Five substitutes to remain until end of next season (and beyond?)

[Newry Hibs]

FIFA allowing five subs to remain until the end of the 20/21 season ... I can see bigger clubs pushing for this to be permanent beyond next season gaining another advantage with their bigger and better squads.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53421928.

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

FIFA allowing five subs to remain until the end of the 20/21 season ... I can see bigger clubs pushing for this to be permanent beyond next season gaining another advantage with their bigger and better squads.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53421928.

The bigger already have an advantage with their bigger and better squads, this won’t really extend it. Man City’s bench in particular always has massive strength with players that would likely start every week at other clubs.

[Mon Dieu4]

Hope the SPFL/SFA choose to keep it at 3, 5 is a joke in my opinion

[Onceinawhile]

Anything to help the bigger teams. Only benefits teams with bigger budgets.

[MWHIBBIES]

Good thing in terms of players health and fitness and for giving more young players a chance. Strange to see folk so quick to look for negatives. How often has the 4th or 5th sub actually impacted games in favour of these big teams so far?

[Centre Hawf]

I see no issue with it personally. It's like a lot of things people get scared of the change but actually it would be hugely beneficial for youth development (if used properly for that purpose). Having the two extra subs could mean seeing 10/15 minutes for younger players who perhaps wouldn't get the chance over the first team players who come on before them.

[MWHIBBIES]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I see no issue with it personally. It's like a lot of things people get scared of the change but actually it would be hugely beneficial for youth development (if used properly for that purpose). Having the two extra subs could mean seeing 10/15 minutes for younger players who perhaps wouldn't get the chance over the first team players who come on before them.

Couldn't agree more.

[Mon Dieu4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Good thing in terms of players health and fitness and for giving more young players a chance. Strange to see folk so quick to look for negatives. How often has the 4th or 5th sub actually impacted games in favour of these big teams so far?

Im against all big changes in the game 5 subs, VAR, don't mind goal line tech of that's used but they are changing the fabric of the game when there is no need, plenty of other things they could do instead like stealing 10 yards from a throw in or shielding the ball out over the line for a goal kick etc

They aren't happy unless they are changing something in my book

Edit I can handle one extra sub if it goes to extra time

[scotiaf]

I don’t see it as a huge deal, bringing lots of players on normally upsets the game
for that team. If only jimmy calderwood was still a manager you could see him throwing on 5 forwards in the last 10 minutes.

[easty]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Good thing in terms of players health and fitness and for giving more young players a chance. Strange to see folk so quick to look for negatives. How often has the 4th or 5th sub actually impacted games in favour of these big teams so far?

I agree. I think it'll give young players more game time, can't see that as a bad thing.

The biggest teams already have top class players on the bench, who often don't even get on. I don't see this changing much, not for the worse anyway.

[B.H.F.C]

Too many changes disrupt the game. I don’t think it’s a good thing.

Players are conditioned to play 90 minutes. I don’t see the need for 5 subs.

[Mon Dieu4]

If they made it permanent then how long before line changes, rolling subs or specialist free kick takers are suggested as well?

[MWHIBBIES]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Too many changes disrupt the game. I don’t think it’s a good thing.

Players are conditioned to play 90 minutes. I don’t see the need for 5 subs.

It's not 90 minutes that's the issue, it's 9/10 intense games a month then internationals.

[Billy Whizz]

If they go with 5, should only be able to do in 3 bursts

[Centre Hawf]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Too many changes disrupt the game. I don’t think it’s a good thing.

Players are conditioned to play 90 minutes. I don’t see the need for 5 subs.

I think the disruption would be true if it was 5 individual sub occasions per team but keeping it to 3 “sub windows” but 5 in total helps combat that.

I actually doubt at 2-2 with 3 subs made each you’ll see many managers make any more subs with 10 minutes to go. I think these are more used when a game is done and they’re protecting players/trying out new ones usually.

[B.H.F.C]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's not 90 minutes that's the issue, it's 9/10 intense games a month then internationals.

