PNFL

The rules currently only require 1 Center to be in Active or Open Active status on rosters. This is unrealistic. This position should require a second backup center to be active or open active so an injured C1 is realistically substituted with a backup center C2 in the game, not a tackle or guard.

This rule change proposal is being submitted now to give teams time to adjust their rosters in the offseason if it passes.

I think this makes sense as we have ratings in place to differentiate between each OL position. They are distictively C, G, and T and not just generic OL. By having the 2nd C be IR or I, this effectively is forcing someone to play out of position against the spirit of the ratings defined for each position. If we ARE going to allow for C2 to be IR or I, then we need to rework the ratings and make the OL generic to account for this.

Question...

If a teams carries one C, 3 G, 3 T on open or active, which is what the current rule requires, and the C is injured, does the game substitute a G or a T for the injured C?

A G is more similar to the C in ratings, so if it is a G, that makes sense.

Many of us think prudent roster management means having a backup for all 3 OL positions on open/active (2 C, 3 G, 3 T) which means a total of 8 OLs on open or active.

The same issue exists on the DL, where some teams choose to carry only 2 DTs and 3-4 DEs, causing a 4-3 defense to feature 3 DEs and 1 DT in cases of injury or substitution. Again, many of us believe it is prudent to carry 3 of each on open or active.

These are clearly issues of what each of us think is sound roster management. The question is whether they should be required by league rules.

I want to hear more debate on this before voting on it.

@Dean - At least you have a good chance of decent substitutions with DT because you are required to have more than one DT in A/O. Comparably, our current rules don’t ensure this at all for C. I see this as a disparity. I don’t think we should have Gs backing up Cs in game unless C2 is shaken or injured in game too.

@Matt - Great points in support of the proposal! thanks!

I would think this could be extended to all positions where there could be a disparity if a different position is subbed. As we differentiate between positions, this will have a bigger impact.

What is stopping a team now from carrying two active? I see a G or T being the C as a disadvantage due to the HA and AC ratings. OL is the hardest position to manage within the roster. I sure do not want to be forced to get a 3rd center if mine goes D-3 mid season. I say this with a 3rd center on my roster, but just not sure forcing a 2nd center on the 48 active roster since I see a negative and not a positive.

I agree with Jerry on this one. There is no reason to require it. Heck I have seen the starting guard move to center when the center gets hurt. I agree in PNFL having a guard play center is a disadvantage but if a team wants to why not. There is way more important issues that need to be dealt with.

Not the following weeks. Remember NFL teams move OL players around. This seems to be another solution with no problem. I do not want to cut another OL or some other player if my All Pro center is injured for multiple weeks. This rule does that. We are losing a flexible roster spot. Do we need to mandate 2 FB's for teams with them. 4 T's or G's because of subs? What is the problem to fix here?