Tensions flared at a recent IBJJF event involving UFC veteran Raphael Assuncao and 10th Planet black belt Matt Walsh. The incident occurred after Assuncao was awarded a disqualification win over Walsh due to an allegedly ‘illegal’ lockdown position.
Assuncao, a 42-year-old Brazilian retired from the UFC’s bantamweight division, last competed professionally in 2023, losing to Davey Grant via inverted triangle.
At the IBJJF event, Walsh of 10th Planet Pompano Beach was disqualified for applying “lockdown” on Assuncao.
The lockdown position, sometimes referred to as “reaping” the knee, is a technique that involves torqueing the opponent’s knee and hip. While the IBJJF rules classify it as an illegal twist of the knee, its legality has been a subject of debate, with some arguing it merely forces a sweep if applied correctly.
After the match, a visibly agitated Assuncao confronted Walsh, perceiving the lockdown as a flagrant violation that endangered him. In a heated exchange, Assuncao resorted to spitting at Walsh and hurling insults, including derogatory comments about Walsh’s affiliation with 10th Planet Jiu-Jitsu.
“All you 10th Planet guys are pu**ies!” Assuncao reportedly shouted, further escalating the altercation.
Assuncao then had Walsh escorted out of the venue by security personnel.
In a video posted online, Walsh expressed his frustration with the situation, explaining that he has been disqualified for using the lockdown at IBJJF events in the past, while other times it has been allowed.
“Sometimes I win in IBJJF using it and sometimes they DQ me for it,” Walsh said. “That guy is RAPHAEL OLIVEIRA ASSUNÇÃO. He wouldn’t shut up about how 10P can’t fight and we’re all p*ssies. Yeah, he kept spitting on me. Yeah, his friends who were refs there had cops make me leave the convention center… but he was allowed to stay.”
Walsh also alleged that a “fat Brazilian ref” who was friends with Assuncao had the police remove him from the venue.
The incident has reignited criticism of the IBJJF’s reputation for inconsistent rule enforcement and alleged bias, with some questioning the organization’s for-profit status and perceived double standards.
