Opening the can of worms...PA Third and Long

I am sure this has come up a few times in the past, but I wanted to raise a couple of queries with this if it's ok?

Firstly I disagree that PA on third and long pays is unsim completely. I will give you three examples.

1. A team is 3rd and 30 lets say in their own half. At this stage a run play could well be a reasonable play call as they may want to play it safe and take their possession to 4th down safety and punt it. If a run play is reasonable, then so is a PA.

2. A team is 3rd and 10 in the oppositions redzone in a close game or one thy have the lead in. Again a run play to secure a FG is a reasonable option and so would a PA off of that possibility.

3. A team is 3rd and 8. A draw play is still a possibility so why not a PA draw?

Given the above, this highlights why PA plays are still sim on down and distance longer than 3rd and 5.

Secondly, I feel that the punishment is too severe. This is for three reasons:

1. It can be defended against by pass committing (L2 + right stick up)

2. The read and completion still need to be made, and if they are then punting the ball away is a little overboard as a punishment.

3. The play may have been called innocently without realising the PA was in it.

Given the above, I feel the giving away of a possession if you do complete a pass on 3rd and long and either accidentally choose a PA play on 3rd down or even deliberately do so in the above scenarios is harsh especially in shortened games like we play. I would suggest either scrapping the rule completely (as it can be defended against) or a more reasonable punishment (say 1 or 2 delay of game penalties on your next down in possession of the ball).

Thoughts welcome...

I always thought that PA on 3rd and long is forbidden because of the stupid CPU reactions, not because of the sim issue. So I totally agree with your sim examples.

dwevans wrote:
Secondly, I feel that the punishment is too severe. This is for three reasons:

1. It can be defended against by pass committing (L2 + right stick up)

2. The read and completion still need to be made, and if they are then punting the ball away is a little overboard as a punishment.

3. The play may have been called innocently without realising the PA was in it.

Given the above, I feel the giving away of a possession if you do complete a pass on 3rd and long and either accidentally choose a PA play on 3rd down or even deliberately do so in the above scenarios is harsh especially in shortened games like we play. I would suggest either scrapping the rule completely (as it can be defended against) or a more reasonable punishment (say 1 or 2 delay of game penalties on your next down in possession of the ball).

Thoughts welcome...

1. Honestly I didn't think about it too much how it can be defended better. If it is possible with pass commit, than it's fine with me.
2. Agree
3. Agree. Had the same case as your example - accidentially called a PA, incomplete pass on 3rd down, but had to punt (however, had a disconnect seconds after that, so another punishment).

I would agree with both your suggestions. Scrapping the rule or another punishment is ok for me!

dwevans wrote:
3. The play may have been called innocently without realising the PA was in it.

I done this. The resulting play got me in 2 yards line and new set of downs - I would have scored in next play. i had to give away possession. I lost the game by 4 points. It would have given me a win over defeat.

Overall I understand why with some bogus CPU moves. I think even with a change of rules there will be some people unhappy still. Can't win them all. 

The rule may have been in some time though and could do with a modernisation or review? 

Also any rule changes shouldn't happen mid season IMO.

Had this argument in madden 16 where i was in redzone and on 3rd it was viable to either and got told off for it but this was b4 all the punting and forfeiting of possesion came into play. I personally would agree to a slight adjustment to the rule but obvious 3n 30 would probabably have to stay.
3rd n 8 to run a draw in my opinion is also a no. But something withing the 15 yard line and closer to the td i would say it doesn't matter and anything should go.

Now again committee members ussually have good explanations why this rule is what it is.

Now again committee members ussually have good explanations why this rule is what it is.

You will see a HB draw on third and long every Sunday in the NFL.

The argument is normally it messes with coverage assignments and not the sim aspect I think, but this can be defended by pass committing. It's not the offences fault if you forget to do this with your defence if we can agree that running on 3rd and long is always a possibility.

The question here is how often do you see the pa in real life on 3rd and long?

There is always the analogy with NFL being like chess with regards to strategy. Early in the game teams might accept field position and give up the drive by running the ball with a draw. Even if it doesn't work, it's low risk and makes the opposition think next time that they can't  drop 8 in coverage on 3rd downs next time...

