A remark in another thread makes me wonder if this rule misinterprets what a midfielder is?
Thus it could be:Quote:
- at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be in the middle row (MC, ML or MR) *This rule isn't totally confirmed
- at least x midfielders (DM* or M*) (AM* not counting as a 'midfielder' )
That would fit both observations, i think.
Test cases for x = 1:
- 5-1-0-1-3 (1 DM* midfielder) ILLEGAL
Attachment 5826- 5-0-1-1-3 (1 M* midfielder) ILLEGAL
Attachment 5827- 5-1-0-2-2 LEGAL
Attachment 5828
Pretty solid case for adjusting the rule to:
at least 3 midfielders (DM*, M*, AM*) at least one of which has to be an DM* or M*
Accounts for all known observations at this time.