Rapidfire Q&A with New Jersey's Nick Lembo on Judging in MMA

Many questions and concerns relating to MMA judging have recently surfaced, and I had the opportunity to touch base with the two most prominent members of the athletic commission to shed some light on the controversy.

My first intention was to clarify and ascertain the most currently updated version of the unified judging criteria, as there has been an alternative set of rules that I saw being referenced often in debates about scoring.  This list of criteria on Full Contact Fighter turns out to be a dated endeavor created by the Mixed Martial Arts Rules Council (MMAC), which was the group captained by the legendary Jeff Blatnick in the SEG era of the UFC before the official unified rules were adopted.

Keith Kizer of the Nevada State Athletic Commission promptly responded to my request and sent me a document of the discussion and review of the unified MMA rules as they were presented to the Association of Boxing Commissions in July of 2009.  The pdf is available for view and/or download here, and should serve as the most current foundation of the unified mixed martial arts scoring criteria (found on page 11 and 12).

Mr. Lembo also references Nelson "Doc" Hamilton's proposal to introduce a half-point scoring system, which can be found here.  Hamilton's document is well worth a read as it suggests several unique ideas from the perspective of an experienced judge in combat sports.

The Shogun/Machida and Couture/Vera fights in the UFC have spawned the majority of the latest judging debates:  the former arousing questions about the method of properly scoring "aggression" and "effective striking", the latter leading to uncertainty on the measurement of "octagon control" and the significance (damage) of strikes versus the total volume.

Nick Lembo of the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board (NJSACB) provided some interesting responses to inquiries regarding the fights above, the lack of "draw" rounds, the frequency of 10-8 and 10-7 rounds and how to differentiate them, why "damage" is absent from the criteria, and much more.

As I’m sure you’re aware, there has been a lot of scrutiny on the decisions of the MMA judges recently.  Do you feel that this is because the scoring criteria could use an overhaul, the judges could do a better job of interpreting and implementing the unified criteria; or do you feel that the judges and system are fine and that controversial calls will always be a part of combat sports?

“I do not think that any system is perfect. Any system needs to be applied by individuals who are interpreting the system. But because  MMA is a young sport we, as regulators, need to be open to potential methods to improve the scoring criteria. For example, I am open to Doc Hamilton’s concept of a half point scoring system. There will always be controversial calls in combat sports, as well as in non-combat sports, no matter what scoring methods are utilized.  However, I do believe that you have to replace judges who are having more than one off-night. The selection of judges needs to be closely scrutinized. We owe it to the fighters to put the best qualified judges out there. For example, in New Jersey, we do not use boxing judges. Why?  Because boxing is a different sport. Judges also have to work their way up through our amateur MMA program.”

What would need to happen for a system like Doc Hamilton’s to be instituted, or even considered?  Would it require more examples of fault in the ten-point must, or maybe a loud voice from officials and fighters?

“I am not sure what it would require. First, I think a review of all the so-called controversial decisions being re-scored under this system would be an interesting starting point. I would be remiss if I did not say how difficult a task that MMA judging can be. Sometimes I wonder if judges should be in separate rooms watching on high definition big screen televisions, because TV usually gives you the perfect angles while sitting cage side provides blocked or limited views at times. Or at least have TV monitors at the judges’ seats for times when their views are blocked.”

Could you briefly describe the process by which someone becomes a judge for the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board?

“You have to have some background in jiu-jitsu, wrestling, judo and/or muay thai. Then, you have to attend a seminar. At the end of that seminar, you have to score rounds of past fights that I have selected on DVD. You start as a shadow inspector in our amateur program. Then, you work your way up to a chance at being a shadow judge. As a shadow judge, you score as the fourth judge at amateur shows, your scores are collected but they don’t count. Then, if your scores are good and after shadowing for a while, you will get a shot as an actual amateur judge. From there, you score bouts for years and may work your way into the pro ranks.“

There have been a few judges whose names have become synonymous with controversy in American MMA.  Do you feel that any should be replaced and/or put under some type of review?

”I am not going to name names. However, in New Jersey, there are judges that we have stopped using.”

Is there a review or evaluation system in place for judges and/or referees, particularly after a controversial call or decision?

“I believe that there is in most jurisdictions. There is usually some form of a post fight officials meeting.”

Fighters like Lyoto Machida have changed the way we traditionally view “octagon control” with his evasive tactics of defense.  His modus operandi can be fairly accurately described as the definition for effective defense (avoiding being struck, taken down or reversed while countering with offensive attacks), but how do you feel his backward movement and counterstriking fits into octagon control? Is a fighter using this strategy generally dictating the pace and location of the fight?

“It depends how it plays out, in the Rua fight, I did not think it was successful.”

Can the fighter chasing him down earn points for octagon control if he is having more success offensively despite being “in pursuit”?

“Yes, obviously.” “Machida, to me, in a sense, is reminiscent of certain counterpunchers in boxing. They are not pressing forward and pushing the pace but they are responding to your offense and movements, and waiting for openings. Machida should be credited for his counterstriking and his defense, even if he is not moving forward.”

How/where is defending a takedown scored?  Many believe that shaking off a takedown attempt should count for effective grappling, but my interpretation of the criteria would be that defending a takedown should be applied as a nod for octagon control–correct or incorrect?

