Stuff I'd like to see

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: 1GFRover

[font="times new roman"]GF4)  Movable OL and DL during formation creation.[/b]   As in, place them just like you do all other players.  While it is unorthodox and very unusual, and it is acceptable by the letter of the rules, the Center (C) does could also be an eligible end.  i.e.  The center is over the ball at snap, and he is the last player on the left side, left "uncovered" yet, if "declared" as an eligible receiver, he can be left uncovered and could (if he had hands) go out for a pass.  Now with ten other players lined up to the right or behind the center imagine the sweep run you could make, or some of the trick plays that would drive defenses crazy...  ALSO, you could adjust spacing of linemen for punts, etc.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]That ancient MAC game I mentioned above let you place all the players in the desired positions in play design, but you had to at least "cover" the center with and End.  I've done this in "real life" and it works great![/font]

[font="Courier New"]Illegal Play Any Way You Look At It:

Before PreSnap Movements

LT LG C/Snapper RG RT

After PreSnap Movements

C* RG RT/Snapper LG LT

*-I do not think the Center can Shift or Motion (away from the snap, once he has lined-up at Snapper) and cannot become an Eligiable Receiver, because still apart of the 5-OLMen/LT and uncovered by another Off. Players (Rule-seven Offensive Players on LOS).

Maybe, you just mean the below?[/font]

When I was in High School, years ago, we had a "trick play" where the Center lined up as the end, he declared himself eligible with the Ref. and all was good. We had three variations of the play and we ran it a few times to set up the final one: 1) QB Sweep or RB Sweep to strong side (away from center). 2) WR Screen on strong side. 3) Play Action to RB or Pump Fake to WR Screen then turn and pass to C on an out...
Worked well.

[font="Courier New"]Before PreSnap Movements

C/Eligiable Receiver TE LT LG/Snapper RG RT

After PreSnap Movement

C/Eligiable Receiver TE LT LG/Snapper RG RT[/font]

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: 1GFRover

GF6) In Game Substitutions: Could we change the check box for "global substitution" to OFF, so that it defaults to a one-time change, and then if we want it to be a perm/global change we can actively select the check box?  This auto global change becomes frustrating when in the next game you have to reset almost all the players/plays because you've subbed due to fatigue in the previous game.  OR at the end of the game / beginning of the next game, all play depth charts revert to the "saved" depth chart and not the results of the last game.

[font="Courier New"]I might be wrong, but could not you just change The In Game Substitutions' Global Substitutions settings to lower subbing rate during tough games or injuries or raise subbing rate during easy games or few or no inuries?[8|][/font]

[dreamtheatervt]

Actually, 1GFRover is right.  You can have a center eligable receiver.  I'll see if I still have the game film from when I coached, because we ran it successfully once (our long snapper was also our all-conference FB) for a two-point conversion play.  The center just has to be the man on the end of the LOS.  Here's what it looked like:
 
            ETGGTE                            C
 
                      H                                                                                W
 
 
 
 
                                                    Q 
 
                                            K

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: GWsFBAReservUrFBTeam

ORIGINAL: 1GFRover

[font="times new roman"]GF4)  Movable OL and DL during formation creation.[/b]   As in, place them just like you do all other players.  While it is unorthodox and very unusual, and it is acceptable by the letter of the rules, the Center (C) does could also be an eligible end.  i.e.  The center is over the ball at snap, and he is the last player on the left side, left "uncovered" yet, if "declared" as an eligible receiver, he can be left uncovered and could (if he had hands) go out for a pass.  Now with ten other players lined up to the right or behind the center imagine the sweep run you could make, or some of the trick plays that would drive defenses crazy...  ALSO, you could adjust spacing of linemen for punts, etc.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]That ancient MAC game I mentioned above let you place all the players in the desired positions in play design, but you had to at least "cover" the center with and End.  I've done this in "real life" and it works great![/font]

[font="Courier New"]Illegal Play Any Way You Look At It:

Before PreSnap Movements

LT LG C/Snapper RG RT

After PreSnap Movements

C* RG RT/Snapper LG LT

*-I do not think the Center can Shift or Motion (away from the snap, once he has lined-up at Snapper) and cannot become an Eligiable Receiver, because still apart of the 5-OLMen/LT and uncovered by another Off. Players (Rule-seven Offensive Players on LOS).

