Definitive Illegal Formation Rules

[Potemy]

That's why I said maybe the team is weak and it's not illegal, but now I'm thinking we need at least 3 midfielders.

[DarioDA]

Sticker plz!

[Kyroshill]

Theoretical Legal Formation Requirements:


Goalkeeper (Must be player's natural position) <---- Don't think so... see earlier screenies
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} <--- watched this happen in-game.... I'd say verified true!
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 4 players on the opponents side of the pitch. *This rule isn't totally confirmed <--- I have personally suffered under this rule for 28 painful game minutes while trying to play ultra-defensive!
at least 1 Striker


Just by way of updating and/or adding to the discussion....

[hullabaloo]

if I used two DM:s and then 1 MC in front of them (also using MR and ML) - is that illegal? What if I used two DM's and 2 MC's ?

[Chris Rath]

if I used two DM:s and then 1 MC in front of them (also using MR and ML) - is that illegal? What if I used two DM's and 2 MC's ?

Should not be a problem, if you have at least 4 players in the opponents half.

[giggsy70]

It is a touchy spot because what if u want to run a 4-2-4 and play long ball to your FWDS.U would then penalize the player for having 4 def 2 mids and 4 fwds..That would not be right.

[dafi wijaya]

4-1-3-2

[Charlie Swb]

Those rules are not true
Need new rule

[Razz]

Those rules are not true
Need new rule

Care to elaborate?

[CIBlue]

Those rules are not true
Need new rule

You were probably losing because your opponent controlled the midfield with more midfielders.