Universal Rule Set

[TVsCHACHI]

Not a can of worms nor whup-ace, not designed to enrage and bring forth riot,

but a simple poll, I'm curious 'can it be done?'

1 Rule Set...
Universal

[artlax]

Because it makes sense.

It would be portable.

Think of it - when guys decide to go to a tourney or join a league the HAVE decided to play by that ONE rules set - not their own that they bring with them.

If they don't like that style they don't do it.

It can be done.

[MplsTom]

No...not yet. There's not enough incentive. Guys like playing their way in their regions. That's not a bad thing for a niche hobby like we are.

At this point, there's not enough of a carrot/motivation to yield to a governing board...there's no:

1) Recognized vs Unrecognized (i.e. if you accomplished something using a different rule set, it is unrecognized...so what at this point)

2) Movement of all major tourneys toward one set: As long as the "majors" are playing differently, why shouldn't the regions/leagues.

3) TV or major incentive to adapt to a certain style of play

4) Teeth with the governing body...the governing body is trying to unify to promote the hobby...that's a different mission than what you are seeking. One approach is inclusive...the other has pieces of exclusivity in it.

As said in an earlier post, I think the #3 reason will drive people to a certain style - de facto...but aside from that I don't think this comes from the bottom up. Imagine telling Reg that wins with the Shootout Style aren't valid or telling Jimbo that wins with a divider aren't recognized or telling Raiderman that wins with the High Voltage Passing method aren't counted or telling Jimmy D that his win at Miggle wasn't real because they didn't allow X figures. None of those things could or should happen...but until then there's no way that you'll get parties with such a strong opinion and at times financial motivation (the manufacturers) to agree.

[BAXTER]

a set of standard definitions from every style of play or a glossary of all of our terms (east to west, north to south) would be something most can stomach. That way, everything is inclusive. At the same time, we continue to recognize and accept the various difference styles of play from local leagues to small and large scale tournaments.


So, yes I do agree, but to an extent.


-Adrian-

[Brian]

because I would like to build one team and only have to weary about one team. Playing in multiple leagues like I do, I have to spread the wealth around in stead of putting everything into one team. I would like to see one weight limit (4.0) it easy to add weight then it is to take it off. But if the limit is 3.2/3.3, I would support that as well.

Brian

[sweetka]

Originally Posted by Brian

because I would like to build one team and only have to weary about one team. Playing in multiple leagues like I do, I have to spread the wealth around in stead of putting everything into one team. I would like to see one weight limit (4.0) it easy to add weight then it is to take it off. But if the limit is 3.2/3.3, I would support that as well.

Brian

I agree totally, nobody should have to drastically change physical charateristics of a team to play anywhere. That would at least be a start. I feel it would require a manufacturing adjustment that the current economy just won't allow.

[Electric Coach]

A universal rule set can work provided that all equipment is allowed and the weight is kept around 4.5 and 5.0g. I say the weight should be around that mark because of customizing and the different types of bases that are in the hobby. Along with that, if coaches around the hobby drop their petty issues or at least leave them at home, it can work.

Maurice
The Electric Coach

[FrankB]

however, I believe a sticking point could be, timed stoppages versus no stoppages. I believe, and prefer to play with stoppages.

[gridironpainter]

I have been giving the ruleset dilema alot of thought lately, and I think that the MFCA could adopt a standard ruleset that is inclusive of much of the variety that is out there.

I think what could be done is set up categories with the different rule options for each circumstance and put it to a vote among the MFCA members and arrive at a compromise. This would give incentive to join the MFCA and it becomes democratic. Then perhaps members vote each year like the NFL owners to make adjustments and adapt to new options.

This would give a more advanced standard ruleset than the Miggle rules that most "newbies" know , which can then be promoted by the MFCA. Then each league can have "house" rules allowed as wanted.

I think the biggest problem is needing to qualify wins. I respect all of the different styles of play and don't see any being superior over the rest, just different ways of playing. I use a one stop rule with my younger kids, and then a 3 stop more advanced set with my 14yr old son who has played since he was 5 and has a better understanding.

Or, perhaps there could be a way to create diffrent classes of play, much like pro, all-pro, Madden, etc., with more advanced rule sets for each category. Then wins can be qualified per how advanced the rule set is. Lets say I have 3 wins in one category, 2 in another, and 1 in the next, and then each type counts toward that certain category, something like 3P, 2AP,1M . This also gives incentive for the guys who travel all over to play, as it will reflect the diversity of thier opponents. ( I realize we can't use Madden's name, its just an example)

These are just a few suggestions, and I mean no offense to anyone or any style.

[Collegefootballfan]

Our rules are pretty open. You can use the SD or run a hurry up offense with no SD. You can use the TDQ or the passing sticks! If you guys could check our rule set out. They are a great mixture of the Brawl and Shootout systems!!!



Jeff