The International Submission Championship, based in Arlington, Texas, dropped a 57-page ruleset addendum on July 3, 2026. It bans slams, the kani basami, excessive audible breathing, and—per their words—“competitive winning that exceeds reasonable tactical advantage.” They called it “Supplement 2026-B: Behavioral Conduct and Equitable Competition Standards.” By Tuesday afternoon, 847 affiliated gyms across North America had it via PDF. No preview period.
The ban on slams (already restricted in gi) now extends to all formats “regardless of positional security or terminal velocity.” The kani basami—footlock-adjacent, controversial from day one—gets a three-page definition of what counts as the technique versus “similar leg engagement that should be legal.” A flowchart in Section 4.2.1 has seven decision trees and contradicts itself on page 43.
The real controversy? The restrictions on audible exhaling. Section 5.3.4: “sustained vocalizations exceeding 85 decibels constitute unsportsmanlike conduct and may result in point deductions.” The federation issued a separate memo to clarify. It includes heavy breathing, sharp breathing, whistling breathing, and—one official’s words—“the sound successful people make when they finish a pass.” An appendix has a noise chart comparing human exhalation to a lawnmower, a garbage disposal, and an active UFC fight.
But Section 6, subsection “Excessive Competitive Winning”—that’s the crown jewel. It prohibits athletes from gaining “disproportionate positional advantage through superior technique or conditioning in a manner that diminishes opponent morale.” Score five straight points “without meaningful defensive struggle from the opponent”? That’s a pace-of-play warning. Their example: competitor arm-drags to body lock, takes the back, finishes in under two minutes. “This demonstrates unbalanced competitive engagement,” the document reads. “The opponent did not have adequate opportunity to execute meaningful counters.”
Diego Ramos, head referee and technical director, defended the addendum Friday: “We’re not trying to eliminate high-level grappling. We’re trying to create environments where every competitor feels they had a sporting chance, even if they were outmatched by someone more experienced, stronger, or better prepared.” Asked if the ruleset basically penalizes being better, Ramos said, “That’s a reductive reading of a nuanced framework.”
Athletes are losing it. Marcus Pellman, 34, trains at Zenith Grappling in Denver. At a June 30 practice tournament, he got a warning for “excessive winning” after scoring nine points and submitting his opponent with a calf slicer. “The referee told me I needed to give my opponent more opportunities to win,” Pellman said. “I asked him what that meant. He said, ‘Maybe don’t take his back so fast. Let him defend longer.’ I was already defending for 90 seconds.” The warning tanked his score. He finished third overall. Now he’s registered for three tournaments in the next 60 days to test the new rules.
Other athletes are rolling with it. Carla Montoya, 27, purple belt from Austin, is intentionally giving up positions. “If I’m up 5-0 and it looks like I’m about to pass cleanly, I’m giving the position back,” she says. “I’ve gone 4-0 at open mats and just stopped before finishing people. It’s weird. But it’s the new game.” She’s thinking about hiring a sports psychologist to handle the mental load of deliberately underperforming.
The federation’s fielded 340 rule-clarification requests in four days. Common questions: Does a loud tap count as excessive exhaling? (The document is unclear. A follow-up memo suggests if the tap is followed by breathing, it might be a violation.) Can a competitor request their opponent be penalized for breathing louder? (Yes, but the referee must issue one warning before point deduction.) Can you pass someone’s guard without gaining disproportionate advantage? (The federation is still working on this.)
Tournament organizers are panicking. The North American Submission Open, scheduled for August 10 in Phoenix with 6,200 registered competitors, said it would “implement the ISC addendum in good faith while reserving the right to interpret the excessive-winning clause with flexibility.” Same statement also noted they’re “exploring alternative venues and rule sets” if the addendum proves “operationally unmanageable.”
This ruleset’s spawned a side industry. Competitive Compliance LLC offers consultation packages ($1,200 per athlete, $4,500 for teams) teaching competitors how to “maintain competitive effectiveness while achieving ISC compliance.” Lead consultant Derek Wallace calls it “grappling poker face coaching. We teach you how to win without appearing to dominate.” His first client, a 19-year-old white belt from Oklahoma, paid full price, attended two sessions, then requested a refund. “He asked me how to arm drag without it looking like I was getting an advantage,” Wallace said. “I don’t have an answer yet.”
The federation plans to review the addendum after 2026 wraps. An internal memo—leaked to three Discord channels—suggests they might remove or clarify the excessive-winning provision “depending on athlete feedback and statistical data on warning distributions.” That memo also includes a draft revision allowing competitors to “display competitive confidence up to twice per match without penalty,” though the definition of what constitutes competitive confidence wasn’t included. Meanwhile, a coalition of 120 gym owners drafted a petition asking the ISC to clarify whether conditioning itself—being in better physical condition than your opponent—constitutes an unfair competitive advantage. The federation hasn’t responded to clarification requests. A spokesperson confirmed they received the petition and are “taking it seriously while also recognizing it may be part of a broader misunderstanding of the ruleset’s intent.”