Issue 077

July 2011

UFC referee Marc Goddard brings fight fans the ref’s side of the story. Smack talk is entertaining to fans and an important part of some fighters’ psyches – but is it legal?

They come to fight, and fight is what they shall do. It should be the first and last thing on the mind of a fighter. For some a natural break in the action allows time to think, engage the brain and defend, counter or launch the next attack. For other’s this provides ample opportunity to begin the verbal joust – but just where does a referee draw the line, intervene and call time on the phonic outburst?

In general, talking to your opponent during a contest does not contravene any of the Unified Rules of MMA. Foul and abusive language, however, is an immediate foul [by fighter or corner team] and a referee should interject and warn the offending party accordingly.

Verbal baiting of an opponent is part and parcel of some fighter’s arsenal, an unseen psychological extra to taunt or mock an opponent into making a potential mistake which allows for a chance to capitalize. It is well within a referee’s jurisdiction, if the verbal volley is constant and in one direction, to stop a contest and warn a particular fighter as it can be rightly construed that the verbal assault has crossed the line and is venturing into unsportsmanlike conduct.

A high-profile example would be the warning to Anderson Silva during his UFC middleweight title defense against Demian Maia at UFC 112 in April last year. Referee Dan Miragliotta had seen and heard enough of Anderson’s continual physical and verbal taunting of Maia that he intervened to issue a warning to Silva for his unsportsmanlike conduct. If he had chosen to continue then a point deduction would have ensued, further more if no warnings and point deduction were heeded then a disqualification can occur.

I have never dismissed a fighter after continual warnings for the same foul – and it would be a sad day if I did.

Pre-fight hype, verbal sparring and trash talk again can often be part of a fighter’s build-up. Enjoyed by press and fans alike it can build tension, hype and perhaps most importantly pay-per-view buys to a much-anticipated fight. This, of course, means nothing to a referee when the fighters step into the arena to settle their differences, what has passed before matters not and they are under control and jurisdiction. One thing I have seen on many occasions is a fighter’s verbal baiting can be a mask for other things as an often ‘hurt’ fighter – one who has just received a particularly heavy strike – may use this to show or gesture to his opponent that it did not affect him. Psychology alone can tell you this can often mean the exact opposite. A better outcome for fans is when the mocking fighter does actually receive a heavy strike and all the goading, face pulling and dancing changes as quick as the expression on his face as realization dawns upon him.

Q&A

How far in advance do you find out which fighters and fights you may be officiating?

My single most commonly asked question. Within the UFC we are never told which fights we are assigned to until the evening or afternoon of the event. When we report for duty at the arena we are handed our chosen bouts for the evening by a commission representative or, in the absence of this, by a senior executive of the company. We then go and talk to the fighters directly and in person to address any particular issues. Contrary to this it can often be made known (in commission-controlled areas) in advance of a particular event which referee has been assigned to the main event.

What rules would you change in MMA and why?

Great question, but sadly this may be a slightly boring answer as I find the Unified Rules in their current form as very acceptable with most bases covered. There could be an argument for some tweaking of fight and round times to be increased for non- title bouts but in general I believe we have the right balance just now.