Maybe, you just mean the below?[/font]

When I was in High School, years ago, we had a "trick play" where the Center lined up as the end, he declared himself eligible with the Ref. and all was good. We had three variations of the play and we ran it a few times to set up the final one: 1) QB Sweep or RB Sweep to strong side (away from center). 2) WR Screen on strong side. 3) Play Action to RB or Pump Fake to WR Screen then turn and pass to C on an out...
Worked well.

[font="Courier New"]Before PreSnap Movements

C/Eligiable Receiver TE LT LG/Snapper RG RT

After PreSnap Movement

C/Eligiable Receiver TE LT LG/Snapper RG RT[/font]

ORIGINAL: dreamtheatervt

Actually, 1GFRover is right. You can have a center eligable receiver. I'll see if I still have the game film from when I coached, because we ran it successfully once (our long snapper was also our all-conference FB) for a two-point conversion play. The center just has to be the man on the end of the LOS. Here's what it looked like:

ETGGTE C

H W




Q

K

[font="Courier New"]For the LOVE of Everything Good, PLEASE Read Correctly My Entire Posts or Do Not Bother Replying To Me![;)] You know you and other members have complained [:@] about my use of the english language[8|][X(]; yet this happens way too often, by you and them.[X(]

I am going to start a thread with this and all future exchanges, with certain members on here, that they incorrectly read my post or did not bother to read my entire posts.[/font]

[dreamtheatervt]

I don't have time to read your rambling manifestos in 70 point font, so I rely on reading other people's posts.  I take 10 minutes occasionally at work to check the boards and reading fourteen paragraph posts isn't really an option.
 
Read what I wrote...did I write anything about the center going in motion?  No.  Did I talk about shifting?  No.  I simply stated that it IS possible to have a center-eligable pass play, and nothing more.  I wasn't critizing you or trying to start a fight, simply letting you know that it is possible.  There are plenty of obscure rules out there that I have knowledge of that even the most astute football fan probably doesn't know, and I'm more than happy to share my knowledge.

[timtellean1]

People the green ignore button is the greatest thing to make GW blah, blah go away.

[Marauders]

Keep in mind that under current NFHS (High School) and NCAA rules, a player must be both position eligible and jersey number eligible to catch a pass.  Pop Warner leagues have no jersey number rules other than banning the use of 0 and 00.

The jersey numbers 50-79 are ineligible, and unlike the NFL, there is no rule to allow them to report as eligible under NFHS and NCAA guidelines.

On a side note, of the seven players on the line, only the ends are eligible receivers regardless of number, so lining two players with eligible numbers on one side of the line still only allows the outside "cover" player to be pass eligible.

Although I have not personally seen it, and unless there is some obscure rule, the tight end should be able to snap the ball from the end of an unbalanced line and still have a pass eligible jersey number.  I have seen no rule that limits who the "snapper" is other than that it must be a player on the line.

[Great White]

[font="courier new"]dreamtheatervt[/font][font="courier new"],[/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="courier new"]                     Why should you, you did not to read it, all, in the first-place. (sarcasm)[/font]

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: Marauders

Keep in mind that under current NFHS (High School) and NCAA rules, a player must be both position eligible and jersey number eligible to catch a pass.  Pop Warner leagues have no jersey number rules other than banning the use of 0 and 00. The jersey numbers 50-79 are ineligible, and unlike the NFL, there is no rule to allow them to report as eligible under NFHS and NCAA guidelines.

[font="Courier New"]Waiting to find out if that is right; but if it is then no NFHS and NCAA OLmen would ever be able to catch the ball. Kind of makes sense to me, since I strongly beleive*, in The NCAA, no OLmen can run the ball.

*-Never seen it happen or it in the rule book.[/font]

On a side note, of the seven players on the line, only the ends are eligible receivers regardless of number, so lining two players with eligible numbers on one side of the line still only allows the outside "cover" player to be pass eligible.

