Offensive Run Plays on Various Downs

[Charlie-49ers]

For those of you who are a connoisseur of our numerous rules to make the game as realistic as possible, you are aware that there are various restrictions on the use of different run calls on different downs, most notably not allowing anything but Run Middle on 1st and 10 with more than five to play in a half. Other such restrictions are also applicable on different downs, at other times, and in different field positions.

I understand that a discussion ensued on Discord recently regarding such restrictions, focusing on the first and ten situations with more than five minutes left to play in a half. The tone favored eliminating such restrictions (I am expanding it to cover all downs) and allowing any run call in any situation on any down. In theory, this would enhance the running game and emulate the NFL. In a discussion with Rich, neither of us opposed the idea and would entertain opinions for a possible rule change starting next season.

Currently, we require ten Run Middle plays in the Offensive Plan with Run Left and Run Right plays optional but if one or both of the latter categories are used then there is a minimum requirement of four plays in that or both categories. Without changing the current preceding requirements, is there a desire to allow any running category to be called in any situation?

If there is a majority consensus to open up the running game, then we can discuss whether or not Run Left and/or Run Right are required in a gameplan, and how many plays might be required in each category. For this thread, let's focus on the big picture first, should we consider any run on any down in any situation?

[Justin-Chicago]

What problem does this proposal try to solve? It would create the option of increasing QB runs from 20% as specified within RM to 50% as specified within RL/RR. But that can’t be the goal right? For now I would be against this.

[Rich-League Officer]

I do not believe that every conversation has to be viewed through the lens of what problem are we trying to solve.
The standard line of, its a solution in search of a problem feels lazy to me.

On this particular topic, I would prefer we limit it to what was discussed in discord.
1st-10

Currently we have the rule :
between 5-5 RM/PSL/PML

What if it was:
between 5-5 RL/RM/RR/ PSL/PML
Also, possibly accompanied by changes in the minimums to RL-RM-RR

How offensive is this to you?
Keeping in mind that, its a solution in search of a problem is not an argument.

How does this change game play on the field?
Does it do harm?
Does it help?

And, nobody is re-wring the rules pages this weekend, this is a conversation.
As a coach, I want to hear your opinion on this idea. Good and bad.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm am pretty fed up with the nothing but change talk crowd. People cannot win and want to tweak the rules to make it easier for them or just change for the sake of change. There is zero need to touch the run rules. You can already build anything into any run category. Every run already can be used on every down. For the last time we are commish sim and lowering the number of plays required in categories for downs simply means teams can call just a couple of plays only and you cannot react to it. Having a mandatory varied rule adds more thought and makes it harder. If we change it should be more plays for a category needed not less. They are already too few. Always wanting the easy button crowd these days.

IT IS A SOLUTION WITH NO PROBLEM Other than folks keep losing and want to make it easier for themselves. Lets dumb things down more. Everyone needs an A in class or feelings are hurt.

Thinking more and more every day it's time to move on to other things in life and let the inpatient, cannot sit still, cannot take time to learn crowd just do their thing.

[Rich-League Officer]

Jerry said : You can already build anything into any run category.

I will pull out the argument that I like, lol

It's a fair point, why can't coaches create plays for RL/RR right now that mimic what you want to run on offense?
I think Dean said it's a style of offense, so can't you create that in run middle?
Maybe the rule doesn't need to change, maybe it just requires custom plays more closely aligned with RL/RR

[Rich-League Officer]

I know it was discussed last night of the 6-6-6 across the board.
I think its fair to ask, what is the difference structurally between a RL-RM-RR?
Does Charlie require certain formations or personel on RL vs RM vs RR?

Right now, you could ignore RL and RR and use 12 RM creating whatever you want in that category, no?

No rule change would be needed.

Just asking the guys who were supporting this idea.

[James-Eagles]

I am inbetween on the idea. I like the idea on surface but I will only be in favor if we can do it while streaming lining the rules on profiles
I still think razzle dazzle pass needs to be address. I would like more control of what type of run I am calling if it is inside or outside but I want to hear more of what others think on the issue.

I generally agree with Jerry but I do think there are problems with Profile rules currently being too complicated and hard to understand.

[Rich-League Officer]

I am inbetween on the idea. I like the idea on surface but I will only be in favor if we can do it while streaming lining the rules on profiles
I still think razzle dazzle pass needs to be address. I would like more control of what type of run I am calling if it is inside or outside but I want to hear more of what others think on the issue.

I generally agree with Jerry but I do think there are problems with Profile rules currently being too complicated and hard to understand.

James, what does more control of what type of run you are calling mean?
In short down situations, you can call a GLR/RL knowing its between the tackles.
On 3rd you can call a RR knowing you have 4 outside runs in the plan.

On 1st-10, you have a combination of inside/out/qb runs.
Is the goal on 1st down that you want 100% assurances you will run inside or outside?

[James-Eagles]

I am inbetween on the idea. I like the idea on surface but I will only be in favor if we can do it while streaming lining the rules on profiles
I still think razzle dazzle pass needs to be address. I would like more control of what type of run I am calling if it is inside or outside but I want to hear more of what others think on the issue.

I generally agree with Jerry but I do think there are problems with Profile rules currently being too complicated and hard to understand.

James, what does more control of what type of run you are calling mean?
In short down situations, you can call a GLR/RL knowing its between the tackles.
On 3rd you can call a RR knowing you have 4 outside runs in the plan.

On 1st-10, you have a combination of inside/out/qb runs.
Is the goal on 1st down that you want 100% assurances you will run inside or outside?

I am not reallyt he person pushing this but for example late in the game with a lead. I would want to focus more on between the tackles and off tackle plays not so many sweeps etc. I think that was the idea was to have more on the insides outside running. Right now RM is very much a catach all. I probably not be in favorite of RL on 1st and 10 but I am not the best person to talk to on this.

[Dean-Atlanta]

What problem does this proposal try to solve? It would create the option of increasing QB runs from 20% as specified within RM to 50% as specified within RL/RR. But that can’t be the goal right? For now I would be against this.

I think that is a separate issue. I think we should keep the limits on QB runs.

I think Charlie wants to have us consider the ideas that allow usage of RM as well as RL and RR in all the down situations where 1 or more of those run categories are currently allowed.

I favor allowing that.

But if we do allow that, I think is should be 6 plays for each of RL, RM, RR, and a MAXX of 2 QB runs for each, which is 6 QBs runs out of 18 plays. Right now you can do QB runs 2 out of 10 in RB, 2 of 4 in RL, 2 fo 4 in RR. That is 6 QBs run out of18 plays. If we go 6-6-6 on RL-RM-RR with still 2 QB runs each, that is STILL 6 QB runs out of 18 plays.

QB runs would still be unchanged.