Parsing the Language: Jon Jones & NSAC 467.7966

Promoted to the Front Page by Zak Woods.

Zak thought that the rule involved in the Jon Jones appeal was unambiguous.  A closer look at NSAC 467.7966 Fouls: Accidental reveals that Jones' case is stronger than it may appear with a casual reading.

First lets looks at the section Zak Chose to highlight:

if the foul did not involve a concussive impact to the head of the unarmed combatant who has been fouled

Now what does this mean? The key phrasing is "concussive impact." While in this situation I think we can agree on what constitutes an impact, concussive can clearly be read in multiple ways.  Those ways after the jump.

Concussion, and by extension its usage as an adjective, is defined by Merriam-Webster as follows:

Main Entry: con·cus·sion
    Pronunciation: \kən-ˈkə-shən\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English concussioun, from Latin concussion-, concussio, from concutere to shake violently, from com- + quatere to shake
    Date: 14th century

    1 a : a stunning, damaging, or shattering effect from a hard blow; especially : a jarring injury of the brain resulting in disturbance of cerebral function b : a hard blow or collision
    2 : agitation, shaking
    synonyms see impact

    — con·cus·sive \-ˈkə-siv\ adjective

So this provides us with three meanings of concussive, lets examine each separately.

1 a : a stunning, damaging, or shattering effect from a hard blow; especially : a jarring injury of the brain resulting in disturbance of cerebral function

In the fight the majority of damage came from the violent take down and the numerous prior blows landed. There was nothing stunning or shattering about the blow. Now the question is was there a damaging effect? This would require more than simply damage caused by the blow, but would require that damage to have an additional effect. As the cuts were not caused by the 12-6 elbows and Hamill showed no signs of dizziness it is hard to see any effect from the damage from the blows. This requires an affirmative finding and I have a difficult time finding any effect that can be directly related to the blows at issue.

1 b : a hard blow or collision

At first glance, this definition would appear to make sense with the NSAC’s ruling. However, using this definition makes concussive and impact repetitive. One of rules of statutory, even within an administrative rule as we have here, construction is that each word is to be given an independent effect. If we were to use this definition, concussive could be removed from the rule without changing the meaning of impact. In these situation we are to presume that each word gives meaning to the rule.

2 : agitation, shaking

This meaning makes little sense within the context, and even if we were to use it, the 12-6 elbows did not have a "shaky impact."

In summary, the reading of the rule makes the most sense in a manner that favors Jones’ argument. However, the NSAC has a history of poor decisions that make little sense. Additionally, these are simply the rules for determining if injury time should be allotted from an illegal blow. Lets look at the rule as a whole (edited for space and clarity):

NAC 467.7966 Fouls: Accidental. (NRS 467.030)
        1. If a [MMA bout] is stopped because of an accidental foul, the referee shall determine whether the [fighter] who has been fouled can continue or not. If the [fighter’s] chance of winning has not been seriously jeopardized as a result of the foul and if the foul did not involve a concussive impact to the head of the unarmed combatant who has been fouled, the referee may order the [fight] continued after [up to 5 minutes of rest]. [Referee needs to tell the Commission it was an accidental foul].

Mazagatti originally went to restart the fight. He had waved Hamill to his feet, in effect he had determined Hamill could continue. It was Hamill who said he couldn’t continue. No where in this rule does that have significance.

Even if we accept that Mazagatti decided Hamill couldn’t continue, the correct result isn’t a win for Hamill, but rather a no contest.

2. If the referee determines that a [fight] may not continue because of an injury suffered as the result of an accidental foul, the [fight] must be declared a no contest if the foul occurs during:
        (a) The first two rounds of a contest or exhibition that is scheduled for three rounds or less
    . . .

Thus the correct end result is a No Contest, not a win for Hamill. The only way around this is if Mazagatti determined that it was an intentional foul, however, in this case he should have immediately deducted a point from Jones instead of simply immediately trying to reset Hamill. Mazagatti’s actions imply that the foul was accidental, in which case the fight should be called a no contest. Although keep in mind I never read the arguments submitted by Jones, this is just my reading of the rule. Sorry if I got to legally about it, but Zak’s cursory reading really didn’t get into the meaning of the rule and if you do parse out the language Jones argument makes sense.