Definitive Illegal Formation Rules

[Perry Sih]

How come this is an illegal formation? Is it true that there must be at least one MC?
By the way, what formation would you have used against the team on the right?

[Razz]

How come this is an illegal formation? Is it true that there must be at least one MC?
By the way, what formation would you have used against the team on the right?

• Goalkeeper (Must be player's natural position i.e. a GK) **
• Some combination of at least 3 defenders (i.e. 3 players anywhere in the back row )
• At least 1, but no more than 2, players on EACH outside flank. {the D(L/R), DM(L/R), M(L/R), AM(L/R) slots}
• at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
• At least 4 players on the opponents side of the pitch.
• at least 1 Striker

It meets all the known requirements, therefore:

6. Post-match results are inconclusive for various reasons. If a formation appears to be legal, but shows a 20% possession in post-match results (one you didn't watch), first check the GK in the game - if that is his natural position, and you find no other reason for the possession penalty, test the formation yourself. If it IS illegal, make a screenshot and post here please.


There could be several reasons for the 20% possession other than the formation shown being illegal. Some of these include: severe disparity in team quality, changes in formation after the match started, red cards, or injuries. Often a non-GK in the GK position will result in 20% possession for an otherwise legal formation.

Or you may have discovered something nobody else has recorded so far.

[Razz]

How come this is an illegal formation? Is it true that there must be at least one MC?
By the way, what formation would you have used against the team on the right?

Preliminary testing confirms that 4w-0-2w-2n-2 IS illegal.
Moving one of the AMCs to MC resulted in a legal formation.



Previous testing has shown that an MC is NOT required IF you have a DMC. Will have to follow up on this and see if a DMC or DML or DMR makes it legal.

Thanks for posting.

[pnr8555]

Preliminary testing confirms that 4w-0-2w-2n-2 IS illegal.
Moving one of the AMCs to MC resulted in a legal formation.



Previous testing has shown that an MC is NOT required IF you have a DMC. Will have to follow up on this and see if a DMC or DML or DMR makes it legal.

Thanks for posting.

To be illegal formation, it has to be 20% ball poscession, not 30...

[Razz]

To be illegal formation, it has to be 20% ball poscession, not 30...

Look again and re-read

[hullabaloo]

what about using two DM next to each other?

or using to AMC next to each other behind two strikers?

[dv8r]

what about using two DM next to each other?

or using to AMC next to each other behind two strikers?

I have never seen 2 AMC behind 2 strikers but it doesn't sound like an illegal formation

[Potemy]

what about using two DM next to each other?

or using to AMC next to each other behind two strikers?

Legal, but you'll also have to look at other parts of the formation.

[bobdylan]

I was hoping to run with
DC. DC.
DMR. DML
MC MC MC
AMR. AML.
FC

So I'm guessing it's illegal due to the two DC's ? That's lame

[funky]

how about that its illegal or not?