Written with the help of artificial-intelligence tools and checked by automated controls.
This content was machine-translated from the French version.
Dana White rarely needs long speeches to shift a discussion in MMA. This time, a few words are enough: the UFC does not oppose the idea of making lateral kicks aimed at the knee, often called oblique kicks, illegal. The proposal comes from Andy Foster, executive director of the California Athletic Commission, and reignites an old debate: how far should fighters be protected without trimming the technical arsenal of a sport that is already heavily regulated?
A Rule That Is Still Legal, but Increasingly Unsettled
The important point lies in a nuance: the oblique kick is not currently banned under the unified MMA rules.
The important point lies in a nuance: the oblique kick is not currently banned under the unified MMA rules. It can be used to halt an advance, disrupt an opponent’s rhythm, or attack a supporting leg. Its target, however, explains the tension. When the kick lands directly on the knee, it can cause a violent twist, sometimes more troubling than a spectacular blow to the face.
The discussion gained momentum again after UFC 331 in Los Angeles. During a preliminary bout, Edmen Shahbazyan complained about kicks directed at his knee by Brunno Ferreira. The sequence did not change the result, but it put the issue back in front of regulators. Andy Foster is now pushing for lateral kicks to the knee to be added to the list of fouls.
Dana White Is Not Blocking the Movement
Asked after the latest episode of Contender Series, Dana White chose a brief but clear response. The UFC chief praised Foster’s institutional influence and indicated that his organization did not disagree with this course of action. In the cautious language of sports regulations, this is not yet a green light. But it is certainly not a roadblock.
White’s support matters because the unified rules are not changed through a simple media announcement. Athletic commissions, regulatory bodies, and the jurisdictions overseeing events must reach an agreement. The UFC therefore cannot change the rule on its own everywhere it competes. However, its influence could accelerate a discussion that often remained stuck between technical purists and advocates of a more protective framework.
A Kick Associated With Serious Injuries
The technique is not new. Jon Jones popularized it at the highest level, and several fighters have incorporated it as a distance weapon. Its effectiveness is not disputed: it forces an opponent to hesitate, disrupts an entry, and exposes a vulnerable joint. That is precisely what bothers its opponents.
The case most often cited remains that of Modestas Bukauskas, who injured his knee after a kick from Khalil Rountree Jr. in 2021. That image fueled unease surrounding the technique for a long time. Those defending its continued use respond that MMA already permits actions capable of causing serious injury, including leg locks and certain elbow strikes. For those in favor of a ban, the difference lies in the nature of the risk: a direct strike to a weight-bearing joint leaves little time to defend properly.
A Debate That Goes Beyond the UFC
If the ban moves forward, it will not affect only UFC stars. The unified rules serve as a reference for a large part of North American MMA, and a change approved by an influential commission such as California’s could quickly set a precedent. Referees would then have to distinguish between a low-distance kick, a kick to the thigh, and a lateral attack on the knee. This technical point will be crucial: a vague rule would create as many controversies as it claims to resolve.
For fighters, the stakes are already tangible. Those who use this kick will have to adapt their defensive entries, while attackers will need to find other ways to keep an opponent at distance. MMA has already experienced this kind of shift with so-called 12-6 elbows, which were long banned before being reinstated. This time, the movement could go in the opposite direction: removing a legal weapon because its potential cost appears too high.
