Let’s Talk Nevada’s Actual Instant Replay Rule and Controversial Herman/Rodriguez “Low Blow”

At UFC Vegas 10 this past weekend Ed Herman won a controversial bout against opponent Mike Rodriguez.  Rodriguez landed two clean strikes to the body causing Herman to crumble and being unable to continue for a considerable period of time.  Referee Chris Tognoni mistakenly called the second bodyshot a low blow but instant replay makes it clear that it was not.

Herman, after taking advantage of much of the recovery time permitted for low blows recovered and continued going on to victory via submission in the following round.

During the bout a narrative developed that instant replay was not available as this was not a fight ending sequence.  While Nevada’s instant replay rule used to be limited to such circumstances that is not longer the case.  Specifically NAC 467.682(5) was added expanding the ability of instant replay from “the conclusion of a contest or exhibition stopped immediately because of an injury” to “any time” reading as follows:

The referee may, at any time during a contest or exhibition, call a time-out to consult with officials of the Commission or to view replay footage.”

Here is a pretty clear example of a fighter losing a bout when correctly he should have won via KO or TKO.

This is a case where replay could have been used but the referee did not use his discretion to do so.  This is something Rodriguez’s corner should have implored the referee to do during the bout.  It is perhaps the most effective tool to overturn a wrong decision in real time and one that fighters and their corners should be aware of when competing in Nevada.  Without a real time decision to use replay overturning this loss becomes difficult under Nevada’s extremely limited appeal rights which only allow a change of decision where

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


3 thoughts on “Let’s Talk Nevada’s Actual Instant Replay Rule and Controversial Herman/Rodriguez “Low Blow”

  1. Do you know when NSAC added subsection 5 to the rule to allow use of replay “at any time?”
    The revision history on their rule page seems to indicate that the last time 467.682 was revised was January 2019, but unlike with the statutes relating to the NSAC I can find no way to determine what the revisions were at that time, so I don’t know if that’s when subsection 5 was added. I also can’t find any online MMA media discussion of the “at any time” addition to the instant replay rules. Considering the apparent confusion among UFC’s broadcast team and their administration about the use of replay, I would have expected there to have been discussion of this when the rule was adopted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s