[font="Courier New"]Maybe, I am not understanding this; but this cannot be right, since in any level of USAn FB two-offensive players (WRs-FBs) can line-up on the same side of the OL, with one on the LOS, and both still catch balls.[/font]

Although I have not personally seen it, and unless there is some obscure rule, the tight end should be able to snap the ball from the end of an unbalanced line and still have a pass eligible jersey number.  I have seen no rule that limits who the "snapper" is other than that it must be a player on the line.

[font="Courier New"]If you mean,
X-ball
TE LT LG C RG RT,

then I have never seen it or seen the rule; however, what is the point to preventing the inside OLmen (LTLG -> C <- RGRT) from shifting or motioning or catching ball if the inside OLman is not the only OLman that is allowed to snap the ball?[/font]

[Shaggyra]

GW,&nbsp; You make no sense!!!!

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: Marauders

Keep in mind that under current NFHS (High School) and NCAA rules, a player must be both position eligible and jersey number eligible to catch a pass.  Pop Warner leagues have no jersey number rules other than banning the use of 0 and 00.

[font="Courier New"]Wow, NFHS needs to get into the modern age of FootBall.[/font]

Subject: RE: "Web Contact" for Football
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:29:47 -0500
From: "Bob Colgate" <BColgate@nfhs.org> Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To:

Jason:

Yes it is true what you asked about NFHS rules.

Bob Colgate

Bob Colgate
Assistant Director
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS)
PO Box 690
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Office: 317-972-6900
Fax: 317.822.5700
E-Mail: bcolgate@nfhs.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Adams
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 3:12 PM
To: Bob Colgate
Subject: FW: "Web Contact" for Football



-----Original Message-----
From: NFHS Site [mailto:nfwebmaster@nfhs.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 2:52 PM
To: Kim Adams
Subject: "Web Contact" for Football

Name: Jason 'Great White'
Email:
Comment(s): The jersey numbers 50-79 are ineligible, and unlike the
NFL,
there is no rule to allow them to report as eligible under NFHS
guidelines.

Is this true?

[Marauders]

On a side note, of the seven players on the line, only the ends are eligible receivers regardless of number, so lining two players with eligible numbers on one side of the line still only allows the outside "cover" player to be pass eligible.

Maybe, I am not understanding this; but this cannot be right, since in any level of USAn FB two-offensive players (WRs-FBs) can line-up on the same side of the OL, with one on the LOS, and both still catch balls.

There can only be one end on any one side of the line on any given play. Therefore, there can never be two tight ends on one side of the ball on any play. If a player is off the line of scrimmage, the player is not an end (we are talking field positions and not a player card positions here).

For college games, this is generally moot, as NCAA rules require that five linemen be numbered 50-79, so if a team puts two players with eligible numbers on one side of the ball, they lose an eligible receiver on the other side of the ball, as that would force an ineligible number into that position.

It is much easier to line up a wingback or slotback up on the strong side.

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: Marauders

On a side note, of the seven players on the line, only the ends are eligible receivers regardless of number, so lining two players with eligible numbers on one side of the line still only allows the outside "cover" player to be pass eligible.

Maybe, I am not understanding this; but this cannot be right, since in any level of USAn FB two-offensive players (WRs-FBs) can line-up on the same side of the OL, with one on the LOS, and both still catch balls.

There can only be one end on any one side of the line on any given play. Therefore, there can never be two tight ends on one side of the ball on any play. If a player is off the line of scrimmage, the player is not an end

[font="Courier New"]Not going to get in that TE and LOS thing again, until the letter from the leagues and associations come back with the correct ruling on that. You should already know that, considering I have told you that.[/font]

so lining two players with eligible numbers on one side of the line still only allows the outside "cover" player to be pass eligible.

[font="Courier New"]So basically, you are posting about one-TE and one-player on the same side of OL? It is not matter either way, what the two-skill positions the players are on the roster, you cannot be right about only one being a eligiable receive on any play.[/font]

(we are talking field positions and not a player card positions here).

