i'll take one roll wolf:rtfl:

I thought we were simply trying to establish weight classes, not figure classes. 3.3 is 3.3. It shouldn't matter how you get there or what figures you use. The whole 3.3 issue is simply an attempt to keep 'certain' figures out of play because those who made their rules don't like them. Seperating 'certain' figures from other 'certain' figures is tantamount to discrimination, and that is not a good thing... :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Question?
 

Where does figure placement fall into? I have a number of stock figures that I move the location on the platform to get a better weight distrubtion. Everything is still the same just in a different location. Where would these figure come under? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Tim,
At that point they would be custom 3.3 or no longer just stock. Make sense?

Geno H

Al,
There are classes for ALL. Simple

Geno H

Al, Sorry, I don't have anything left to say on the subject. The only rules that the MFCA has any real control over are the MFCA Rules which you are on the committee for. The statement includes that the official MFCA will be 4.0. There will be those that hate that and will pitch a fit, but we have to have something to work with and at least they will know far in advance that this is the case.

The classes that I wrote up are a general outline of what 95% of the leagues use and it is mean't to go in a book or pamphlet that will make it clearer to the new person starting out what the possibilities are and what he can expect to find. They really mean nothing beyond that. There will and always will be exceptions to any final classification that we put out there, but excluding the fact that there are leagues out there running at 3.3, for whatever reason they run it that way, is discriminatory also and incomplete.

I invite you to write up a clear proposal to present to the BOD and membership. Then they can be compared and the best possible answer put out as the final statement. Like I said, this is only my take on it. The discussion has been educational and debated very well, but I don't think there is much more I have to add.

Gosh, you would think we were discussing health care. (Don't say nothing RIP) :D :)

Ahhhhh
 

Its a good thing you guys aren't firemen, the house would have burnt to the ground.

Now on to the important stuff, let's get a calendar started of National's lady friends!! Yahooooooooo!!!!ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$ ppls$

Wow
 

I missed a lot today. What I get for working overtime tonight. Excellent Proposal. As with any proposal still needs some fine tuning and will post my thoughts on it when I have had more time to print it out and read all the replys more closely.

Tomkat, You know I am with you on the no artificial weight and that is fine for our league but the game is moving to a higher level and to compete on that level classes are probably the answer.

The MFCA has decided to go with a 4.0 limit and that is what the Rules Committee will be working with. As Wolf said there will be those who like it and those who won't but at least we have something to work with.

Yep, what they said. We should not divide the game into weight classes. One max weight; simple easy to remember.

My opinion after reading everything
 

Treks1, I wish it were that simple. It sure would make things easier for me and the Rules Committee. We wouldn't be having these discussions if it were that simple.

This is just Lynn's proposal.

Whatever is adopted will go through a vote of the Board of Directors. Unfortunately getting a reponse from all the members of the Board of Directors in a timely manner is next to impossible. I have sent many proposals to the BOD lately and it frustrates me to no end the lack of responses I get. So far only 3 of the 7 members of the BOD have even responded to this thread. Where are the rest of you????

Lynn,

Very good proposal and obviously very well thought out. In my opinion and from my study of the many rule sets there are 2 distinct classifications of figures "stock" and "custom" and 3 distinct weight limits "3.3", "4.0" and "unlimited". I think Lynn's distinctions between these and the definitions of what "stock" and "custom" are is exactly what we need.

WOLF, THE 3.3 WAS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU.
 

WOLF,

I just thought Al had a great point regarding 2 seperate classes for 3.3. I did not understand it either and was asking the quesh as such.
Your write up is the greatest and i do not want to see another one. Your right, im playing 4.0 and above so i will let the 3.3 coaches enjoy what they do. Just wondering why there was a seperation.

wolf, please pass this bill in congress by friday 5:00. It's no need to prolong the situation.

If no names were decided on,

1) 1ST AND 10 (3.3 STOCK)

2)2ND AND 5 (3.3 CUSTOM)

3) 4TH AND GOAL ( 4.0 AND UNLIMITED)

Wolf, thanx for the great write up. The die has been cast. LETS PASS THE BILL AND TACKLE THE NEXT PHASE.


MANTARAYDRE

Great job on the thread everyone...the competition categories is the way to go and I have NO DOUBT that the members of the MFCA will step up and help define and educate anyone who is interested in learning. I have teams in both 3.2 and the 4.0 but not everyone will. Is everyone interested in trying 4.0...No. Will some that have played 4.0 ever be interested in going back to 3.3...No (and thats fine). However the MFCA is a leader in this hobby and its great to see 4.0 being recognized by the members as a top notch competition class!

Weight addition is is the great equalizer allowing competition of various equimpent both new and old, standard or custom. I love that in the 4.0 weighted class you can play a light Tudor teams vs. FF.net teams, or a buzzball team vs. Egridiron team, or a rookie base can compete with a TTC at the same weight! I have no doubt that innovation will flourish in this weight category.