Following the controversial conclusion of CJI 2, Craig Jones has released a detailed explanation addressing the perceived bias and rule disputes surrounding B-Team’s victory. In a comprehensive breakdown featuring head judge Miha Perhavec, Jones systematically dismantled criticisms about the tournament’s structure and scoring decisions.
Jones began by addressing accusations of bias in team selection and bracketing.
“If I was going to be biased to my former team, DDS, I would not have given them Mica Galvao,”
Jones stated, emphasizing that giving them who he considers
“the number one grappler in the world”
would contradict any claims of favoritism. He also explained the wild card distribution, noting that when teams complained about ATOS receiving two wild cards, he gave everyone two wild cards, with New Wave ultimately utilizing this advantage.
The bracket structure came under scrutiny, but Jones justified his decisions by placing the two teams with double wild cards (ATOS and New Wave) on the same side. To balance this advantage, he gave B-Team a challenging first-round matchup against Daisy Fresh, which John Danaher had identified as the fourth-ranked team.
Central to the controversy was the 10-point must system implementation. Jones explained this scoring method was designed to reward dominance and submission attempts rather than allowing teams to coast after early victories.
“We don’t want people to coast to victory. We want to reward people for trying to dominate and finish their opponents,”
he emphasized.
The most contentious aspect involved the tiebreaker conditions. Jones clarified that like UFC title bouts, winning more individual matches doesn’t guarantee victory if the cumulative scoring favors the opponent.
“In a UFC title fight, you can win three rounds and still lose the fight,”
he explained, drawing parallels to how New Wave could win three matches but still lose based on the 10-point scoring system.
Head judge Miha Perhavec, who resigned after the event due to the controversy, provided detailed breakdowns of the disputed rounds. For the Dorian versus Ethan match, Perhavec explained how the score shifted from a dominant 10-8 for Dorian to a closer 10-9 when Ethan‘s defensive work and submission attempts in the final minutes changed the dynamic.
Regarding the Nicky versus Luke match, Perhavec highlighted how Nicky‘s takedown, guard passing and late submission attempts, particularly a north-south choke and triangle attempt, earned him the 10-8 victory despite a competitive opening phase.
Both Jones and Perhavec stressed that the judging was unanimous and consistent with pre-established criteria focusing on initiating effective action, close submissions, dynamic actions and positional control. The controversy ultimately stemmed from misunderstanding the cumulative scoring system rather than any judging bias, with all coaches having agreed to these rules during pre-event meetings.
