Rule Clarification

Okay, so let me first start by saying that this is NOT a complaint.

Just played Greenerr in DW league. He beat me 30-10, kicked my butt, and no complaints, he did it fair and sim-like. But for a few plays throughout the game he would go jumbo set with TE's subbed at WR for blocking purposes. This is something I have done often here at MG, and if you look just a few post down you'll see that I was strongly against the new rule. I've had fellow members get extremely pissed about this and accuse me of purposely misleading their play call screen. When asked Greenerr about this he said that he was doing it through Subs, not with his depth chart, and also that he was coming out in a power running formation and running the ball, nothing misleading there. I agree with all of this (strange, me and Greene have agreed on a number of topics lately). Paraphrasing, he said something to the effect of as long as it's not misleading it's cool.

So what is the actual rule here, fellas? Is it OK to do if they're subs? Is it OK to do if it's not misleading?

And again, let me say that this is NOT a Greenerrr bash post. He did the same thing I've been doing for a while, and I think it's a fine, sim-like strategy. But we all need to get on the same page.

If I read the rule right, anything is ok as long as it's done through formation packages and not through depth chart manipulation. Makes no sense, as the opponent can't tell the difference, but that's what they say. There is a 'Jumbo' package on a lot of the I-form type formations.

phantomshark wrote:If I read the rule right, anything is ok as long as it's done through formation packages and not through depth chart manipulation. Makes no sense, as the opponent can't tell the difference, but that's what they say. There is a 'Jumbo' package on a lot of the I-form type formations.

My understanding of the rule is that this is a blatant violation.
The point is to NOT be able to sub those TEs in....Depth chart or not.

Jumbo set is a vague term. Was it a set with WR positions? If so, yes that's against the rule. He must not understand the rule. It's not very complex to understand. A TE CAN NOT be in a WR1, WR2, or WR3 position. So if you're in a set with only 1 WR. You can't put a TE at that spot. If you're in a set with two WRs then you can't put a TE at EITHER of those spots. If you're in a set with 3 WR, you can't put a TE at ANY of those spots.

The rule is put into place TO STOP GUYS FROM using misleading PRESNAP PLAYER DISTRUBTION CALLS... example - the game says 1WR 2RB 2TE - u think its a run formation - so U COME UP IN A BASE DEFENSE TO COUNTER IT - but - the offense is in a 4 wr set with RB and TE playing those positions! - THIS IS MISLEADING! and is BS!...

nvertheless...

when i employ a JUMBO SET - nobody is being fooled in what i am going to run - it will say 0 wr 2 te 2 rb - u are going think PWOER formation - AND GUESS WHAT- its a power formation!!!!!

I don't see how this is manipulating the presnap disbersement of players...

My point is, if you go into an I-tight formation and pick 'Jumbo' package, it's going to make those substitutions for you, that's what the 'Jumbo' package is. Unless you want to outlaw using certain packages that Madden offers too.

I guess when you think about it...using the packages is fine. Because I don't think there's a jumbo package in the spread sets. So you won't find things like 2wr 1TE 2RB and have a guy come out with 5 wide.

Cheddah_Cheez wrote:Jumbo set is a vague term. Was it a set with WR positions? If so, yes that's against the rule. He must not understand the rule. It's not very complex to understand. A TE CAN NOT be in a WR1, WR2, or WR3 position. So if you're in a set with only 1 WR. You can't put a TE at that spot. If you're in a set with two WRs then you can't put a TE at EITHER of those spots. If you're in a set with 3 WR, you can't put a TE at ANY of those spots.

i agreed to the rule to illiminate guys from MISLEADING players prior to the snap... In no way is what i am doing MISLEADING any1 (in fact it has the oppisite effect)..- i am telling the hole world - I AM RUNNING THE BALL -SEND YOUR BIGGEST/FASTEST AND TRY TO STOP ME!!!! There is nithing underhanded about it at all...


