The 12-6 Elbow. One of the more bizarre fouls under MMA’s unified rules. A foul that some regulators insisted on including in the first draft of the unified rules and compromise was reached.
Over the years there has been pushback to remove the foul but health and safety concerns about adding a new tool to the offensive arsenal often keep this from becoming a reality.
Last week I made a public records request via Colorado’s Open Records laws to obtain data their commission compiled about knees to grounded opponents (something they cleared by allowing ONE Championship in the State). Interestingly the information also contained data about a study on 12-6 elbows finding the banned technique is no more dangerous than many other legal techniques.
The study was conducted at Auburn University Montgomery. Dr. Angela Russell was the study director. Dr. Randy Russell was the study analysis director and Jody McCormick, the Executive Director of the Alabama Athletic Commission, acted as study’s technical advisor.
In the study trained martial artists and an untrained control group executed 12-6 elbows from a variety of positions including full mount, side control and standing positions. Other strikes were also thrown from these various positions such as hammerfists and east west elbows. The force of impact was measured by the researchers and they concluded that
“The use of a 12-6 elbow poses no increased risk of lacerations or TBI than is currently allowed
in a legal elbow strike to a downed opponent by the Unified Rules.
…The deregulation of 12-6 elbows WILL NOT increase the likelihood of competitor’s employing
such a strike due to the position required to perform such a strike.“
McCormick, in an email to other commissioners, provided the following summary of their findings:
- Argument Against
➢ Strikes to the Head, where the elbow moves in a 90-degree vertical motion, where the elbow
strikes the face may cause an increased risk for lacerations and/or traumatic brain injury
(TBI)/concussions. - Arguments For
➢ All other manners of elbows to the head of a grounded opponent are LEGAL and inflict equal
or more damage that could be sustained from a 12-6 elbow.
➢ In jurisdictions where 12-6 elbows are legal, the occurrence of such strikes is minimal/rare at
best.
➢ The role of the referee should be on stopping a fight if too much damage is being taken by one
opponent. Adding an added element of judgment, as to the angle of an elbow strike, detracts and
distracts the referees from performing the job at hand.
➢ The referee’s position in the cage/ring could change the appearance of a 12-6 actually being
thrown, leading to an increased number of inaccurate/subjective determinations from the officiant.
➢ Achieving a true 12-6 elbow strike to one’s opponent is easier said than done. When in a
position to perform such a strike, the bottom opponent is usually moving to dodge strikes or
moving their bodies to improve their position.
➢ If in a position to throw a 12-6 elbow, the top fighter is more likely to perform an alternative
strike or body movement to improve their position than they would be in throwing a 12-6 elbow. - Assessment
➢ The use of a 12-6 elbow poses no increased risk of lacerations or TBI than is currently allowed
in a legal elbow strike to a downed opponent by the Unified Rules.
➢ 12-6 elbows are subjective and a distraction to the referee in the cage/ring.
➢ The deregulation of 12-6 elbows WILL NOT increase the likelihood of competitor’s employing
such a strike due to the position required to perform such a strike. Fighters will work to improve
their position because a grounded fighter would essentially have to be laying completely still in
order for it to reach its full damage potential. If the grounded fighter is not defending his/herself,
it can be argued that the fight should already be stopped due to inactivity or damage sustained.
McCormick went to note as follows:
Over the last year and a half, I have been working with Auburn University Montgomery to do the first ever scientific study on Mixed Martial Arts. For years,
all the claims regarding the need for a rules changes have been just that, claims
and assertions. We now have definitive proof that downward striking elbows are
no more forceful/damaging than all strikes that are currently legal.
Combat Sports Law 