Cat Zingano delivers UFC 232 appeal, lawyer argues that allowing win to stand would ‘endanger fighters’

Bloodyelbow.com

Cat Zingano is following through on her desire to get her loss to Megan Anderson at UFC 232 overturned. The former bantamweight title challenger lost her featherweight debut in just one minute, with only six strikes traded, when an errant head kick attempt sent Anderson’s toe into Zingano’s right eye. The result was a cut eyelid that ended with the referee waving off the bout, due to Zingano being no longer able to defend herself.

Clearly a disappointing loss for ‘Alpha’ Cat, who was looking to build momentum from her July win over Marion Reneau. But, it’s also a loss that has sparked some debate. Is a toe to the eye technically an eye gouge? Should the fight be declared a ‘no contest’ due to an incidental foul? That’s what Zingano is hoping to achieve through her attorney, Nathan Gable, in an appeal filed with the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) on Monday, January 7th.

In it, Gable argues:

The language of the Unified Rules regarding eye gouging is non exhaustive and the examples listed, namely “eye gouging by means of fingers, chin, or elbow” are not meant as the only methods by which a foul may occur. First, the language is plainly open ended, beginning with “eye gouging of any kind…”. Had the Unified Rules intended to limit this foul to only the examples that followed and exclude toes from this foul, this rule would have been written with limiting language such as, “only eye gouging by means of fingers, chin, or elbow is illegal” and omit the words “of any kind.”
Additionally, had this rule been meant to limit this foul to only the examples that followed and exclude toes, then by the same logic, a thumb to the eye would not be foul as the rule merely mentions fingers, not thumbs. (See Oxford Dictionary https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/is-a-thumb-a-finger/ “Although thumbs have certain similarities to fingers, there are some key differences. It’s therefore more accurate to describe a thumb as one of five digits that we have on each hand, rather than as a finger.”). Therefore an eye gouging foul under the Unified Rules includes an eye gouge with a toe.
Lastly, for the Unified Rules to allow an eye gouge by a toe as a legal move would encourage such behavior and endanger fighters. If eye gouging with toes were legal, then a fighter defending a heel hook could use his toes to defend by eye gouging their opponent.

It’s an argument that has a reasonable amount of logic to it, however it will likely face some real difficulty in getting the CSAC to bend. Aside from the fact that kicks to the face are already illegal for a grounded opponent (where an aggressor would usually have to be to complete a heel hook), the commission has a limited set of circumstances for which it will approve an appeal (h/t Erik Magraken).

Their list is essentially limited to collusion, errors in judging, failed drug tests, and rule violations. And as the section of the ‘Unified Rules of MMA’ that Gable himself highlighted for the appeal points out, “Legal strikes or punches that contact the fighter’s eye socket are not eye gouging and shall be considered legal attacks.” All that considered it seems unlikely that Anderson’s win will be overturned.

Yet, in a statement to MMA Fighting, CSAC executive Andy Foster said that the commission will hear Zingano’s case and that “he will ask the ABC rules and regulations committee for an opinion about whether that should continue to be the rule going forward.” Maybe instead of getting turned away, Zingano will set a new precedent for eye damaging strikes in MMA.