But if u guys are going to BELLY ached about what is aJUMBO set and what is not - than we need to illiminate the GOALINE formation rule - and allow guys to use it at any time... This is beacuse there are plenty of playbooks that lack a traditional JUMBO set that u describve - and the only one available is GOALLINE.... In my case - i had 1 other JUMBO set available in my playbook - but i had used it a lot - and wanted to MIX my play calling up - but still remain in a JUMBO SET - hence the change

debates like this is why i'm enjoying beating the shit out of lobby bums more and more, theres never any debate...i think the rules are getting a bit much and causing a lot of tension. theres only 3 people that are currently in MG who abuse the game, all the rest know wtf to do and how to play realistically...we shouldn't even need rules with the great group of guys we have here.

falconfansince81 wrote:debates like this is why i'm enjoying beating the shit out of lobby bums more and more, theres never any debate...i think the rules are getting a bit much and causing a lot of tension. theres only 3 people that are currently in MG who abuse the game, all the rest know wtf to do and how to play realistically...we shouldn't even need rules with the great group of guys we have here.

here - here

funny how this mini debate started - the guy wasnt even complaining!

GREENERRRR wrote:

Cheddah_Cheez wrote:Jumbo set is a vague term. Was it a set with WR positions? If so, yes that's against the rule. He must not understand the rule. It's not very complex to understand. A TE CAN NOT be in a WR1, WR2, or WR3 position. So if you're in a set with only 1 WR. You can't put a TE at that spot. If you're in a set with two WRs then you can't put a TE at EITHER of those spots. If you're in a set with 3 WR, you can't put a TE at ANY of those spots.

i agreed to the rule to illiminate guys from MISLEADING players prior to the snap... In no way is what i am doing MISLEADING any1 (in fact it has the oppisite effect)..- i am telling the hole world - I AM RUNNING THE BALL -SEND YOUR BIGGEST/FASTEST AND TRY TO STOP ME!!!! There is nithing underhanded about it at all...


But if u guys are going to BELLY ached about what is aJUMBO set and what is not - than we need to illiminate the GOALINE formation rule - and allow guys to use it at any time... This is beacuse there are plenty of playbooks that lack a traditional JUMBO set that u describve - and the only one available is GOALLINE.... In my case - i had 1 other JUMBP set - but i hadused it a lot - and wanted to MIX my play calling up - but still remain in a JUMBO SET - hence the change

The whole point is that you can't make your own Jumbo set. if the playbook you are using doesn't have it, then find another playbook.
I thought that was the WHOLE REASON that everyone started voting on this process to begin with. You can't put a TE in any of the top 3 WR positions. Making your own Custom Jumbo set would require you to do that.

Furthermore, since the rule is that you can't run the goalline formation all the time, what makes sense about you effectively building your own goalline formation by replacing players? it doesn't. Hell, i'd argue that the reason this rule exists now, is just an addition to the previous goalline rule.

My opinion on the matter.....

GREENERRRR wrote:

falconfansince81 wrote:debates like this is why i'm enjoying beating the shit out of lobby bums more and more, theres never any debate...i think the rules are getting a bit much and causing a lot of tension. theres only 3 people that are currently in MG who abuse the game, all the rest know wtf to do and how to play realistically...we shouldn't even need rules with the great group of guys we have here.

here - here

funny how this mini debate started - the guy wasnt even complaining!

lol, somehow even questions about a rule turn into arguments haha. theres another guy does nothing but run tosses and playaction from a subsitution jumbo. its stupid, and i won't play him. ever. i told greener about this last year since we can't run goaline every play yet he made goaline by subbing two offensive lineman in at te. it doesn't really matter though, cause a wr will block just as good as a lineman anyways. the main problem is in passing sets with spreading the line matching up jamaal charles vs a 75 speed mlb. but then again...zone solves that problem. i don't really care about it...but clearly its becoming an issue.

First I wouldn't say this is a debate or argument at all, it's a discussion. Furthermore, when I said Jumbo set is a vague term, I didn't know he was actually talking about the Jumbo package. Blaine and I have had problems with nomenclature before. When someone says "Set" I automatically think formations. So when I saw, "Jumbo set" I was thinking of a number of formations, not the Jumbo package that you can use in a variety of sets...so that's why I said it was a vague term. It wasn't until I saw Greener's message that I realized Blaine was talking about the package.

Like I said in my last response, I don't really see a problem with that. The problem I have is when guys use it to show something like 2wr 1 te 2rb, and come out 4 or 5 wide.

really...the only formation that seems legal to me...which seems to be misconstrued....

is the playbooks that have the RB and TE split out...ALREADY...

they seem to do a funky shift when going towards the line of scrimmage...but they both lineup...in 5 WR

Pittsburgh's playbook has it...where its 3WR 1RB and 1TE but its all 5 WR...

and the Colts playbook has several formations with the TE split out...