[officialtony]

Pretty tough based on the information you gave. If the O wrestler locks his hands around the legs of D wrestler, and D is prone or stretched out on the mat out of bounds, I give the two based on the interpretation of the new rule. It sounds like D was only trying to get away which leaves O in " control ".
BUT . . . . .
You said that D stood up when O locked his hands. So it sounds to me like maybe O did not have control around the legs until D stood up, which means no takedown. Would have had to see this to give a fair observation. If you have more info about positions of O and D on the mat, it might help.
Was D laying prone when he was out of bounds and O had his ankles?
Were O's hands locked around the legs or feet while D was prone and out of bounds?
Was D standing out of bounds when O locked his hands around D?
This might help give a better " view " of what happened.