“While defending a takedown is effective grappling per se, it should be scored as octagon control.”

The Couture/Vera fight brought up several questions relating to octagon control in the clinch position.  If Fighter A is pressing his opponent against the cage and keeping him there, but Fighter B is defending Fighter A’s attempts at the takedown, which fighter would get the nod for octagon control?  (Fighter A for dictating the location, and Fighter B would get effective defense in that situation?)

“In the Couture/Vera fight, Couture would get the nod for dictating the location of the bout and Vera would get credit for effectively defending the takedown attempts. In that fight, and in your example, Couture would get a slight nod because Couture was controlling where most of rounds one and three occurred. Even though the takedowns were defended, Vera clearly did not want to be backed up against the cage for that period of time.”

Let’s say when tallying the points for each fighter in a round where 90% of the fight takes place on the feet, that Fighter A wins effective striking, but Fighter B wins the remaining categories (grappling, control, aggression, defense).  Who would the round be awarded to?  Since the criteria is prioritized in descending order (effective striking and/or grappling, control, aggression, defense), how are the individual categories weighed against each other when split amongst both fighters?

“I would say that if 4 of 5 minutes occurred standing, and Fighter A won the stand-up, it is likely that Fighter A won the round. In addition, it would seem that Fighter B would not win on octagon control or defense in this scenario. If there was an even split in criteria, effective striking and effective grappling should be given scoring priority.”

Given the description for effective striking and as it pertains to the total volume of strikes versus the effectiveness of the strikes, how should the striking category be scored when Fighter A lands a higher volume of strikes, but Fighter B lands fewer strikes that either show visible damage (cut, limping) or cause a fighter to lose his legs and stagger a bit before regaining composure?

”Effective striking is judged by determining the number of legal strikes landed by a contestant and the significance of such legal strikes. When drafting the proposed unified rules for New Jersey in 2000, I wanted to utilize the word damage in the definition of effective striking, but was cautioned against it since it could be a tool for detractors in the sport’s early days.  Obviously, strikes that cause damage or a/k/a ‘the significance of such legal strikes’ should be given greater weight.”

In the same vein as the question above, do you feel that this is a “gray area” that comes along with any system attempting to define something as abstract as MMA, and that a qualified judge’s personal opinion on who he or she thought was more effective should come into play when deciding which fighter to award the round to?

“There is going to be subjectivity or interpretation in any scoring system, that is why the selection of judges is crucial.”

The conversation about scoring rounds that are very close brings me to the 10-10 round.  The definition of a “draw” round is: “when both contestants appear to be fighting evenly and neither contestant shows dominance in a round”. I’m of the opinion that we see a round where neither fighter shows clear dominance much more often than we see an actual draw awarded.  Do you think the “draw” round should be used more often, or do you feel that the system was designed with a draw round being as rarely awarded as it is now?

”I think that there is generally a winner in most rounds, but if the judges see a draw round, then they should not hesitate to score a 10-10 round.”

There has also been a lot of discussion that the ten-point must system is cumbersome, and that one of the ways to improve it would be for judges to be much more liberal with not only draws, but also with awarding more 10-8 and 10-7 rounds.  Do you agree that widening the spectrum of scores would help, or do you feel that the vast majority of the rounds should be scored 10-9 like we’ve generally seen?

“I think that the ten point system works, but that judges need to be educated and on the same page as to what constitutes a 10-8 round. I think there may be a noticeable reluctance to score 10-8 rounds. I think I would rather see a half point system than a very liberal use of 10-10 rounds.”

The difference between a 10-8 round (a round is to be scored as a 10-8 Round when a contestant overwhelmingly dominates by striking or grappling in a round) and a 10-7 round (a round is to be scored as a 10-7 Round when a contestant totally dominates by striking or grappling in a round) seems difficult to distinguish.  Can you explain how to differentiate a 10-8 and 10-7 round?

“If there is a 10-7 round, it likely means that the referee or ringside physician should have stopped the fight, but did not.”

The question of Pride’s “yellow cards” being used often comes up.  I can understand how the result of a yellow card affecting the fighter’s purse could open up a can of worms, but how do you feel about some sort of penalty being assessed when one fighter is forcing a continual stalemate or assuming a position that hinders activity?  Examples would be “lay and pray”, “butt scooting”, pressing against the cage with little action, or lack of engagement on the feet. (NOTE:  I realize that “Timidity” is a foul, and since charging a fighter with a foul for this is unheard of, would a yellow card or something like it function as an appropriate compromise?)

“I have seen point deductions for timidity in New Jersey as well as the referee stopping fights for timidity. So, I do think that the system already addresses your issues when applied properly.”

Finally, is there a way that a fighter or his camp can approach the commission after a decision and learn more about the mechanics of the fight scoring, so they are able to better understand and make any necessary changes in their strategy or training?

“Fighters and trainers should already be very familiar with the scoring system and criteria. If they are not, they should become familiar with it immediately.  After the fight, fight camps can ask for the official score card and an explanation of the scoring.  Prior to the fight, fight camps can question the selection of the judges or file a protest. I am always available to trainers to discuss scoring issues.”

The Garv.com would like to thank Mr. Nick Lembo for taking the time to participate in this detailed interview.