Illegal Plays On Defense

[Jerry-Redskins]

Historically, we have either grandfathered things in or updated the plays at the time of the rule change. If there are a couple of egregious things, then make a tweak or resave to the right category to only that piece. Otherwise, as noted above, is it an issue?

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

Most of the plays listed are Dean's plays. He can fix most of this list by submitting a renamed and recategorized version of the offending play along with a compliant version of the originally named play.

For example, he can submit two plays to fix AT32rlG1 (lacks 5 in run focused def)
AT32rlG1 - edited so at least 5 in run focused def
AT32psG1 - original play with no edits resaved to its correct category and renamed for that category

If you guys would like, I can do this for these plays which are no longer 'owned.'
DN23PM09 - 2 men def LOS
BB3RM002 - lacks 6 in run focused def
JJ31rmNY - pass rush not run rush
JJ33rmMR - lacks 6 in run focused def
BB3RR008 - lacks 7 in run focused def

[Charlie-49ers]

Do the unowned. Let Dean work on the other two. I do not want to reclassify plays where we need to delete something! Invariably, one or more people forget to delete items, and we end up with "Play Not Found" in PPPs, which only slows everything down.

[Steve-Buffalo Bills]

JJ33rmMR is legal. It has 6 RUN FOCUSED players and no more than 5 DBs which satisfy the requirement to be categorized as RM.

DN23PM09 can only be fixed by making one more player defend the LOS. We can't recategorize the current version unless we reduce the LOS defense minimum to 2 for PL and/or PRD. Then it's a simple matter of creating a copy and saving as DN23PL09 or DN23PRD09. Can't do anything about this except overwrite it to comply.

I'll submit the other three for review:

BB3RM002 - lacks 6 in run focused def
original saved as BB3PS002 - original named play edited to ensure 6 players defend the LOS, does not exceed 5 DBs, and bump at line is compliant with league limits

JJ31rmNY - pass rush not run rush
original saved as JJ31pmNY - original named play edited to ensure 6 players defend the LOS, does not exceed 5 DBs, and bump at line is compliant with league limits

BB3RR008 - lacks 7 in run focused def
original saved as BB3PM008 - original named play edited to ensure 7 players defend the LOS, does not exceed 4 DBs, and bump at line is compliant with league limits

[Dean-Atlanta]

Once it is clear what the rules are going to be, I will submit fixed versions of my plays that are 100 percent legal.

Most of the plays listed are Dean's plays. He can fix most of this list by submitting a renamed and recategorized version of the offending play along with a compliant version of the originally named play.

For example, he can submit two plays to fix AT32rlG1 (lacks 5 in run focused def)
AT32rlG1 - edited so at least 5 in run focused def
AT32psG1 - original play with no edits resaved to its correct category and renamed for that category

If you guys would like, I can do this for these plays which are no longer 'owned.'
DN23PM09 - 2 men def LOS
BB3RM002 - lacks 6 in run focused def
JJ31rmNY - pass rush not run rush
JJ33rmMR - lacks 6 in run focused def
BB3RR008 - lacks 7 in run focused def

[Dean-Atlanta]

JJ33rmMR is legal. It has 6 RUN FOCUSED players and no more than 5 DBs which satisfy the requirement to be categorized as RM.

That play made the list because the LBs outside are in read but do not have "if run, pursuit is..." but this is an easy fix, just add the "If run" logic to the 2 outside LBs.

The rule says:

Note: Any LB or DB with READ (if run, the pursuit is) and is within 5 yards of the LOS is considered RUN Focused.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

This is why I stay out of the play making business. Too much drama...