Offensive Passing Play Rule Change Recomendation

[Steve-LA Chargers]

Stats on the SF Fake plays from my sim:

They don't complete often but when they do they go for big chunks of yardage.

[Steve-LA Chargers]

If Charlie is open to permitting 'throw a fake' on running plays, I'll submit some next week for review. I'll test several variations until then to see if there is any improvement in sweeps against reading edge defenses: 1) a route runner throwing a fake on the sweeping side about 5 yards from LOS to stop slow down chasing defenders, 2) a blocker going in motion and executing it before the edge defender to give the RB extra seconds to get past him, and 3) placing blockers outside where the edge defenders typically are to slow them down and potentially let the RB get past them.

This will be kind of fun, so I don't mind.

[Rich-League Officer]

Let the fakes fly if it creates some new innovative plays.
Freezing a defender is part of the game.

[Mitch-Oilers]

If we want to freeze defenders, just allow QBs to move in the pocket slightly left or right about 5 yards deep in shotgun. Dean had a bunch of plays designed to do that before they were adjusted for rules violations.

Those plays froze M2M defenders 99% of the time.

[Jerry-Redskins]

If we find that the fakes freeze unrelated players and allow it, then it becomes a madden like game and it will no longer be fun in here.

[Rich-League Officer]

Well, I am not suggesting that freezing players for the duration of a play is the way to go.
Can a player actually be fooled for a split second and then resume his path?

[Jerry-Redskins]

Fakes are already allowed in the PNFL. We are talking about other players not covering a WR stopping and reacting. If we discover that players not associated with the coverage stop, it is a foul. Look at Steve's comment. Design plays to stop the players pursuing a RB to get to the edge. This is the point. I'm fine if it fakes the DB covering a WR. No issue what so ever. If other players near the fake all stop or hesitate it is an issue. That's the whole purpose of the 5 yard fake rule. I have a hard time believing the super experienced guys including Charlie who designed and extensively tested the original PNFL rules and added the 5 yard fake rule did it for no reason. I know for sure the AI issue existed in older versions. I can design plays using AI issues as good as anyone. Ask Justin about the CBFL and my offense. I discovered the PNFL and would never want to go back to those silly days.

Please test and determine what occurs. If it does not affect others, then let it be allowed next season. If it does stupid things we should not change.

[Mitch-Oilers]

Rule of thumb:

If the offensive play causes the entire defense to react in the same way the defense reacts to an ineligible receiver downfield, it might be an AI buster...

[Rich-League Officer]

If a play caused the entire defense to freeze, each one would go for 80 yards.
That's not what I am advocating for.
Charlie should make some plays and see what happens.
He's lived in the editor for 25 years, I trust him to not allow unrealistic plays.

But if WR1 throws a fake within 5 yds of WR2 and the defender covering WR2 gets faked, I say YIPPEE!
That's football!
And if the defender gets faked out has 80IN and but another defender with 90IN does not get faked out, then absolutely these plays should be allowed.

[Charlie-49ers]

Rich and I are on the same page. I modified a couple of my Fakes this week, but they do not violate the 5-yard restriction. I will continue to test, test, and see what happens. If the fake fakes out the less-intelligent defender and does not the smarter one (IN and/or DI) then it is a good thing. Any play that freezes the entire defense will never make it to the field.