This is why it's a totally legitimate playcall on Sundays, and if the playbook is open there then ours should be as well.

If you can run it you can play action. It's that simple.

The question here is also whether the punishment fits the crime as well.

dwevans wrote:If you can run it you can play action. It's that simple.

If that's the case then you're saying no need for the rule at all as you can run whenever and any situation. Meaning then it's not a case of changing the punishment you're advocating removing the rule all together.

I am. But if we can't agree on that then a different punishment should be considered. Personally, dropping back 10 yards for your next first down would be more reasonable if it was still concluded that the rule should stay. 

The other point to consider is that sometimes the defence doesn't notice it was a PA! What then?

Ultimately it's Gonna stay. The rule may get slightly amended but that's not something I can influence really. 

Overall like most rules they are there to encourage sim play but also to try and keep balance between the different playing levels of players. By fully allowing PA in any given situation will possibly cause a detrimental effect to lower skilled (such as myself) who can't read the play that's coming from higher skilled players like yourself and the other other higher ability players in the league. 

I can see both sides - from what your saying and the argument against it. I don't think that when you request a rule change there is ever a straight forward and simple way to proceed to make/keep everyone happy lol

The committee in my experience has always been pretty open to discussion regarding most things in the league - I wouldn't necessarily call it a can of worms as long as the debate is carried out in a reasonable fashion which it seems to be.

I think it can mess with the defensive AI which is why the rule is in place - I don't know if that's for certain but knowing EA and their lackluster work on Madden it wouldn't surprise me at all. I haven't seen many third and long PA plays in the NFL if I'm honest - conceptually I understand why you say if a run play is possible then so is PA but logic plays a factor into the decision making and as football is situational running PA on third and 30 doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Special teams in the NFL plays more of a role than in Madden and that's why you see so many draws/runs on third and long - pinning a team in their own 20 rather than gambling on a silly PA play that has a very high chance of causing a turnover/creating bad field position is not a gamble many professional coaches would make.

Just my thoughts on it.

Gents, you make some valid points - but, the whole PA rule is there purely because (as touched upon several times above) of the defensive AI issues. We could go through it all again, but rest assured, it is there out of necessity to try and keep the game as sim as we can.

Nothing wrong with a good old debate guys, but this one could only at best receive a slight amendment.

Redzone or 15yds to tds should be allowed. I might want to try and trick you and in that situation it is viable in my opinion.

But the AI issues can be fixed easily with an adjustment that takes less than a second.

I see it like epone sees it with the exception of the redzone or the 15yds. I don't remember a game when someone has gone on a 3rd and 20 with a PA. For me its not the 1sec adjustment but the reality bit. Then again I'm not on the committee

@dwevans

The pass commit does not work across the board.

@zill_kills

Remember, the AI does not care where you are on the field.

I am guilty of doing this in my last game against Arizona/Zill_Kills.

The clock was running down in the 2minute drill and I had a 3rd and 10. An NFL team might say "well they expect us to run the clock out, so lets PA and if we don't get it then we can punt to run out the clock, they'll never see it coming, mwahaha". I did question the sim nature of it, but then Zill has an amazing Defensive backfield and I gave up the INT in a 1-on-1 situation to end the half.

So using PA to trick the Madden CPU on 3rd down I disagree with, but using PA on 3rd down where there is logical justifiable coaching reasoning I'm fine with. The problem comes in explaining coaching reasoning at the time, which I did on the headset after the play was over.

Can of worms indeed!

@geodude in all honesty I didn't even notice it. But I do remember the pick though LOL. As mentioned before I still think it is reasonable to do this inside the redzone and this would sort of make this rule in balance to all the arguments that were mentioned above.

Geodude wrote:So using PA to trick the Madden CPU on 3rd down I disagree with, but using PA on 3rd down where there is logical justifiable coaching reasoning I'm fine with. The problem comes in explaining coaching reasoning at the time, which I did on the headset after the play was over.

There can't be a situation where the league is encouraged to justify individual plays. Imagine over the course of a game there maybe as many as over 10 plays from 3 and over 5. Imagine if you have to pause or whatever most 3 and long if you want to PA. Then comes an extra can of worms of that if you feel its justifiable in opposing HC beliefs it may not be - this then adds more issues to the game rules.