There is much controversy surrounding leg lock attacks in the BJJ world but in my opinion, there shouldn't be.

One of the charms of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) is that it not only makes a practitioner able to win against bigger stronger opponents but also able to win from the bottom in potentially bad positions. What good would all of that be if Jiu Jitsu could be negated by one simple technique? Well first I would like to state that if BJJ could be dominated by this one technique then the system would be garbage, thankfully it can not and is not. Just like any other technique ankle locks can be prevented and escaped from if the practitioner has spent some time learning the escapes. If this is that simple where has all of the controversy come from? The controversy comes from the human condition, when you have new people learning Jiu Jitsu and they start training they see how difficult it could be to pass the guard to they can attack. Since the ankle lock can be attacked without passing the guard many new practitioners will default to this attack and this can cause a delay in the development of a passing game. While I can understand this as being an issue, I do not believe the solution is to not teach this technique, nor is their any dishonor in utilizing this technique.

In the above video I had already faced 6 opponents including this same competitor in the Gi bracket. I remember having a hard time passing his guard in GI and eventually finished him in the half guard with a Kimura after about 7 minutes on the mat. So in this match I decided to take him out quick with an Ankle Lock if I could to conserve what energy I had left for the finals. Now while an Ankle Lock is a potential quick finish, it also buts you in a bad position if your opponent escapes. It is a gambit, one that can pay off or leave you on the bottom playing defense. In the above match when I sat for the Ankle Lock my opponent complained to the Ref, he did not know the rules and was upset that his ankle was being attacked. Knowing the rules is the responsibility of the competitor, not the coach or the corner.
The ankle can be attacked from many positions and in many ways just like the Arm bar, so ignoring this attack removes the threat to your opponents ankles and lets them play their guard game without fear. Jiu Jitsu is a chess match, you have to attack while you defend, play for forks and discovery, force moves by keeping your opponent in check until you can Checkmate. For those of you who do not know chess terms, a fork is when you attack two pieces at once, discovery is when you attack one and when it moves you attack the other and forced moves are when you check the king and it is forced to move. Now while I stand by my stance of ankle locks I do have some reservations on some attacks for beginners.
Heel Hooks are very dangerous, dangerous because require very little effort to cause a lot of damage and dangerous because there is very little pain associated with the attack before it is too late. While a heel hook at first glance looks to be attacking the ankle, it is actually attacking the knee and doing so in a laterally position unlike a knee bar. A knee bar hyper extended the knee and is painful all the way up to when the knee is destroyed, while a heel hook on the other hand twists the knee to the side attacking the vulnerable ligaments that stabilize the knee. While heel hooks are very dangerous I do not believe that they should not be taught to beginners but special attention and instruction should be given explaining just as I did here, the dangers of this move. In the gym where I train we have a policy that we do not finish heal hooks on each other, we play catch and release with this move only. I could definitely see a gym not showing the Heel Hook until Blue Belt but not showing the Ankle Lock is just foolish in my humble opinion.
What do you all think? Is the Ankle Lock Legit or Cheesy? Is the Heel Hook to dangerous for beginners? Would you not show ether of these moves to beginners? Is the Ankle Lock Controversy necessary or not?