Illegal Plays On Defense

[Dean-Atlanta]

For those who listened to This Week in the PNFL, you know what this issue is. Otherwise, please listen to the show. I checked several plays that are commonly used, and found 4-5 that are totally legal under the current rule, and all the plays listed below that are illegal under the current rules. I would estimate that 90 percent of what we all use in RL, RM, RR, PS, PM , and PL is illegal under current rules.

SF21PM4S - 2 men def LOS
DN23PM09 - 2 men def LOS
DB32pmR1 - run rush instead of pass rush
KC32pmZ2 - run rush not pass rush
MN22pmR2 - 2 men def LOS
ATF3PMzo - run rush not pass rush
MN31RLD4 - lacks 5 in run focused def
KC31rmM - lacks 6 in run focused def
BB3RM002 - lacks 6 in run focused def
LV33rmOR - lacks 6 in run focused def
JJ31rmNY - pass rush not run rush
JJ33rmMR - lacks 6 in run focused def
ATF3z3rm - lacks 6 in run focused def
ATF3rmx2 - lacks 6 in run focused def
Atl3RR07 - lacks 7 in run focused def
Atl3RR26 - lacks 7 in run focused def
SF33RM3C - pass rush not run rush, lacks 6 in run focused def
BB3RR008 - lacks 7 in run focused def
LV31rrW7 - pass rush not run rush, lacks 7 in run focused def
KC31rlZ5 - lacks 5 in run focused def
KCC33rr1 - lacks 6 in run focused def
AF31rrBG - lacks 6 in run focused def
CC31rl5m - lacks 5 in run focused def
KC33rlD3 - lacks 5 in run focused def
AF32rmZD - lacks 6 in run focused def
KC31rlZ9 - lacks 5 in run focused def
KC31rlM3 - lacks 5 in run focused def
AF33rlZM - pass rush not run rush, lacks 5 in run focused def
KC32rl3Z - lacks 5 in run focused def
AT32rlG1 - lacks 5 in run focused def
AT33rlG1 - lacks 5 in run focused def
ATF3rrx2 - lacks 7 in run focused def

[Rich-League Officer]

I spoke to Charlie...
He said report the play and he'll fix them and make them "legal"
But, coaches need to report these.

Perhaps he will see this thread and elaborate.

[Charlie-49ers]

Gentlemen, over fifty seasons, we have made various changes to the rules on both sides of the ball. For the most part, we have not entered the play pool and changed them to conform, but rather grandfathered them, allowing teams to continue using them. Traditionally, we have applied rule changes to custom plays going forward. If there is something illegal, then we are all on equal footing, as we can all use it.

I checked the first play on the list 'SF21PM4S' and yes, it is one LB short and one DB long, technically making it illegal. My bad!

Since I have always been willing to fix bad plays and do so occasionally when brought to my attention or I find them myself, I am unsure why we are posting them. If there are truly "totally illegal" plays, send me an email, and I will fix them. Regarding new Custom plays, I expect the designer is aware of the rules and makes every effort to conform. If you want to ensure that I do not make a mistake by checking each play and all eleven players for conformity to the rules, I can do that. However, I will cut back the number of Custom plays submitted to a total of four each week. In addition, if I reject something, I will not accept an alternative or modification until the following week. I am not going to try to juggle 10, 20, 30+ Custom plays each week and manage my team.

In brief, if you find an egregious play or two, send them to me and I will fix them. I will also look at this list, but they had better all be bloopers.

[Charlie-49ers]

BTW, I just found this in the rules:

D04: Defensive Player Formation Requirements

Note: The following applies to new plays for the PNFL 2043 season and going forward. It does not require retrofitting of existing plays unless the original designer elects to make changes, which may only be done in the off-season.

[Charlie-49ers]

Also noted in the existing rules:

 Any Plays already in the PNFL Play Pool that do not meet these requirements are considered an exception until the Commissioner or submitting coach corrects or deletes them when identified and/or when it is necessary or appropriate.

[Dean-Atlanta]

I just posted them to show how many out of those I checked. I will check more and send them to you.

I think we should fix them and use ONLY plays legal to the current rules, otherwise the old plays that were legal then and illegal now have an advantage over new plays and it stifles new play development under current rules and has the last few seasons lead to most of us using the same formerly legal and now illegal under the current rules plays.

I think keeping the play pool fresh with new plays every season keeps us one major step better than being a stock-PPP league, and with fewer new plays able to be developed, we have been moving close to that.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Some of these categories were set with grandfathering as part of the deal such as the 2 DL ones based on the debate and discussion. Do not believe it should just be change all.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Half are Dean's and those changes are his discretion as normal.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

I'm against purging them or modifying them. I would prefer we recategorize them to their correct categories.

[Donovon-Steelers]

I will assume there were valid reasons they were grandfathered in:

(1) They weren't egregious enough of a non-conformity to make a difference;
(2) We all have access to them so there's no strategic benefit; and
(3) Who has the time to go through thousands of plays (on both sides of the ball because I'm sure there are offensive illegal plays as well)?

If we're looking at technicalities there are plays out there with naming unconventionalities as well. Those are annoying, but is it worth going through and fixing every one of them? Not really.