Then change your team before a game starts.

Don’t think there’ll be that many players in our league who will play 9 or 10 games a month plus internationals in any case.

I don’t think it’s adds much regard to youth development either. Sticking a couple of boys on for the last 10 or 15 minutes, probably when a game is done. Leave it as is, and if volume of games is and issue for older players, give the young boys a proper chance.

[Newry Hibs]

It is still in 3 bursts....

I think it will benefit bigger clubs more.

If the game is 2-2 with 10 to go and you can bring on another top class player, then you will. Big clubs get to keep all their big players happy with game time and so get bigger.

[Eyrie]

I can see the logic for the coming season but the impact will depend on how it is implemented.

If it's simply five subs but only three stoppages, that favours bigger clubs who can bring on better quality players than smaller clubs. Think Celtc vs Hamilton, Rangers vs St Mirren or Hearts vs Alloa.

On the other hand, if Scottish football decides that two of the subs have to be 21 or younger, it would reduce the benefit to the big money clubs and help get youngsters game time.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It is still in 3 bursts....

I think it will benefit bigger clubs more.

If the game is 2-2 with 10 to go and you can bring on another top class player, then you will. Big clubs get to keep all their big players happy with game time and so get bigger.

Is it? I hadn’t seen that anywhere but if that’s the case then it’s a good move imo.

I’d like to see Scotland adopt it but make the extra two subs have to be homegrown u21 players. So you’d essentially still have 3 normal subs but the other two would give a great opportunity to youngsters where they’re not having to compete to get on with experienced pros. Of course teams might not use they two but it would be better than watching Celtic and Rangers bringing on 5 guys in their peak.

[Smartie]

I quite like the idea that if you've had a nightmare first half that you can make sweeping changes and still have something left over to guard against being hampered by injuries later in the game.

Quite like the idea tbh, but I would like to consider it a maximum of 5 subs. You can disrupt your team too much, and 3 os often about the optimum number of subs during a game for me so I wouldn't want to see us often use more than that number.

[SChibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im against all big changes in the game 5 subs, VAR, don't mind goal line tech of that's used but they are changing the fabric of the game when there is no need, plenty of other things they could do instead like stealing 10 yards from a throw in or shielding the ball out over the line for a goal kick etc

They aren't happy unless they are changing something in my book

Edit I can handle one extra sub if it goes to extra time

Nothing wrong with shielding the ball if you are in control of it imo

[we are hibs]

A nonsense rule. As is the waterbreaks. Hopefully Scotland doesnt implement either.

[Greenbeard]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they made it permanent then how long before line changes, rolling subs or specialist free kick takers are suggested as well?

Is it still 30secs added even for two or three subs coming on at the one time?
Even if it is 5 subs over a max three occasions, I'd be interested to see an analysis of the actual time it takes for all these subs to take place, against the supposed 30secs time added on per substitution. And an additional comparison looking at the last 10mins of the game and the time it takes the winning team to make an exchange compared to the time it takes a losing team to make an exchange.
I like the idea of rolling subs but not in the sense of players coming off and going back on again willy nilly. Just that you have to make an exchange while play goes on. Maybe an experimental law in the League Cup?

[QUOTE=Mon Dieu4;6236304]Im against all big changes in the game 5 subs, VAR, don't mind goal line tech of that's used but they are changing the fabric of the game when there is no need, plenty of other things they could do instead like stealing 10 yards from a throw in or shielding the ball out over the line for a goal kick etc

Easily resolved by having a short line perpendicular to the touchline every 10 yards and you have to take the shy within the 10yard sector where the ball went out. Encroach outside the sector with ball in hand, even before taking the shy, and you lose possession.

