Offensive GL Plays

[Rich-League Officer]

Good question Mitch, it never came up but the answer would be yes.
You can still only use 1 timing pass if the 3 stays as the rule.
When using 4 was discussed, it would have been 2. But everyone really hated needing 4.

[Charlie-49ers]

[quote="Mitch-Raiders"]Does the 50% timing pass rule still apply on GLPs now?[/quote]

Yes, no more than 50% can be Timed passes. So, if we go to 3 and 3 as suggested if you want two GLP Timed passes, then you need four GLPs

[Charlie-49ers]

[quote="Justin-Chicago"3 and 3 is fine, let’s move on.[/quote]

I agree. What is the big deal?

[Dean-Atlanta]

Rich noted...there is one GLP that went 23/30 76% for 14 TDs.

There is a coaching issue here t be questioned...can we create GLP defenses that are more effective as reducing the effectiveness of goal line passes? Id so, let's do that. If it is not possible to defend GLP passes more effectively, is there a real AI issue involved in one or more of our goal line pass plays?

Which GLP play was that anyway?

[Charlie-49ers]

Besides the fact that the 3 & 3 makes sense, at least to me, there is an alternative, or maybe an addition to the rule that would limit any perceived abuse of the 4th and 1 tries all over the field under all kinds of situations. By their very names, they are Goal Line plays.

We could limit their use to situations inside the 5-yard line on both ends of the field on both sides of the ball.

This would affect Profiles, so I would not suggest this enhancement for this season, but it sure sounds like a good idea for the next one.

[Dean-Atlanta]

Restricting GLP plays to goal line situations (inside the 5) means they can still be used for 2 point conversions since that is within the 5, correct?

[Justin-Chicago]

Besides the fact that the 3 & 3 makes sense, at least to me, there is an alternative, or maybe an addition to the rule that would limit any perceived abuse of the 4th and 1 tries all over the field under all kinds of situations. By their very names, they are Goal Line plays.

We could limit their use to situations inside the 5-yard line on both ends of the field on both sides of the ball.

This would affect Profiles, so I would not suggest this enhancement for this season, but it sure sounds like a good idea for the next one.

That would be a big NO vote from me. Anything that has an impact to profiles, is a very painful adjustment, because of the likelihood of editing errors that it causes. I see teams with bad playcalling and clock management mistakes every single week, that cause real issues to game outcomes.

Also, I have never heard the thought behind this, philosophically, what is the argument to remove GLP/GLR in any situation it is currently legal? What is wrong with the offense going high percentage to try to get a yard or two, in any scenario? I know they are called GLP and GLR, but we have always known and accepted that the play type names do not define what those plays are. Run middle doesn't mean run up the middle, pass short left doesn't mean pass short nor pass left, etc. I just don't get all the fuss about GLP and GLR.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Fine. I'll edit my offensive game plans to add more GLR and GLP and remove two other plays. I'd rather comply with this then edit goal line situations in my profiles. Still annoying though because if I have any full game plans I want to re-use I'll have to remove two other plays. Hopefully Charlie's purge wrecked all my game plans and I need to add plays anyway.

[James-Eagles]

All I want is to review the rule changes. Just because it sounds like a good idea now doesn't mean it is. It is getting old every year we have to have that only fix problems only a couple coaches have. I think it is funny that is a big deal review rules. It is almost as most of these rules the people making them know they are bad rules. It is also how we stopped voting for rule changes it is almost like they know they won't pass.

[Charlie-49ers]

Restricting GLP plays to goal line situations (inside the 5) means they can still be used for 2 point conversions since that is within the 5, correct?

That would be a "YES".