Off-season Play Type Proposal

[Rich-League Officer]

If I understand these passes correctly, these are the lobs to the corner of the endzone where your receiver catches it or nobody does?
If they are in the GLP category then you are basically forcing teams to stop using GLP except in that one situation near the goal line. No team could risk calling them any other place on the field.

I don't see the problem with them. I doubt they will be overly effective but maybe Charlie can make them work. It would add in a play that the NFL uses often where we have nothing like it. And because this play only has a chance to work near the end zone, I doubt many coaches will use them. It would be foolish to call one on 4th-1 at the 40

Yet, teams who never use GLP could start using the category near the end zone.

Not sure I understand Jerry's objection. I do not see any way for this to be abused.

[Jerry-Redskins]

You have it mostly correct Rich. GLP can be used any where on the field. 2nd <1, 3rd or 4th down. I too believe they will not be effective, but since the category is more broad and used more than at the goal line, having a lower minimum number off play gameplan requirement would make it way easier to be able to get those plays called in pass short on multiple downs. They would be the primary play call and you can get them to avg 50% actual calls. Since it would be used more broadly if it is effective, then why shouldn't it be the same minimum as the play types it is replacing or limited to the GL which is the actual intent of the new play. GLP is already used extensively all over the field by several teams and mostly in non GL situations.

If the play will end up a superior substitute in PS situations why not have the same rule of engagement as they do. A successful 10 yard pass is a PS and not a GLP unless it is at the GL.

No issue with the concept as I agree with your opinion of the play theory itself Rich, but GLP is not actually GLP as a category as used in the league and we may be making GLP more a PS category that is called on multiple downs with less plays needed. It's a balance thing

[Justin-Chicago]

Jerry, GLP can’t be used on 1st and 6-10. Can’t be used on 2nd and 6-10. Can’t be used on 2nd and 2-5. That accounts for the majority of offensive playcalls right there.

RL can be used on 2nd and 2-5, and everywhere else GLP can be called.

By your logic, requiring a 5th RL should be a priority over requiring a 5th GLP. Why bring up GLP but not say anything about RL? Genuinely curious…

And to be clear, I’m not advocating for modifying the plan number requirements at all. As you said, and I agree with wholeheartedly, stop with the rule changes!

So why would you advocate for a rule change here? Just let Charlie try his plays out!

[Dean-Atlanta]

If Charlie want to allow this, why not make one SIMPLE change in rules, allow timed passes that are limited at 15 yards to be created as lobs or bullet passes? That's it, no other changes.

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, I appreciate your comments, which is why I post things rather than mandating them. I post suggestions when I believe that they are for the good of the League, and in this case, it is a suggestion for a play that we all see in the NFL each week. Besides my personal ideas, several suggestions lend themselves to various possibilities! Below is what I see as possibilities, but there may be others.
1) Do nothing, no play or rule changes.
2) Change GLPs to allow Lobs (10-yard restriction) and (50% Rule applies).
3) Change the rule to allow Lobs in all categories (50% Rule applies).
4) Multiple changes:
a) Offensive GLP plays can only be called inside the opponent's 5-yard line.
b) Offensive GLP Lobs allowed (10-yard restriction) and (50% Rule applies).
c) Defensive GLP plays can only be called inside your 5-yard line.
d) If 4c, allow Bumps on any player with no delays.
I know that some people will automatically gravitate to #1, which is understandable. However, my logic (I am a big fan of Vulcan logic) is that #4 is best! I believe that the game was developed to have the GLP category for just that, Goal Line plays on each side of the ball. Since Goal Line plays in the NFL are arguably the toughest, we should allow the maximum flexibility on each side of the ball. Depending on responses, I might post a vote.

[Justin-Chicago]

I am in favor of only incremental rule changes, certainly not multiple which can lead to unanticipated consequences.

I can support (2) but would be fine with (1). The rest is way too much in my opinion.

[Barney - Vikings]

Opening a whole new category of plays would be pretty exciting so I would be open to (3) allowing lobs on any pass play. I understand that could be too disruptive at this time so maybe baby steps and (2)GLP lobs would make the most sense if that’s the way people want to go.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

If I'm correct in my understanding, we are talking about making "fade" type passes in PNFL. I'd be ok with this, but limit it to inside the 5 yard line for now and see how it goes. We already have some controversy with the lob passes we have being called in situations where they shouldn't. However, I think this may be getting better.

[Jerry-Redskins]

I'm actually with Justin. #1. Lets play a bit more and see how the other things we changed actually end up. There is always evolution for a few seasons.

[Rich-League Officer]

I support #2
I think they will be a failure but if coaches want to try, go for it.
Coaches will then have the option of using the standard GLP anywhere on the field or they might alter their profile and use some of the newer fades inside the 5. Zero chance for abuse. Only chance of disaster

I hate #4
If teams want to use GL in short distances anywhere on the field, that should be allowed.