Definitive Illegal Formation Rules

[Razz]

He is correct. Not having ML/MC/MR is not illegal as I have also played against teams without one and no possession penalty was given

Please explain why this formation is illegal then:
Attachment 3899

Consistently, lack of a mid-row player results in an illegal formation.
If you can show otherwise, please do. I can't.
If you can provide an alternate theory why the above 5-0-0-3w-2 formation is illegal, please do. I can't.

A remark in another thread makes me wonder if this rule misinterprets what a midfielder is?

• 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

Thus it could be:

• 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
  
• 5-0-1-1-3 (1 M* midfielder) ILLEGAL
  
• 5-1-0-2-2 LEGAL
  

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.

[kimozi]

How about 4-3-3?

--ST ST ST--
--------------
--MC----MC--
--------------
-----MC-----
DL-DC-DC-DR
-----GK-------

I read about needing to have Wingers then is counted as a legal formations, but in this case, i dont have any wingers, is it ok?

[Razz]

How about 4-3-3?

--ST ST ST--
--------------
--MC----MC--
--------------
-----MC-----
DL-DC-DC-DR
-----GK-------

I read about needing to have Wingers then is counted as a legal formations, but in this case, i dont have any wingers, is it ok?

Read the first post in this thread. Do you still have questions?

[zbaric]

Is this formation illegale?
ST ST
AMC
MC MC
DML DMC DMR
DC DC
GK
Because i keep getting 20% ball possesion

[Tocquie]

--- ST ST ST ---
AL --- --- --- AR
--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---
DL DC DC DC DR

I used this formation and I had 20% of possession ball. So I think it's "illegal" (for Nordeus of course )

[Moel]

Legal yes?

-stst--
-am-am-
--------
-dm-dm-
lbcdcdrb

edit, just tested it in a friendly and yes it is.

[Razz]

--- ST ST ST ---
AL --- --- --- AR
--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---
DL DC DC DC DR

I used this formation and I had 20% of possession ball. So I think it's "illegal" (for Nordeus of course )

Read about 6 posts up, re the adjusted rule for midfielder requirements.

Is this formation illegale?
ST ST
AMC
MC MC
DML DMC DMR
DC DC
GK
Because i keep getting 20% ball possesion

Which of these rules does it violate?

• 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

[zbaric]

Don't know, maybe the first one?

[Razz]

Indeed. If that's not clear, please feel free to suggest better wording.

[zbaric]

That's stupid, that formation is used very frequently in football..