The problem is that without advantages the arguments would go on for hours. With any points based system there will always be an incentive to stall once ahead on points, indeed it is a very effective strategy even at the highest level.
I agree with many of the points raised but whatever you do people will always take of advantage of the rules which leads to stalling.
The best way is submission only, it keeps the sport real, the less rules the better.
Submission only, 10 minute fights, if no submission then it goes to coin toss.
That would give a strong incentive to win a fight.
For specifically discouraging stalling, there should be passivity rule like in wrestling.
If the ref calls you for it you are going to start losing points quickly unless you immediately attack aggressively.
But the problem with all these rules-like advantages or
passivity is that they are open to the ref's interpretation.
That means the Ref can make a biased decision.
It is much harder for him to make a biased decision where clear cut points
are concerned (although we have all witnessed Ref's who give their own team 3 points for passing the guard after 2 seconds in side control,but it takes 8 seconds for students of other teams to be awarded the points-especially if the guy who's guard is passed is on the Ref's team.)The ref is clearly hoping his teammate/student can regain half guard before the points for passing are scored.
What annoys me about the Advantage rule is the cheating that goes on with it.For instance,fighter A passes to half guard and gets an advantage.So he is one advantage up.Fighter B manages eventually to replace guard and puts his first hand in Fighter A's collar with a grip that wouldn't choke anyone.He then grabs another loose grip on the other collar.Fighter A is not in any sort of trouble.His posture isn't broken and he removes the grips.Fighter B was awarded an advantage by the biased Ref for a collar choke 'attempt' to even the scores.
As i have said before,Nick Brooks,J Sho and Andy Roberts are excellent Ref's and are completely unbiased,but all the situations above have happened in last 12 months,at U.K. comps by biased Refs.
If there was no advantage rule it would diminish a Ref's ability to have a biased effect on a match.
I agree with Trib...... with one exception...
After 10 mins, if there isn't a submission, instead of a coin toss, the guys take their gi's off and fight Vale Tudo instead until there is a winner...
And no - I'm not joking - I'm completely serious. This would take BJJ to a new level and force BJJ practitioners to learn MMA/Vale Tudo along with the sport BJJ training....
Biased refs will always be a problem with any rules not just advantages. I've seen some refs totally ignore some points which should have been scored.
The other problem with the reffing imo, is the fact that there is pretty much no training for them at all. So they are all applying their own interpretation of the rules.
If we have to have a points system, would things work better if there were 3 refs (from different teams) at matside and only if 2 out of 3 refs signal for a score does it count? And the only job of the centre ref is to keep the fighters on the mat, look for illegal grips and maintain fighters safety?
What about getting rid of advantages and awarding points for clear submission attempts awarded not by the ref alone but at least two of the three officials ( usually you have the ref, time keeper and score keeper). I do think close submission or sweep attempts should be rewarded.
If draw at end of the contest then overtime with a golden score rule. If still a draw at the end of overtime then simply have it go to official decisions like the corner judges in judo.
My greco coach hated the idea of a coin toss deciding matches in wrestling, and I agree with him. Even in fights where no clean points have been scored it is blantantly infair to decide the winner by chance. IMO it is the worse of all the bad options to decide who wins a closely fought match.
Another idea I have seen on the net is a passivity timer, like a shot clock n basketball. If the ref thinks a fighter is being passive he can start the timer, say 1 min, and if the ref. doesn't think he has taken enough action he will take points off at the end of that period.
But better training for all refs and more importantly penalties for corrupt biased refs has to be put in place. Maybe a register of qualifed officials with only those on the register being allowed to ref comps.
Points for clear submission attempts is just another name for advantages, it's no different. Ideally we should only be rewarding things that have actually happened, like a sweep, not ones that almost did, as it's then much more open to the ref's interpretation