I completely agree. I thought it was a bit off that a SW could play FW with only a -2 penalty. I think it should be 2 points per level removed. Here's what I propose:

There should also be a restriction that a player cannot play a position that would make his effective SL 0 or less (SL - OOP + Fitness). The above table would effectively prevent SWs & FWs from playing each other's positions.

One of the purposes for playing OOP is for Acclimitisation, a FW can become an MA. If a player dual-qualifies, can they then tri-qualify, or become a Utility player? For example, if my MF plays 8 matches as FW, and becomes an MA, can he then play 8 matches at either DF or SW and become a UT?

I think that -2 is fine whatever the OOP, either DF to FW.   

I would say that the only difference is a greater penalty for a player playing OOP at SW, as this is a more specialised position which stops shots.  Perhaps -6 for MF or FW playing at SW and -4 for DF?  This similary would work the other way too.  SW if at DF -4, MF or FW -6.

Depending on our decided  season length do we need  to consider extending or reducing the 8 games needed to qualify?

Hi there,

I do not think that a sweeper should loose any levels if he chooses to play OOP as a DF as he is in effect a defender anyway, but i agree with the other deductions.

I also disagree that any other player ie forward or midfield should really be able to play as a SW, but as you have made the level deductions quite high then this should make it a difficult choice anyway.

I think the deduction in levels for OOP for the other outfield areas are too high, a forward should be able to play as a defender at a loss of only one level all around the pitch, or to make it slightly more realistic how about MF only lose 1 level when playing DF or FW, but the other two areas DF -FW and vice versa they loose 2 levels? Just a thought.

	SW	DF	MF	FW
SW	0	0	-4	-6
DF	-2	0	-1	-2
MF	-4	-1	0	-1
FW	-6	-2	-1	0

I see & Agree with your logic here but surely the same logic should be applied to a defender playing as a Sweeper

As Sweepers are adapted defenders are they not ? otherwise no point in having a Sweeper/defender is there

How about

                                 SW               DF             MF              FW

I see & Agree with your logic here but surely the same logic should be applied to a defender playing as a Sweeper

As Sweepers are adapted defenders are they not ? otherwise no point in having a Sweeper/defender is there

How about

                 SW               DF             MF              FW

I personally don't think that a -1 penalty is "daunting" enough. Nearly every manager will play their +1/+2 Fitness players OOP for a mere -1 penalty in order to acclimatise the player to an MPP. The idea as I see it is to make there be a payment of sorts for allowing managers to dual-qualify some of their players.

I agree with Rob that -1 is not enough because of the acclimatisation rule. However I'm not sure if we need to go to -6  as players aren't acclimatising anyway and I can't see anyone playing a FW at SW. I haven't done any maths though.

Kenny Burns was an out and out FW at Birmingham but was an SD at Forest and won the supporters player of the year.

Hi guys,

Thanks for all the feedback on this question.

I think that the OOP stuff should be fairly rare (or rarer).

We'll go with this for season #1:

1 position removed -2

2 positions removed -4

3 positions removed -5

So an SL 10 Sw plays at Sl 5 as a FW.

An SL 8 Fw plays at 3 as a Sw

An SL 6 Df plays at 2 as a Fw

And so on...

I'll update the rules accordingly.

Al

This one slipped by under the radar with me.

I notice that outfield players are specifically DF, MF and FW in the rules. GK and SW are not mentioned.

DF, MF and FW can play OOP.

The GK and the SW are specialist positions.

I would suggest that they not be included as possible OOP positions. (I know that Al has already updated the rules to say otherwise, I'm going with the original rules here).

We might look at having a GK and SW play OOP with each other, but I personally wouldn't want it.

Over the course of 4 or 5 seasons, we could see teams composed of practically 11 UT.

I would be against having UT players at all.

This was meant to be a simplified game.