Foto: Micha Forssberg.
Efter Rumble of the Kings lämnade Bruno Carvalho in en officiell protest mot Marius Zaromskis där han bland annat vidhöll att Zaromskis hade smort in sig i någon typ av hal substans så som vaselin, att han blivit träffad i bakhuvudet av Zaromskis cartweel-spark samt att matchen stoppades för tidigt.
HETAST JUST NU
Related Posts
Nils Widlund senaste tillskottet till Rumble of the Kings: ”Awakening”
16 november, 2016
Rumble of the Kings kommer tillbaka med thaiboxningsgala
3 oktober, 2016
Tolv ögonblick: MMA-matcherna från Rumble of the Kings
17 november, 2012
Svenska MMA-förbundet meddelar nu att de gått igenom hela matchen, och deras beslut är att protesten avslås.
”The SMMAF Assessment Committee has found that the original decision in the match between Marius Zaromskis and Bruno Carvalho shall stand,” skriver SMMAF i ett pressmeddelande.
Protesten avslås på samtliga punkter, och det fullständiga beslutet går att läsa efter hoppet.
Assessment Committee protest handling
Validity of the protest
The protest was correctly sent to SMMAF within the stated 48 hour limit. In order to make an official ruling a protest fee of 2 000 SEK must be paid to SMMAF. The rules (§32.3) states that the protest should contain information about how the match should be judged. No such specific information was submitted in the protest although there is an exemplification of a Japanese match which was ruled a no contest in a similar matter. However the Japanese match, in the example, was not held under the sanctioned Swedish rules. The Assessment Committee (Below: AC) still finds the protest valid.
General
The protest is divided into three different matters. The AC deals with these matters separately as they are not connected to each other. The AC notes that both the referee’s and opponent’s names are misspelled in the protest text. The text in this document will use the correctly spelled names:
Referee: Mr. Robert Sundel (Below: Mr. Sundel)
Opponent: Mr. Marius Zaromskis (Below: Mr. Zaromskis)
1. Vaseline
Investigations made after the event consisted of reviewing the video footage, interviewing the referee, interviewing the supervisor, interviewing judges, interviewing event personnel. This was the conclusion:
- Every athlete at the event was informed by the referee, Mr. Sundel, about the rules including the part concerning Vaseline (§21.2 and §21.3)
- It is the task of the referee to check such things as equipment (mouth piece, groin protection, gloves, wrapping* etc.) and any use of Vaseline, liniment or similar substances before the match starts.
- a. This was done by the referee and he did not find anything to report. The referee checked for Vaseline on the head, shoulders, back, hands as well as inside of the shorts and around the body of Mr. Zaromskis.
- During the match Mr. Carvalho verbally asked the referee to check for Vaseline after some time had passed in the first round.
- a. The referee stopped the match and re-checked Mr. Zaromskis once more. This time on the head, shoulders, back and hands.
- b. The referee did not find anything to report at this time either.
This concludes that Mr. Zaromskis was checked twice and informed once about the use of Vaseline; no foul was found.
The protest says ”Marius Zaromskis had several body parts covered in Vaseline, oil, lotion or another slippery substance”. However there has been found no proof for this being true.
The protest also says that Mr. Zaromskis should have been dried off by referee Mr. Sundel. The AC disagrees with this statement. Since Mr. Sundel did not find any Vaseline he should not have dried of Mr. Zaromskis, it is perfectly alright to be sweaty in an MMA-match.
With reference to the argumentation above this part of the protest is overruled.
Side note*= The referee can visually check all things stated in the rules besides the wrapping of the hands. A specific person checks the wrapping and signs the tape on the gloves. The referee checks for the correct signature on the tape on the gloves.
2. The Wheel Kick
In regards to the “wheel kick” the AC finds it perfectly clear that both athletes were facing each other when the kick was executed. While Mr. Zaromskis was somersaulting Mr. Carvalho turned his head away slightly causing the kick to hit Mr. Carvalho on the side or back of the head. From this the AC concludes two things:
- The kick was not intended to hit the back of the head.
- It is unclear from the video footage whether the kick landed on the side or the back of the head.
This part of the protest is therefore overruled because no foul technique was proven to have been performed.
3. Pre-mature stoppage
By reviewing the video footage it is clear that Mr. Carvalho did not defend himself properly for quite some time before the stoppage. The AC finds that, if anything, the stoppage could almost be viewed as too late rather than too early.
The referee gave Mr. Carvalho plenty of time to recover and defend himself but Mr. Carvalho did not do so and after two hard “hammer fists” the referee stopped the match. It should also be noted that Mr. Carvalho needed assistance to stand up after the match.
Therefore, also in this part, the protest is overruled.
Conclusion
The AC has found no obvious errors in the match between Mr. Bruno Carvalho and Mr. Marius Zaromskis and therefore the original result shall stand.
Stockholm 2011-12-11
