It was one of the strangest twists a UFC fight has taken in a very long time. And for Ante Delija, that twist meant turning what looked like a TKO win at last Saturdays UFC Vegas 110 event into a knockout loss all in the span of about five and a half minutes.
Now Uncrowned has learned that Delijas team has filed a formal complaint with the Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC), requesting a hearing on the matter. According to a letter sent to the NAC and later provided to Uncrowned by Delijas attorney Ross Goodman, the Delija camp is requesting that the result be changed to a no-contest due to a clear rules violation on the part of officials.
This is unprecedented, Goodman told Uncrowned.
“This is why Im trying to get the commission to look at this. This is bigger than Ante, bigger than this one event. Its about, guys, are you going to follow your rules?
But according to NAC executive director Jeff Mullen, the commission did follow its own rules even if those rules may differ from the unified rules of mixed martial arts on this matter and the incident was handled properly.
Its a tricky situation, in other words. And it all comes down to the use of instant replay in MMA.
First, lets review the facts. On Nov. 1, Delija and Waldo Cortes-Acosta squared off at the UFC APEX in a heavyweight co-main event bout. Late in Round 1, Delija backed Cortes-Acosta up against the fence and let fly with a barrage of punches that was halted only by referee Mark Smiths intervention.
Normally, thats the end of the matter. When the referee steps between one fighter whos throwing punches and another whos absorbing them, it almost always means a TKO stoppage. Delija certainly thought that was the case here, as he immediately turned and began celebrating with his team.
But while Smith had stepped in, he never actually waved the fight off. As would become clear moments later, he was stepping in because he believed Cortes-Acosta had been poked in the eye and he wanted to confirm it via replay.
According to Goodmans interpretation of the unified rules, that should have been the end of the fight. His letter cites the relevant portion of those rules, found on the Association of Boxing Commissions website, which state:
This seemed to be the impression the ESPN+ commentary team was operating under. While the bout was halted and Smith was awaiting a replay review, color commentator Daniel Cormier told viewers that the fight could not be restarted. Goodmans letter also references a later exchange between Cormier and broadcast partner Michael Bisping.
But the fight was restarted. Replay showed that Delijas finger did poke Cortes-Acosta in the eye. So after a pause of just over five minutes, much of which Cortes-Acosta spent sitting on a stool, drinking water and being attended to by both the cageside doctor and his own cutman, the fight began again. Less than a minute later, a right hand from Cortes-Acosta put Delija down and a few extra hammerfists convinced Smith to stop the fight for real this time.
Delija went from celebrating with his team to being consoled by them, all in just a few minutes.
At the heart of Goodmans complaint is Smiths intervention and its immediate aftermath. Smith stepping in during a punching exchange constitutes a fight-ending sequence, according to Goodman.
How do you say the fight was not officially stopped when Antes hugging the guy, he’s celebrating, Acostas sitting on the stool drinking water. It’s over. His team thinks it’s over, right? Goodman said.
I mean, we all know. When you see an eye gouge, what happens? The ref steps in and you give the guy five minutes. You don’t have to put him on a chair or have him drink water, have the teams come in. You have, if anyone, the medical doctor come in, to examine it to make sure he is clear to resume fighting, right? That’s not what happened here.
But according to Mullen, the objection Goodman is raising only applies to the replay rule as found in MMA’s unified rules. The Nevada commission has its own rules regarding the use of instant replay, as found on its own website. Those rules state that the referee may conduct replay review or consult with representatives of the commission at any time prior to the announcement of the winner of the fight.
As you can see by our regulations, Mullen said, it was done exactly as provided by regulation.
Except Nevada regulations do lay out strict guidelines for what is supposed to happen during a replay review due to a foul. Fighters are to be sent to neutral corners. No coaching is allowed during the break in action. If a fighter needs to be examined, its to be done by the doctor.
Here, Mullen conceded, regulations were not followed to the letter. Cortes-Acostas team did enter the cage, Cortes-Acosta was allowed to sit on a stool drinking water and being attended to by his cutman. But according to Mullen, that was the fault of the UFC staff who control access to the cage doors.
He has a point that they made a mistake in letting the cutman in and letting the people with the stool in and letting people with the water in, Mullen said. But that’s not the commission. We didn’t let them in. We didn’t tell them they could come in, and we immediately started trying to get them out. Our doctor did a very good job of getting them out as quickly as he could, but that was not our doing letting those people come in.
One of the main causes of the confusion seems to be the delay between when the eye-poke happened and when Smith stepped in. A review of the fight video shows that, between the time Delijas finger touched Cortes-Acostas eye and when Smith first intervened, about seven seconds passed. During that time, Delija threw approximately 12 punches. That lapse in that time, with that type of action in the interim, made Smiths intervention more likely to be seen as a stoppage, even if he didnt actually wave the fight off.
But according to Mullen, replay official Herb Dean, along with Smith, did a good job of handling a complex situation. He said Goodman and Delijas team would receive a written response to their complaint, but insisted all Nevada commission rules had been followed perfectly.
If theres anything to learn from the incident, Mullen said, its that the commission needs to have tighter control over who can enter the cage and when.
Thats not under our control, Mullen said. But weve got to make sure next time that we communicate with them and the doors arent already open. But those were mistakes we werent in control of, and we got the people out of there as quickly as we could. Some of them werent eager to get out of there, too.