New Rulings for Non-Engagement, Omnoi's Take

[Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu]

Recently there have been talks about how to deal with fighters "dancing" too much and not engaging in fights, resulting in both fighters being dismissed from the ring after 2 warnings by the referee. Usually this is in the 5th round, although the announcements havw differed between promoters about how they will enforce the rule. Channel 7, for example (Giatpetch) has said this will only apply to rounds 1-4. On 2 promotions so far, including Petchyindee, fighters were dismissed by the referee (1 warning, 2nd warning is a deduction of a point from each fighter, after that they're dismissed) in round 5 of the Main Event. In both cases so far the public consensus is that it was warranted. 

I'm not certain how this affects the fighters' pay. I read on one post that their purse is cut in half, but have not seen that written anywhere officially. 

In this announcement Sia Moo, the head of Omnoi, says for his stadium fighters will be warned as in the previous suggestions, but after 2 warnings they will not be thrown out of the ring. He says this will only lead to new forms of cheating. (I totally see this. If you have no way to win, this cancels all bets.) Instead, fighters' purses will be docked as a result of too much non-engagement. He doesn't say by how much.

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

14 hours ago, Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu said:

(I totally see this. If you have no way to win, this cancels all bets.)

I'm not sure how those cheering on the "throw them out" rule don't see that the rule actually can create even LESS engagement. Maybe there is a missing piece of information, but if I'm a fighter going into the 5th round and down big in the odds, there is almost every incentive not to engage and purposively try to get the fight called off, especially if there is sizeable money bet on me. Everyone who bet on me, including my own gym, would keep their money. The losing fighter wins when a fight is called off.

This puts the fighter with a big lead in a very difficult position as well.

[Joseph Arthur De Gonzo]

Just to understand, by 

On 12/9/2021 at 1:39 AM, Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu said:

Recently there have been talks about how to deal with fighters "dancing" too much and not engaging in fights, resulting in both fighters being dismissed from the ring after 2 warnings by the referee.

So, it was ruled a no contest? 

[Tyler from Florida]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:18 PM, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

I'm not sure how those cheering on the "throw them out" rule don't see that the rule actually can create even LESS engagement. Maybe there is a missing piece of information, but if I'm a fighter going into the 5th round and down big in the odds, there is almost every incentive not to engage and purposively try to get the fight called off, especially if there is sizeable money bet on me. Everyone who bet on me, including my own gym, would keep their money. The losing fighter wins when a fight is called off.

This puts the fighter with a big lead in a very difficult position as well.

Well wouldn't the idea be that if you get thrown out you don't get your purse? Figure getting paid should be enough incentive, yeah? Or is not-losing worth more than their potential purse for losing? Maybe gamblers giving the fighter some of the money they bet on him for saving their bet?

 

Quote

I'm not certain how this affects the fighters' pay. I read on one post that their purse is cut in half, but have not seen that written anywhere officially.

I do see Sylvie mentioned it's not entirely known how it affects their pay... I just assume the reason most of these guys are fighting in the first place is because they're getting paid. If getting thrown out = less pay, that defeats the entire point of fighting. Is saving the gambler's money that important to the fighters (could be. genuine question, I don't know enough about the gambling)?

If they're still getting paid even after being thrown out, I believe that would be the main problem. You shouldn't be rewarded for that and it entirely incentivizes the losing fighter to actively try to get it thrown out, like you said. Because in that case getting thrown out isn't even a punishment, it's just ending the fight early and not putting it on the record lol.

So based on what I can see Omnoi's solution makes a lot of sense. The main incentive to fight is their pay, not their record. If I get docked purse money for non-engagement, AND still lose the fight then gambler money is still moving and I'm getting paid less. So the people that bet on me still lose their money, and I lose my own money on top of that. Lose lose all around, definitely makes me want to engage more. The only thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is if the winning fighter, being the winning fighter, is playing the keepaway game and gets penalized for it. The losing fighter could entice the winning fighter to come forward at HIM or else he risks being docked his winning purse. This is the part that is going to need diligence from the referees imo. It's up to the losing fighter to chase down the winner, not vice versa, but if the refs deem the winner to be 'running away' or participating in 'non-engagement' he could be penalized for simply backward fighting which is a massive issue, at least to me. It's up to the referee's discretion, which isn't great in itself. Hopefully the stadiums recognize the backward fighting as an integral part of the sport and don't penalize winners for it.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Tyler from Florida

[Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu]

2 hours ago, Tyler from Florida said:

If they're still getting paid even after being thrown out, I believe that would be the main problem.

The problem is, much more money is (potentially) made through gambling, than through fighter pay. Not only is there a social obligation to those who gamble on you, which is more important than a fight purse, the money involved is also greater. And, your gym itself is likely gambling. You fight for your gym, not for individual gain. If a fighter is dancing off it's because their gym has signaled for them to do so. It isn't an individual decision. For instance we were told that a recent kid fight resulted in 100,000 baht tip out for the win.

[Sylvie von Duuglas-Ittu]

6 hours ago, Joseph Arthur De Gonzo said:

Just to understand, by 

So, it was ruled a no contest? 

Yes, it results in a "no contest" for both fighters.

[Tyler from Florida]

7 minutes ago, Kevin von Duuglas-Ittu said:

The problem is, much more money is (potentially) made through gambling, than through fighter pay. Not only is there a social obligation to those who gamble on you, which is more important than a fight purse, the money involved is also greater. And, your gym itself is likely gambling. You fight for your gym, not for individual gain. If a fighter is dancing off it's because their gym has signaled for them to do so. It isn't an individual decision. For instance we were told that a recent kid fight resulted in 100,000 baht tip out for the win.

Right, so not-losing and saving the gamblers is as important or more important than just their fight purse. Hard to reconcile that then. What's your take on the Omnoi stadium solution in that case? In the case they get docked but don't get thrown out, they'd still be losing their gambler's money too right? I would hope the purse-docking only applies to the fighter who refuses to chase his opponent and not the fighter who fights backwards, but it would probably apply to both if the idea is a westernization and to incentivize a clashing of heads, which would be massively unfortunate.