How much does the "10-point Must" scoring system impact decisions not to take points after fouls?

This question has been on my mind for a number of years, and since this weekend we got another classic eye-poke TKO I'm wondering what you all think about this. The 10-point Must system was inherited from boxing, a sport which regularly features 10 or 12 round fights, and where taking a single point from a fighter due to a foul doesn't automatically change the course of the fight. However, in MMA where fighters only get 3 or 5 rounds to compete, such point deductions are inherently much more impactful - even over 5 rounds, a single point deduction in a close fight could sway the point totals in favour of a losing fighter, leading to dramatic and controversial draws or calls of "robbery" from fans. Given these circumstances, it makes sense that referees might be reluctant to take points in MMA, less they be seen to have altered the course of the fight, especially in such a volatile environment where the head of the biggest organization in the sport has no qualms about dragging your name through the mud at a press conference if he deems you made the wrong decision (and fan backlash can be even worse as we all have seen). But is this actually the case? And if so, what is the solution? I've not seen any real attempts to suggest an alternative way to score MMA fights, and I struggle to think of any myself, but there must be some out there. Curious to see what you guys think on this. submitted by /u/yengis_wan [link] [comments]