Practice notebook · Sources checked 12 September 2026. These six situations are invented. They describe no actual bout and come with no claim of judging qualifications. Use them to practise writing a reason for your score, then notice which observations could change your mind.
Before choosing a number
These exercises follow the ABC's July 2025 judging clarification. The ABC rules index also links an August 2026 revision whose cover requests November 2027 implementation. A publication date does not establish adoption at a particular event; check its governing authority.
For each exercise, write three short notes: what you observed, which fighter you provisionally favour, and what remains unclear. Paper works, or use the notes in the MMA scorecard. Name Fighter A “Red” and Fighter B “Blue” so the fields match these examples. These are six separate practice situations, not six rounds of one fight. The tool's existing guide explains totals and three-judge decisions. Open each comparison below after making your notes. Before printing this page, open every comparison you want to include.
1. More connections, or more effect?
In this invented round, Red connects 28 times and Blue connects 11 times. Many of Red's punches brush the guard or land while Blue is moving away. One of Blue's punches makes Red stumble and retreat behind a tight guard. Your notes describe the remaining exchanges only as “fairly similar”.
Your task: Ignore the totals temporarily. Describe the clearest effect you observed from each fighter's attacks. If you favour Blue, identify the observation supporting that choice. If you favour Red, explain what the tally fails to tell us about Red's work.
Compare your reasoning for exercise 1
Assess attacks by their effect, not a connection tally. page 1.
“Blue's punch interrupted Red's offence” is more useful than “Blue looked powerful”. But “fairly similar” leaves an important gap: review what the other attacks accomplished before settling the margin. This scenario supplies no automatic points-per-punch formula.
2. What happened after the takedown?
Red completes a takedown and spends 90 seconds on top. Blue blocks the short punches, prevents Red from improving position and eventually stands. Earlier, Blue landed two body kicks after which Red visibly slowed and backed away. The notes record no comparable effect from the takedown's landing.
Your task: Write one note about location and another about what an attack accomplished. Then change the scenario: Red now lands hard ground strikes that repeatedly interrupt Blue's attempts to stand. Explain why your assessment might change.
Compare your reasoning for exercise 2
Holding a position alone does not establish dominance. page 2.
The second version adds a different observation; it does not simply add more time on top. A useful note identifies that difference rather than saying “takedown equals round”. Decide how the changed sequence compares with the rest of the action.
3. A successful escape and a successful counter
Red advances through several exchanges. Blue slips punches and circles away. During three of those exchanges, Blue also lands a counter that makes Red stop and reset. In the others, Blue escapes without landing anything. Neither fighter has another clearly described success.
Your task: Separate Blue's escapes from Blue's counters. If the counters were removed from the description, what evidence would remain for your choice? Write the specific action you would want to see again.
Compare your reasoning for exercise 3
Defence is not separately scored; assess the offensive work. page 2.
“Blue avoided everything” and “Blue's counters stopped three attacks” describe different things. Keep them separate in your notes. Being impressed by an escape does not answer what either fighter achieved offensively.
4. A close round with an incomplete view
Both fighters appear to land similar short combinations. Red advances more often and brings several exchanges toward the fence. Blue's best exchange happens partly behind the referee from your viewing angle. Your friend favours Blue; you cannot tell whether those strikes landed cleanly.
Your task: Identify whether you found equal effectiveness or simply lack a clear view. State what further observation could distinguish those possibilities. Then consider a second version in which you have a clear view but still find no offensive advantage.
Compare your reasoning for exercise 4
Use aggressiveness or area control only when no offensive edge can be discerned. The clarification generally reserves 10–10 for partial rounds and strongly discourages it for completed rounds. pages 2–3.
Write “view obstructed” when that is the problem. For a personal exercise, you can leave an entry blank while checking it; that is a note-taking choice, not an instruction for an official judge. Explain why your friend's observation does or does not resolve the missing information.
5. What supports a wider margin?
Most exchanges are competitive. With 70 seconds remaining, Blue lands a legal body strike. Red folds forward, retreats and cannot return an attack during Blue's next sustained sequence. Red later resumes countering. A second invented version instead has Blue holding top position for three minutes without productive attacks or any described effect on Red.
Your task: Identify what could support 10–8 in the first version and what you would need to inspect more closely. Do not diagnose an injury. Compare that evidence with the extra positional time in the second version.
Compare your reasoning for exercise 5
Significant damage can justify 10–8; positional control without damage cannot. page 3.
The short description does not settle how significant the effect was. Record the observed interruption, subsequent attacks and response. Someone choosing a different margin should explain which observation they evaluated differently, rather than treating “three minutes” or one dramatic moment as a universal numerical shortcut.
6. One penalty, three different assessments
For this arithmetic exercise only, three fictional judges have already assessed the same round. Their scores for Red–Blue are 10–9, 10–8 and 9–10. The referee then announces a one-point deduction from Red in that round.
Your task: Keep each assessment unchanged and apply the announced penalty. Explain why a net 9–9 on one card need not mean that judge saw an even round. What would you enter if the referee had issued only a warning?
Check the arithmetic for exercise 6
The referee's announced deduction belongs in that round. page 3.
The net scores are 9–9, 9–8 and 8–10. In the tool, enter one in Fighter A’s deduction box, leaving the three score selections as given. A warning alone adds no deduction. The first judge favoured Red's action before the penalty; the adjusted number records an additional event.
Keep the explanation with the score
Before comparing answers, underline the observation carrying the most weight in your decision. Ask a friend which detail would change theirs. Download your scorecard notes if you want to keep them: the tool holds entries in the current tab and does not save automatically. For stoppages and referee responsibilities, see the referee decisions guide.