UFC Fight Night 150 [Results in]

Thank you :)

Yeah, I completely forgot to check last week, got watch that event too.

Yeah, I can see other people judging Sandhaven as beating Lineker, and it doesn't upset me even if I don't necessarily agree (I thought it was close). I think Sandhaven probably threw more kicks but again it depends on the type of kicks and how they landed - nobody throws side kicks or light rangefinders in Muay Thai because they don't score well there, where the emphasis is on damage, i.e. clean, effective/impactful strikes. The criteria in MMA is actually the same, but the judges and commentators don't seem to understand that (it's possible that the commentators do understand, but they aren't necessarily there to be impartial, they're paid by the promoter to maintain viewer interest, which means convincing them that the contest as winnable by either competitor). For a strike to be effective, it must make it past the opponent's defence. Despite the way the statistics are compiled, a checked kick or a strike that lands on the arms is not really effective as a strike and only has value in terms of aggression (or "aggressiveness" if you don't understand how English works, like the California Athletic Commission), which is only a consideration if effective striking and grappling is equal.
I agree that the takedowns need to be taken in the context of the round and that MMA is different to grappling because someone can potentially do a lot of damage throwing strikes from the guard, especially if their posture is not controlled - I just want what they actually do to be taken into account, not what they or their opponent could have done. Almost no wrestling takedown should be seen as a display of dominance equal to a knockdown - only powerful slams or suplexes that stun an opponent should be scored like a knockdown, e.g. Lawler on Askren.
There is a martial reason behind the grappling scoring system - it rewards positional dominance because this control facilitates more effective striking or other damage. Although it is possible to hit someone from their guard, you can do a lot more damage from side control or mount because they can't control your body. I don't like seeing someone rewarded for a high ground strike count while they are in someone's guard with their upper body posture also controlled, just throwing lots of weak punches to stop the ref standing them up for inactivity. Round 4 of MacDonald vs Fitch is an example. One of the judges gave Fitch the round even though he was knocked down twice early in the round - once from an elbow and then from a kick while he still had his wobbly boots on. He was dominated for a couple of minutes and then survived by peppering McDonald with light punches (because McDonald controlled his posture) from the guard. He was never going to knock him out like that - all he could have possibly achieved was opening up better position control (to allow more effective striking), but that didn't happen.
I also think far too much credit is given for simply surviving ("heart" or fighting spirit). Getting beaten up but not getting knocked out is not better than almost beating your opponent to unconsciousness, it's not even close. Surviving is nice but if you're not coming back and almost finishing them, you need to be really overwhelming them with some other sort of dominance to win the round. Also, an unsuccessful submission or takedown attempt should reward the aggressor, if anyone. Surviving an attempt seems to be regarded by many as a victory, as if you are the one in control because the other guy didn't get to do what he wanted, but depending on the attempt, it should either be scored like a powerful strike that doesn't knock you out or simply regarded positively in aggression considerations if effective striking and grappling are equal.
Khabib is one of those guys that people get undeserved recognition against for thwarting his takedown attempts, as if you won something by not hitting the floor the first time he grabbed your leg. He typically chains his takedowns together, so there are often one or two "unsuccessful" takedown attempts preceding a successful one. The single leg takedown attempt in the middle of the octagon was never meant to do anything but force you back up against the cage so he can shift to a body lock - you don't deserve credit for thwarting a takedown because he just manoeuvred you exactly where he wanted you and took you down with his preferred technique. The reason Khabib's grappling is so dominant is that he never goes into someone's guard when he takes them down. He always ensures he controls the legs, so is technically in mount even when standing, or goes to side control, and he loves the crucifix there because that control lets him rain down massive indefensible strikes, which he couldn't do if his posture was controlled in guard. He also uses a lot of wrist control to maintain positional dominance.
The scoring of your examples is actually pretty straightforward. MMA rules value effective striking and grappling, defined as having impact with potential to end the match, with immediate impact weighing more heavily than cumulative impact, and the effect of actions while grappling being important rather than (top/bottom) position. In Example 1, the grappler that was rocked before taking his opponent down and doing nothing with the positional control loses the round. In Example 2, the high volume striker that was rocked and goes on to land lots of light strikes loses the round (because immediate impact weighs more heavily than cumulative impact).
The judges supplied by the various commissions are usually familiar with boxing, sometimes have familiarity with wrestling, but almost always are grappling novices and don't seem to understand that there is often strategy involved with submissions and takedowns, where you threaten one to force your opponent into a position to set up another (there is by definition only ever one successful submission in any submission grappling contest, and it's naive to think that there was no value in the "unsuccessful" submissions that led to the ultimate one).
Bellator is a bit of a mixed bag. Gegard Mousasi is as good as anyone in the UFC, and the lesson that Fedor Emelianenko gave Chael Sonnen was amazing (and his walkout gave me goosebumps) but there's some boring stuff too. To be honest, there's plenty of garbage in UFC, too, but it has such a slick presentation that it seems more palatable. Regardless, I don't even think I could watch Bellator live in Australia if I wanted to. I could watch UFC live at a pub but I prefer to watch it after the fact so that I can skip all the stuff in between the fights - there is so much filler. ONE Championship knows how to keep the action moving - if you go to the toilet in between fights, there's a decent chance you will miss some action. Admittedly, their fighter introductions and ringside announcer almost make me envy the hearing impaired at times, and it looks like they pay the ring girls with vouchers to Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon, which is a bit offputting.

It's a surprise, I thought that there is only one winner. And I'm not even in the first 3. Added.