Offensive GL Plays

[Jerry-Redskins]

The Goal Line plays have worked themselves into more routine use all over the field and not just 1 yard or goal situations. The minimum number for RG and PG should be raised to 4 or 5 in my opinion.

[Shawn-Giants]

Great observation Jerry, I'm sure there's data to suggest that's the case, however with little variation in difference of plays in that formation, not sure what the squeeze would be, I believe we are already at the maximum or close to it with total plays in a gameplan for each category. Look at the plays in the category, almost all the same with different team names with slight variations. You can have 4-5 of the play with different team names. It's also by design, there's no ultra strategic formation advantage with a GL play.

I'm all for it, if it is worth adjusting for gameplay experience/optics.

[Jerry-Redskins]

The rule says unique plays. I got you on the similarities though, but it is still the principle involved.

[Justin-Chicago]

I could see raising the minimum to 3 each. I do not think that a higher minimum than that would be feasible. Shawn is correct, we are close to capacity as it is.

[Jerry-Redskins]

We would still be under 64 and they are not a mandatory category. There are only 48 mandatory category plays required. No reason to not be min 4 since they are now receiving normal use. Should be no different than RL or PLR. Situational plays that are not mandatory and useable in all situations.

[Dean-Atlanta]

We have more than eno9ugh rules and require more than enough plays in the various categories. We don't need to complicate things any more than we already have.

[Jerry-Redskins]

Agree with the no new rules to complicate things. This is not new. It already exist and it actually just lines in up with all of the same situational plays to make the rules the same and thus simplify them. The consistency is easier

[Dean-Atlanta]

I'm all for simplicity and consistency, so let's compromise like they have to do in Congress to get anything done. Change the rules, to THREE unique plays required in every single play category on offense and defense. Extremely simple, perfectly consistent.

[Jerry-Redskins]

You are now being argumentative rather than constructive. Your first comment was constructive. You are free to explain why the rule should stay at two or the nuances involved in the proposed change which is what Shawn did.

Again, this is a simple proposed change to have both the GL pass and GL run offensive plays match the 4 play minimum the same as RL and PLR. It actually eliminates a difference in the current rules. From this perspective it eliminates a rule. These plays are now being run in a manner the same as RL and PLR. As normal in the PNFL just like the real NFL we are a copy cat league. The trend to use the goal line expanded in use to many more situations. This changes the dynamic between defense calls and offense calls in gameplans.

The current minimum of two allows for the opportunity to isolate a single play call. The idea of minimum plays for categories is to ensure a breadth of plays types are used and not have the PNFL emulate leagues back in the day having plays called 90% of the time. The PNFL idea to keep an NFL semblance and the sim nature are both enhanced by the minimum rules. This also aligns the minimum with the defense minimum which can allow for the creation of defensive GL plays to stop the offensive ones and be called in the same amount versus having to try to have twice as many successful defenses as the offense in the game plan each week.

[James-Eagles]

I don't see the need for this change. I say take a season review how effect GL plays are. Unless you have some data that shows that calling them all over the field is causing a problem. As I remember GL Defense rule was changed because one coach used GL defense to the point it created a hard to stop defense. This is because GL defense stops short passing and running and if you get the right ones called. It pressured the QB fast enough that most medium and long passes ended in sacks. I happen to remember this because the coach that was using this did it against me and no one noticed. The next week used it again and the forums went crazy to ban GL except in certain situations. That was the comprised.

Jerry, I understand the thought but you know me. If there is no data that shows it an actual problem then I say no reason to change the rule.