“So the rematch is very interesting. Right here, right now, being honest, I never do this when it comes to talking about what the next fight is going to be. The rematch is what makes sense,” Dana White said at the UFC 321 press conference. Just like that, the UFC CEO cemented the next chapter of the Tom Aspinall vs Ciryl Gane rivalry, which turned into a grave disappointment at the Etihad Arena. Although many fans expected White to announce the rematch, some have put him under the radar for not giving the Brit a DQ victory. 

In the Abu Dhabi main event, ‘Bon Gamin’ caught Aspinall with two fingers digging into his eyes. Referee Jason Herzog stepped in and ruled the bout a no-contest, allowing the Manchester native to keep his belt but not add a win to his record. The call initially seemed fair, but backlash came quickly. The fans started arguing that Ciryl Gane should’ve been disqualified for committing a foul against the heavyweight champ. Now, two of the most famous MMA sports personalities have weighed in with their own verdict.

Adam Catterall believes Tom Aspinall should’ve been awarded the DQ victory 

As the discussion picked up heat on social media, TNT Sport’s Adam Catterall posted on X, “Officials warn fighters about fouls in the changing room. Choosing to fight in a stand-up exchange with spread fingers is an act of intent, heightening the risk of a potential foul. When an intentional foul leads to the end of the contest, the result is a disqualification.  

The British sports presenter was absolutely spot on here. Before every fight, the referee meets each fighter in their locker room to give a final reminder about potential fouls. That includes the warning officials repeat inside the cage, to keep fingers closed and avoid accidental eye pokes. However, Ciryl Gane’s hyperextended fingers clearly caught Aspinall’s eyes, which was indeed a foul.

This is where things get interesting: the question of intention. Did Ciryl Gane purposely try to hurt Aspinall? Well, if the Frenchman had committed the foul with intent, he would’ve been disqualified. But in this case, the referee ruled it unintentional, leading to a ‘No Contest.’ Now, was that decision justified? Ariel Helwani believes this entire rule system doesn’t make sense.  

Ariel Helwani slams the MMA disqualification rules   

While Adam Catterall quickly laid out his case for why Tom Aspinall deserved a disqualification victory after Ciryl Gane’s eye poke at UFC 321, veteran journalist Ariel Helwani took the discussion to another level. According to Helwani, the distinction between intentional and unintentional fouls shouldn’t matter when judging an infraction in any sport. On his YouTube channel, he stated bluntly, “This notion of intentional vs. unintentional is the stupidest s—t in sports.” And he didn’t stop there.

Helwani broke it down by drawing comparisons to other major sports. He pointed out how basketball penalizes “illegal screens” which are fouls that are called regardless of intent. The same standard, he said, applies even on the grandest stage like the Super Bowl. But in MMA, things play out differently. Using this moment to spotlight the sport’s inconsistent foul system, Helwani argued that Ciryl Gane should’ve been disqualified for the eye poke and that Tom Aspinall rightfully deserved the win.

He added, “NO! Foul is a foul. Which means a foul is a DQ. That should’ve been a DQ victory for Tom Aspinall. That should’ve been a DQ loss for Ciryl Gane. And let me be very, very clear right here now. I don’t think Ciryl did that on purpose. Why would he have done that on purpose? Why would he try to foul his opponent? But it doesn’t matter; an illegal maneuver is an illegal maneuver. An illegal foul is an illegal foul whether you meant to do it or not.” 

And that’s exactly why many UFC fans believe Dana White snubbed Aspinall by skipping over that detail in his post-fight presser, the same point both Catterall and Helwani brought up. That said, with eye pokes continuing to ruin fights, the debate rages on. But that raised a question: would enforcing harsher punishments, like automatic disqualification, actually curb the problem more effectively? Share your thoughts in the comments below.