[The_Exile]

I'd prefer unlimited subs with players who've gone off being able to come back on, that would place much more importance on managers tactical nous, stop the clock for subs so nobody can take the pish with wasting time. The amount of times I've watched us come undone and knowing it was about to happen because we couldn't change anything as we'd used all our subs, it'll happen up and down the land. However, that would spell the end of my favourite ever thing in football, an outfield player having to go in goals

[superfurryhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing wrong with shielding the ball if you are in control of it imo

Not in control if you are shielding a ball out which is a yard away, without having touched it? That is obstruction.

I'm not in favour of five subs. It will encourage rotational fouling, waste time and break up the game too much. It's a farcical suggestion, we'll end up with half ta team of outfield players changing during the course of a match. Not for me.

[mal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'd prefer unlimited subs with players who've gone off being able to come back on, that would place much more importance on managers tactical nous, stop the clock for subs so nobody can take the pish with wasting time. The amount of times I've watched us come undone and knowing it was about to happen because we couldn't change anything as we'd used all our subs, it'll happen up and down the land. However, that would spell the end of my favourite ever thing in football, an outfield player having to go in goals

Wasting time is only one factor, breaking up the play is another. The scenario you depict above would be an absolute nightmare with "special teams" coming on for corners and free kicks etc. Goodbye Association Football, hello some 3-hour long US-style pish that the commercial broadcasters would love cos you could fit an ad in every time the play was halted to reorganise the team.

[Bangkok Hibby]

[QUOTE=Greenbeard;6236699]Is it still 30secs added even for two or three subs coming on at the one time?
Even if it is 5 subs over a max three occasions, I'd be interested to see an analysis of the actual time it takes for all these subs to take place, against the supposed 30secs time added on per substitution. And an additional comparison looking at the last 10mins of the game and the time it takes the winning team to make an exchange compared to the time it takes a losing team to make an exchange.
I like the idea of rolling subs but not in the sense of players coming off and going back on again willy nilly. Just that you have to make an exchange while play goes on. Maybe an experimental law in the League Cup?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Im against all big changes in the game 5 subs, VAR, don't mind goal line tech of that's used but they are changing the fabric of the game when there is no need, plenty of other things they could do instead like stealing 10 yards from a throw in or shielding the ball out over the line for a goal kick etc

Easily resolved by having a short line perpendicular to the touchline every 10 yards and you have to take the shy within the 10yard sector where the ball went out. Encroach outside the sector with ball in hand, even before taking the shy, and you lose possession.

Great idea but I'd have 5 yards

[Scouse Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nothing wrong with shielding the ball if you are in control of it imo

That rule is a nonsense rule, how can you be in control of a ball that you haven’t touched and are obstructing a player getting to it by holding him off with your body? Answer is you can’t be, the rule is being stretched too far and needs looking at.

[Eyrie]

[QUOTE=Bangkok Hibby;6236989]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it still 30secs added even for two or three subs coming on at the one time?
Even if it is 5 subs over a max three occasions, I'd be interested to see an analysis of the actual time it takes for all these subs to take place, against the supposed 30secs time added on per substitution. And an additional comparison looking at the last 10mins of the game and the time it takes the winning team to make an exchange compared to the time it takes a losing team to make an exchange.
I like the idea of rolling subs but not in the sense of players coming off and going back on again willy nilly. Just that you have to make an exchange while play goes on. Maybe an experimental law in the League Cup?


[/B]

Great idea but I'd have 5 yards

Why bother with 5 yards?

Just make them take the throw at or behind the point where the ball went out and penalise if the ball is released is released ahead of that point. The biggest problem would be the 27 reversals at each throw in until players finally start paying attention.

[Sammy7nil]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The bigger already have an advantage with their bigger and better squads, this won’t really extend it. Man City’s bench in particular always has massive strength with players that would likely start every week at other clubs.

It will benefit teams with a bigger budget no doubt about it. All five of those quality players can join the game how can that not be an advantage.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That rule is a nonsense rule, how can you be in control of a ball that you haven’t touched and are obstructing a player getting to it by holding him off with your body? Answer is you can’t be, the rule is being stretched too far and needs looking at.

100% correct