5 Substitutions

[Monts]

I see the EPL are going to introduce 5 subs for the rest of the season.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52914350

[TamHibs]

That’s only until the end of this campaign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnM1875]

Hope it just becomes the norm.

Don't see why there's a cap on substitions. As long as a subbed can't come back on after being subbed don't see what the issue is. Other than time taken per sub of course.

[Billy Whizz]

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

Hope it just becomes the norm.

Don't see why there's a cap on substitions. As long as a subbed can't come back on after being subbed don't see what the issue is. Other than time taken per sub of course.

Time wasting tactics

[JohnM1875]

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

Time wasting tactics

Aye, did think about that after posting. And it would be an issue.

But also think it would give younger players a much better chance of featuring at first team level.

[Rocky]

In the German matches, and I assume England will be the same, you're still only allowed to make subs on three occasions (plus half time) so it shouldn't create any extra time wasting.

[Sammy7nil]

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

Hope it just becomes the norm.

Don't see why there's a cap on substitions. As long as a subbed can't come back on after being subbed don't see what the issue is. Other than time taken per sub of course.

Just means Celtic and Rangers get stronger they have the biggest squads (except for Ha ha Hearts) and can bring on fresher quality players.

[04Sauzee]

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

Hope it just becomes the norm.

Don't see why there's a cap on substitions. As long as a subbed can't come back on after being subbed don't see what the issue is. Other than time taken per sub of course.

Rolling subs should be allowed as long as like you say they aren't allowed back on, 4th official should be able to manage it.

[Sammy7nil]

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

Time wasting tactics

I think you only get three times to bring them on and no 4th subs injury time. Something like that to avoid time wasting.

[Hibee87]

I would like to see as standard a GK sub separate to 3 normal ones, if a GK gets injured.

[hibbyfraelibby]

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

Time wasting tactics

How so. The refs add the time it takes to complete the substitution back on at the end

[Mon Dieu4]

The rules of football bar some minor annoyances(shielding the ball out for a goal kick etc) are perfectly fine as they are, they need to stop fannying about with them in my opinion

[Pretty Boy]

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

I would like to see as standard a GK sub separate to 3 normal ones, if a GK gets injured.

It's a good idea in theory.

However in practice there is nothing better than seeing an outfield player go in goals. The increase to 3 then 5 then 7 named subs had made it an increasing rarity but it's always good for a laugh when it happens.

[Pretty Boy]

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

How so. The refs add the time it takes to complete the substitution back on at the end

Sometimes. I can recall plenty games with 6 subs and guys strolling off taking an age and then the board reading 2 minutes.

The worst example I can recall was Fyssas last home game for Hearts which was against us. They were 2 up, he was subbed after an hour, went round their whole team shaking hands, hugged the ref then walked off at a snails pace. 5 other subs. 2 minutes added time.

[ballengeich]

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

Aye, did think about that after posting. And it would be an issue.

But also think it would give younger players a much better chance of featuring at first team level.

At one time Scotland had a rule that 2 of your 5 subs on the bench had to be under 21 outfield players. That meant that if you wanted to use 3 subs one of your under 21s got some time on the pitch. Guess which two clubs got the rule amended claiming that their expensive foreign signings needed game time.

[Glory Lurker]

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

It's a good idea in theory.

However in practice there is nothing better than seeing an outfield player go in goals. The increase to 3 then 5 then 7 named subs had made it an increasing rarity but it's always good for a laugh when it happens.

Totally agree. It's probably the best thing that can happen in football!

[Pretty Boy]

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

At one time Scotland had a rule that 2 of your 5 subs on the bench had to be under 21 outfield players. That meant that if you wanted to use 3 subs one of your under 21s got some time on the pitch. Guess which two clubs got the rule amended claiming that their expensive foreign signings needed game time.

I always thought that was a daft rule. It would have been far better had it stated 2 under 21 players had to be in the squad rather than stipulating on the bench. It was too specific.

For example if a manager had 3 players fighting for a place in the team. A 30 year old, an 18 year old and a 20 year old. He wants them all in the squad and is tempted to start with the 18 year old, however that leaves him either a youngster short on the bench or he has to leave the experienced player out of the 16 altogether and draft in a player not ready for 1st team football. The easy answer is just to start the 30 year and stick the 2 youngsters on the bench to tick a box. That situation doesn't arise if the rule is squad rather than bench.

[Haymaker]

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

It's a good idea in theory.

However in practice there is nothing better than seeing an outfield player go in goals. The increase to 3 then 5 then 7 named subs had made it an increasing rarity but it's always good for a laugh when it happens.

Yep, absolutely love it when it happens!

[SMAXXA]

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

I always thought that was a daft rule. It would have been far better had it stated 2 under 21 players had to be in the squad rather than stipulating on the bench. It was too specific.

For example if a manager had 3 players fighting for a place in the team. A 30 year old, an 18 year old and a 20 year old. He wants them all in the squad and is tempted to start with the 18 year old, however that leaves him either a youngster short on the bench or he has to leave the experienced player out of the 16 altogether and draft in a player not ready for 1st team football. The easy answer is just to start the 30 year and stick the 2 youngsters on the bench to tick a box. That situation doesn't arise if the rule is squad rather than bench.

Isn’t the match day squad 18 not 16?

[ballengeich]

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

Isn’t the match day squad 18 not 16?

It was 16 when the rule we're discussing was in force. I agree with Pretty Boy's point that the number of under 21s should apply to the squad. The idea was that if you used 14 players during 90 minutes at least one had to be under 21.

[hibbyfraelibby]

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

Sometimes. I can recall plenty games with 6 subs and guys strolling off taking an age and then the board reading 2 minutes.

The worst example I can recall was Fyssas last home game for Hearts which was against us. They were 2 up, he was subbed after an hour, went round their whole team shaking hands, hugged the ref then walked off at a snails pace. 5 other subs. 2 minutes added time.

Its not the number of subs but the number of stopages to mske a sub.

[wookie70]

Another rule to make sure wealthier club win more.

[Franck Stanton]

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

How so. The refs add the time it takes to complete the substitution back on at the end

Oh REALLY. In theory, yes. Not however in practice

[nonshinyfinish]

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

Another rule to make sure wealthier club win more.

If it's kept when normality returns then maybe, but right now it looks like a pragmatic decision to protect players who are going into a congested schedule having not played for months and having been limited in the training they can do.

[MWHIBBIES]

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

Another rule to make sure wealthier club win more.

It's literally for like 10 games to keep players fresh. Nothing at all to do with wealthy clubs.

[Phil MaGlass]

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

Another rule to make sure wealthier club win more.

I agree, it only benefits the big 2. So they can keep dominating, not that they wont likes.

[MWHIBBIES]

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

I agree, it only benefits the big 2. So they can keep dominating, not that they wont likes.

Its not happening here.

[J-C]

I've never seen the point of having 7 subs st there and only allowed to use 3, rugby uses multiple subs and the game flows no problem.