AGA scoring hypothetical

Because the rules are a little different than some may be used to, I wanted to post some hypos and get some feedback (which will also help people interpret some of the rules).

Hypo #1
Grappler A gets an awesome inside leg trip on Grappler B and follows him down to the mat, controlling Grappler B for 2 seconds before Grappler B is able to disengage and stand back up. Both grapplers are now facing each other, just like they started.

Who scores what?

I wouldn't think anyone would get any points.

Thats a tough one. I would think it depended on Grappler Bs position when he hit the mat. If Grappler A initiated the takedown and threw Grappler B directly to his back I would expect points to be scored for the takedown. I he did not go directly to his back then control should have to be maintained for at least 3 seconds in order to score. That is just my personal opinion though, I don't know how any official rules would score that. It seems either way that it could be a very ambiguous descision for the referee to make.

I would give the guy points for the takedown, if he secured and maintained dominant position for 3 seconds. I assume "dominant position" would require grappler B's back to have touched the mat.

Though your logic is good, Lucian, Josh nailed it (per the rules). For a takedown to score, you must follow the down with control for 3 seconds. It doesn't necessarily need to be on the back for a takedown, either. Normally, Grappler B would also get 1 point for an "escape"; however, since Grappler A never had control, there was nothing to escape from. This situation is a wash.

BTW, if I'm misreading our own rules, please feel free to slam me on it. These are new to me, too!

This situation and analysis has brought up a question in my own mind, though. If Grappler A had taken B down and then B immediately went to turtle, does A get the takedown points? Right now, I'm saying "yes", if for no other reason than to keep weenies from giving up a takedown to go turtle. Also, if A takes down B and A ends up in B's guard, A gets the takedown. Why would it be different if B goes to "1/4 Guard"? Thoughts?

I don't think you should get points for a takedown unless you end in a dominant position. If you take someone down and they immediately turtle then you failed the takedown unless you manage to have control of them in the turtle position. In my mind, finishing in a dominant position is what makes a takedown worth points. If they turtle, take their back and get your points for that or just get control of them without getting your hooks in. If you try to take someone down and end up in their guard, they succeeded in shutting down your takedown attampt and managed to maintain some control. If you want points you should then have to pass their guard to get them.

c'mon.... someone has A thought about this...

Sorry, Josh; we obviously posted at the same time.

I see your point, and I do think it is a good one. I think we should consider the argument. The problem is, points have always been given for takedowns where the one taken down ends up putting the guy who took him down in guard. That doesn't mean we should do it just because it's always been done that way, but we need to consider the precedent.

So, basically, we have two lines of analysis: stay with the precedent and give takedown points to turtle and guard or abandon that and make takedown points only go to those who end up in side, knee-on, north-south, or mount.


I'd be fine for giving someone points for the takedown even if the guy turtled as long as they were controlling the turtled person. You can have control of a person who is turtled without necessarily taking their back and getting your hooks in. When a person is turtled they have no control. The person who took them down is in control.

If a person tries to take someone down and ends up in their guard they are not in control. The other person actually has more control. The takedown really did nothing for them.

I think it really should boil down to who has the most control at the end of the takedown.

Good points, but too ambitious. Also, a wrestler who tried the above takedown, 123, standup, would be penalized for not engaging.

Also, trying to determine who has the control, in a guard situation, is too much for a spot on scoring determination. Trust me... just because you are in someone else's guard DOES NOT mean that you are being controlled. Kind of the same analysis with the turtle, but not as strong.

I'm liking the takedown to "control" for 3 seconds rule, regardless of where the takedownee lands, as long as he is "controlled", ie not submitting, sweeping, or standing up on the other guy.

I like the takedown to control rule as well, regardless of position. I will be the first to say though, me being a white belt I doubt I have the knowledge to discuss this with the same understanding as a person with more experience. I will still give my .02 though, for what it's worth.

I don't think you should get points for a takedown if you end up in guard, even though I know that's the norm. Sure you are on top, but depending on how good the guys guard is you may be in worse shape than before. Usually, the person puts you in their guard during the takedown. I agree that it can be too difficult to judge who is in control on the spot. I've always felt that if a person gets points for ending up in guard after a takedown then people should get points for successfully pulling guard.

Most tournaments I've seen won't allow a wrestler to accumulate points by taking down, disengaging, over and over. Nor will they allow people to transition from knee mount, to mount, back and forth. I think it's pretty obvious to most people when someone is doing this.

I read your post. I'm just stating my opinion on how I'd like things to be scored. I don't think guard is an inferior position. I just recently watched a buddy of mine tap out everyone in the no gi expert division at NAGA from his guard. I know many people see it as inferior, but not everyone does. Personally, I don't think a takedown into guard should give points.

NAGA is very clear that "catch and release" is against the rules. If a particular ref lets it slide, that's the ref's fault, not the organization. Some ref's let people get away with that, some refs let people get away with swapping back and forth between positions. My point was that we really don't even need to discuss that as a rule. We all know it should be against the rules. Even if it's in the rules, it comes down to reffing to enforce it.

I trian with Tony a lot. I've learned a good portion of what I know from him, especially regarding takedowns. I've never pulled guard in a competition and never will unless I know I'm compeletely outmatched when it comes to takedowns. I see pulling guard as a last resort.

I'd also like to point out that Triad is as far from competition jiu jitsu as it gets. Johnny doesn't train us for points. We never even really discuss points. The way Johnny sees it, if you don't submit the guy you failed.

A few more thoughts: To me guard is a defensive position made popular by BJJ which aims at giving weaker oponents the upper hand in combat. It is inherently defensive though and therefore should not negate the takedown of ones opponent. I agree that depending on the two individuals, one may have a tremendous advantage against someone they are controlling within their guard. But this advantage is only appearent if they capitalize on it by sweeping or submitting their opponent from the guard (both of which score points/win). IMO it does not take much for someone to close their guard around someone and hang on for dear life unless they are being completely dominated. If this is the case the person on top should be scoring points anyway. I like the 3 second control rule, and I think it should apply even when an opponent pulls guard or turtles. Either way the person who initiated the takedown scores if he is able to maintain control. I think too many times people get stuck in the mentality that guard is a good place to be when in fact you are fighting off of your back. Obviously some people are good enough to fight very well of their backs (from the guard) but the fact remains that they were put their in the first place.

A little food for thought: In Judo and in folk style wrestling, the theory behind the ippon or pin is that a short two or three second count of controlling and holding your opponent on his/her back is the amount of time it would take a samauri to pull his dagger from his belt and slit the throat of his foe.

Throat slitting at our tourny is NOT allowed.

I will leave my dagger at home.

Think about it like this Josh J. How good would the match be, would there be a match, if there was no takedown? They guy who physically takes the match to the mat should, by all means, score. And if the grappler on bottom does nothing he should lose at the end of time.

I never said that people shouldn't go for takedowns, nor did I say a guy should win if he does nothing but stay on bottom.

We were discussing alternative ways to score matches. I just said that personally I don't think people should get points for a takedown if they end up in guard. Sure, they initiated the takedown, but the other person somewhat negated that takedown when they put the guy in their guard. Even though you took the guy down, he's the one with the most immediate offensive opportunities. The person being taken down turned a potentially bad situation into one where they maintained some control. They may be exactly where they want to be. If a person wants points for the takedown, do so in a way where you don't end up in guard. In my opinion, if a person takes someone down and ends up in their guard and does nothing they don't deserve to win any more than a person who pulls guard and does nothing.

It isn't a big deal. I understand why things are the way they are. I was just saying what I'd like to see and why.

I hear ya.