Why don't EBI Overtime rules allow full mount (or side control)?

[Princess Guillotine]

It seems like so many EBI overtime matches that start in back mount end up with one guy "escaping" to full mount, and then the round ending. This seems a little ridiculous since one competitor is still in a dominant position, and (as Conor McGregor just found out) it ignores the interchangeability between full and back mount that make both positions so deadly in our art. Indeed, when I watch highest level matches that end in submission there is often a chain of subs that can travel through multiple positions before ending in a point of no return. So I have two questions:

1. Why not continue the "riding time" from back to full mount (or side control) until one competitor escapes to a neutral position (half, closed, top, open, feet) and is not actively defending any submissions?

2. Why not have the opening OT round still be sub-only but starting from a dominant position (i.e. start from back, both guys have 2 mins to submit even if one escapes)?

[Jerry Walker]

Length of OT rounds would get out of control. You have to draw the line somewhere, and somewhere short.

[Tim Bruhn]

As above and it's about escaping a threatening submission, not a dominant position.

It will continue into mount if a armtriangle is being threatened or something along those lines.

Think the OT rules are pretty spot on personally.

[Princess Guillotine]

As above and it's about escaping a threatening submission, not a dominant position.

It will continue into mount if a armtriangle is being threatened or something along those lines.

Think the OT rules are pretty spot on personally.

Yes, but simply turning from back mount to full mount is not escaping anything, which is why you would never normally do that except as a desperation move. And the back with just seatbelt is not really threatening a submission-- it's just a dominant position.

[Tim Gillette]

I've always thought of it in terms of the back being more dominant than the mount. Once you escape the back and end up in mount it is an escape to a less dominant position.

[Tim Bruhn]

Yes, but simply turning from back mount to full mount is not escaping anything, which is why you would never normally do that except as a desperation move. And the back with just seatbelt is not really threatening a submission-- it's just a dominant position.

Yeah ok, I'll accept that. Guess the grips for me make it more 'threatening a sub' for me. I know I'd rather be mounted that someone locked on my back, both hooks and seatbelt.

Could just be me. I get what you're saying though.

[Eddie Bravo]

Jerry Walker & Tim Bruhn are correct.

going from the back to mount or side control is going backwards

[Princess Guillotine]

Jerry Walker & Tim Bruhn are correct.

going from the back to mount or side control is going backwards

I get your point, but tell that to Kron Gracie. Competitors are allowed to go from back to truck, so how is that different from back to full mount?

[sean applegate]

the overtime positions are "dead zones". meaning, they are positions where the entire focus is on the kill. limb isolation based positioning is different from body control based positioning.

[Princess Guillotine]

the overtime positions are "dead zones". meaning, they are positions where the entire focus is on the kill. limb isolation based positioning is different from body control based positioning.

I don't know if having the back with only seatbelt is really isolating the neck because the opponent has his arms in to defend. Most EBI competitors choose the back in an effort to lock on a body triangle and win via riding time, not get a RNC. Allowing full mount (and side control?) would force the back-mounted opponent to actually have to escape to a neutral position, thus opening up more submission opportunities in the process. Imagine what this would look like: an opponent in OT turns from back to full mount; he knows the clock is ticking so he frantically bucks and rolls and pushes on the knee; then BAM, mounted triangle and he taps.