[font="Courier New"]Do not know what you are trying to communicate.[/font]

For college games, this is generally moot, as NCAA rules require that five linemen be numbered 50-79, so if a team puts two players with eligible numbers on one side of the ball, they lose an eligible receiver on the other side of the ball, as that would force an ineligible number into that position.

It is much easier to line up a wingback or slotback up on the strong side.

[font="Courier New"]By what you are posting here this type of formation and passing plays out of them would be illegal, and we all know that is wrong:
X-ball
Receiver going out for pass (LOS)LT LG C RG RT Receiver going out for pass(LOS)
Receiver going out for pass

Big Ten uses these types of formations all the time.[/font]

[Brockleigh]

dreamtheatervt,

I've seen that formation used in one or two pro games.

It baffled the hell out of me when I saw it.

[1GFRover]

[font="times new roman"]Wow! I didn't mean to stir up a hornet’s nest.&nbsp; [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Thanks to those who see the value in having a flexible line placement.&nbsp; [/font]
[font="times new roman"]That was my point... a little flexibility in placing OL and DL when creating formations.&nbsp; [/font]
[font="times new roman"]&nbsp;[/font]
[font="times new roman"]The unorthodox formation in question does show up all over the country/continent from time to time, and as Brockleigh said, it does baffle the first few times you come across it.&nbsp; In fact, I don't care if you decide you have to cover the Center with a TE or something.&nbsp; The point of "GF4)" was simply to "WISH" for an adjustable OL and DL during formation creation.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]&nbsp;[/font]
[font="times new roman"]The argument as to whether it is a legal formation is moot.&nbsp; The fact is it happens, often.&nbsp; Secondly, the beauty of this software/game is that YOU can create your own league and adjust the rules as you see fit.&nbsp; We aren't stuck with the best and worst rules of any one real-world league, we can apply those rules that fit our leagues.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]&nbsp;[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Could we please return this thread to a "Wish List"?&nbsp; I think rule discussions is on another thread somewhere.[/font]

[Marauders]

Lucas and Rover, thanks for the thread.  For the most part, it was a pretty fair discussion.

Let us take a step back into time ...

Original beta member Old Coach, as some of you know, likes to work on old uniforms and playbooks.  One of the formations he likes to tinker with is the single wing.  The single wing often was run with an unbalanced line.

Old Coach has asked for the ability to have an unbalanced line in beta and in public.  From this thread and other, it looks like other community members would like to see unbalanced lines and multiple line spacing as well.

It does matter if the plays are legal, as I am sure David would not go through the trouble of changing the game if all it would do is create illegal plays. 

It is often nice to take a side trip through some of the rules from time to time, because members should be aware that the game will allow some things that may not be legal in one format or one ruleset of one format because NFL, NCAA, NFHS, CFL, IFL, AFL, and other leagues have slightly different rules and David is not going to be able to put every rule in the game for a half dozen leagues.

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: 1GFRover

[font="times new roman"]Wow! I didn't mean to stir up a hornet’s nest.  [/font]

[font="Courier New"]Sorry, about my involvement; I am just not going to fall for stir-up attempts and get involved in that debate about players positions changing (in modern FB) when do presnap movements, until the proof comes in.[/font]

[font="times new roman"]Thanks to those who see the value in having a flexible line placement.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"]That was my point... a little flexibility in placing OL and DL when creating formations.  [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="Courier New"]You got my support on that, and I assume we all agree on that.[/font]

[font="times new roman"]The unorthodox formation in question does show up all over the country/continent from time to time, and as Brockleigh said, it does baffle the first few times you come across it.

[font="Courier New"]Now I never did watched Y or HS FB as a fan, maybe it was in The USA, at those levels. However, I have watch The NFL and NCAA Div. 1A for 25+-years (I give, not every single game), if it was there I would have saw and no doubt remember that interesting of plays (limiting or increasing what plays can do). [8|] [/font]

In fact, I don't care if you decide you have to cover the Center with a TE or something.  The point of "GF4)" was simply to "WISH" for an adjustable OL and DL during formation creation.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]The argument as to whether it is a legal formation is moot.  The fact is it happens, often.

