’s team promptly filed a complaint with Brazil’s regulating body, Comissão Atlética Brasileira de MMA (CABMMA).

Even the replay available during the UFC Fight Pass indicated that there was the sometimes unavoidable referee error of not being able to see everything that happened. However, commissions generally overturn results only in extreme cases:
1. The Commission determines that there was collusion affecting the result of the contest or exhibition;
2. The compilation of the scorecards of the judges discloses an error which shows that the decision was given to the wrong unarmed combatant; or
3. As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

Referee error is not ordinarily a sufficient cause to overturn a decision because it would leave so many bouts subject to uncertainty. However, under the guiding regulations for some commissions, in the case of a “palpable and self-evident” referee error, the commission can overturn a decision.

There is a precedent for it in Brazil.

At UFC Fight Night 62 on March 21, 2015, a referee inexplicably missed a fighter tapping frantically. Later in the night, the same referee made what some have called the worst ref call in UFC history. Lightweight Drew Dober was working his way out of an arm-in guillotine from top Half Guard, when the ref stopped the fight, saying he thought Dober was out, and awarded the victory to Leandro Silva.

CABMMA at first declared they were powerless to overturn the referee’s call, but after further research, changed the bout to a No Contest. Brazil’s commission also explicitly amended their regulations to allow them to do so going forward.

The referee at UFN 62, who first couldn’t see a tap, and then couldn’t see a fighter working his way out of a choke, was Eduardo Herdy.

Once again, CABMMA has overturned a Herdy decision. The full statement is below, via COO Cristiano Sampaio to Guilherme Cruz for MMA Fighting.

After receiving Francimar Barroso ́s formal appeal on November 19, 2016, the Brazilian Athletic Commission (CABMMA) has done a detailed analysis of the newly implemented “Instant Replay” guideline as a tool to insure fairness in the match and a proper outcome at the conclusion of the fight.

Due to the complexities involved in the sport of MMA, the referee may only use “Instant Replay” when he/she feels that a “Fight Ending Sequence” was possibly caused by an illegal action (foul) whether intentional or unintentional. At such time, the referee and only the referee may call for a review of the last moments of the fight. Once reviewing the replay, the referee, with or without the help of the other assigned referees of the event, can either confirm or dispel whether the foul was committed that brought about the fight ending sequence and take the appropriate actions from there.

If a referee utilizes “Instant Replay”, the information obtained from the replay cannot be used to restart the fight as the fight is officially over and may not be resumed.

The sole purpose of “Instant Replay” in MMA is to allow the referee to make a correct call on the outcome of the fight in calling:
a. A winner of the match
b. Having the fight go to the judge’s scorecards for a Technical Decision
c. Is the fight going to be a “No Contest”?
d. Disqualification

Below are the facts, related to the case, seeing the replay from the referee ́s perspective:
(i) The contact seen from that angle and the speed in which occurred was interpreted as part of a moving in attempt to clinch the opponent.
(ii) The referee did not identify it as head butt and told the fighter to continue on fighting.
(iii) As they were clinched on the fence, the referee told again the fighter not to stop, either to defend or to continue on fighting.
(iv) The fighter had plenty of time to defend himself or fight, as he continued on signaling to the referee the possible illegal blow, but chose not to do so.
(v) The fighter wanted to use that possible illegal blow to stop the moment as he was being pressured to the cage.
(vi) The fighter was taken down, ground and pounded, and the match was brought to an end.

Below are the facts, related to the case, seeing the replay from the Commission ́s/Regulator perspective:
(i) The contact of the head to any part of the body, when not in a push but rather in a clash movement, can be considered a head butt.
(ii) The intensity of the blow cannot be measured, even when bruises, cuts or fractures are not identified.
(iii) The fighter signaled to the referee the possible illegal blow.
(iv) The fighter stopped his action, fighting and/or defending, due to the possible illegal blow.
(v) The fight ending sequence started due to the possible illegal blow.

Conclusion:
(i) The referee would have acted differently and asked for time out if he had seen the incident from a better position/angle in the cage, even if not entirely sure of what caused it, since it was being signaled to him by the fighter.
(ii) After the time out, and normal/event replay shown on the big screen and referee identifying it as a contact of head to face, would have given a strong warning to the opponent, advising him to be more careful with clinching attempts using ‘‘head in’’ first movements/contacts. If not identified as it, but rather a normal blow (elbow, punch) and understood that the athlete was trying to misguide the referee to break that moment, the referee would have called the result as a TKO or desistance, since it was the fighter that signaled to the referee to interrupt the moment. But for this case, it should be considered as an unintentional foul.
(iii) The incident did have an effect of the outcome of the fight since it was part of what ended the fight.

Consequently, after reviewing the case, the Executive Committee has understood that the sole purpose of the “Instant Replay” was not properly achieved, therefore decided to overturn the result of Barroso vs.Stewart bout and is officially determining it a NO CONTEST.

The fight was Stewart’s UFC debut; he remains undefeated with 8-0 and one No Contest. Barroso is now 3-2 in the UFC with one No Contest.

Herdy is in a class by himself.