[font="Courier New"]See above comments that start with the following sentence. Now I never did watched Y or HS FB as a fan, maybe it was in The USA, at those levels.[/font]

Secondly, the beauty of this software/game is that YOU can create your own league and adjust the rules as you see fit.  We aren't stuck with the best and worst rules of any one real-world league, we can apply those rules that fit our leagues.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]

[font="Courier New"]I read you, and I agree todays FB Gaming Games are just not flexiable enough (including MF and FBP '98); however, if The FB Gaming Game is going to just make the rules in the game, without commissioner of leagues deactivating those non-existent rules, then I will never want to play that FB game. There is a very reason some of these types of rules, are not allowed or even addressed in The Rule Books.

This leads me to what I would at least like FB Gaming Industry to consider, I need badly:

All Commissioners during leagues creation to choose either keep each the particular league's(')/association's(') standard rules or mixed different leagues/associations' standard rules or keep each the particular league's(')/association's(') standard rules and *allow adjustments/changes or mixed different leagues/associations' standard rules and *allow adjustments/changes. [:)]
Once that is allow the commissioner choose to or not to apply the particular league's(')/association's(') rules to their Teams, only.
Example, NY Giants play under NFL Rules (maybe spice it up with mixture of other leagues' rules or/and commissioner changes), then Univ. of Syracuse Orange play under NCAA Div. 1A Rules (maybe spice it up with mixture of other leagues' rules or/and commissioner changes).[:)]

*-Which would allow creating NFL playoff system for NCAA Div. 1A or vise versa and NFl Draft to NCAA or vise versa and etc.[:)]

With all that done participants may need a guide to what that leagues rules are, thus there would be a print-out option for all participants the first-time they join the league (after its creation).

What does everyone think?[/font]

[font="times new roman"]Could we please return this thread to a "Wish List"?  I think rule discussions is on another thread somewhere.[/font]

[font="Courier New"]Awesome idea.[/font]

[Great White]

ORIGINAL: Marauders

It is often nice to take a side trip through some of the rules from time to time, because members should be aware that the game will allow some things that may not be legal in one format or one ruleset of one format because NFL, NCAA, NFHS, CFL, IFL, AFL, and other leagues have slightly different rules and David is not going to be able to put every rule in the game for a half dozen leagues.

[font="Courier New"]If your not going to every single rule or -especially do what the game currently does for ineligiable player downfield- no rule at all, of every league/association that you represent, in this game, then to there is no point to representing every single league/association in the game and allowing commissioners to mix match the fields and etc.

Maybe I am too fundamentalist for most on here, but it is just not football and fair football without all the rules at least represented (even if they are improved upon).[/font]

[Marauders]

I read you, and I agree todays FB Gaming Games are just not flexiable enough (including MF and FBP '98);

Maximum-Football is by far the most flexible football game ever attempted on a computer.

If your not going to every single rule or -especially do what the game currently does for ineligiable player downfield- no rule at all, of every league/association that you represent, in this game, then to there is no point to representing every single league/association in the game and allowing commissioners to mix match the fields and etc.

Obviously, the goal is to include as many rules as time allows, but there are some rules, like ball placement after a missed kick in indoor rules, that have five ways to do them depending on the league. David, doesn't have time to do all five ways.

[Great White]

[font="courier new"]Marauders[/font][font="courier new"],[/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="courier new"]        I agree, in some ways, other ways no; even in some ways FBP '98 was more flexiable. However, right now, yes MF is probably the most flexiable, even with some ways it is not.[/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="courier new"]        It is a matter of what is your goal and achieving the goal. The goal I assumed at first was to create a FB Gaming of many Professional FB leagues, not just something that goes to 90% or so, of those many Professional FB leagues. Now I know differently. My suggestion is to take time (years, fine with me) to create a complete FB Game, then release it. [/font]
[font="courier new"][/font] 
[font="courier new"]Be honest now, we are just talking about a issue pr two-of just AFL many versions' differences, as you imply. Heck,

[font=verdana]-especially do what the game currently does for ineligiable player downfield- no rule at all,

[font="courier new"]affects every Professional FB version in the game.[/font][/font][/font]
[font="courier new"]       [/font]