Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

New Five Sub Rule

13»

Comments

  • philcafc
    philcafc Posts: 3,894
    My apologies, mis-understood the ruling, thought it meant you could make 5 changes which I would be totally against. Having 5 subs and able to change 3 seems ok to me. Still wouldn't allow any subs in the last 5 mins however.
  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 44,962
    Still wouldn't allow any subs in the last 5 mins however.
    Even if there was an injury?

    Seems unfair to one team that they would be forced to play (at a time of the match when they are physically tiring) the last 5 minutes plus added time, with only 10 men.
  • Deadred
    Deadred Posts: 1,514
    My apologies, mis-understood the ruling, thought it meant you could make 5 changes which I would be totally against. Having 5 subs and able to change 3 seems ok to me. Still wouldn't allow any subs in the last 5 mins however.
    Don't have a problem with late subs because it can work as much for you as against you. What I do have a problem with is the time it takes players to leave the field whilst they applaud their fans. Yellow card them and double the usual 1 minute extra time? that is allowed per substitution at present.
  • Addickted4life
    Addickted4life Posts: 7,467
    I think we would've have benefited from having 7 on the bench this year as we have that kind of quality in our squad but we can't fit it on the bench with only 5 subs.
  • philcafc
    philcafc Posts: 3,894
    I just think that making a sub in the last five minutes is invariably used as a time wasting measure as he is unlikely to influence the game to any degree and they never add on enough time to cover it. I take the point about an injury but how many late subs are due to that? Not a lot I would suspect.
  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 44,962
    No team timewastes if they are losing, Phil.
  • philcafc
    philcafc Posts: 3,894
    I agree, but most of the time it's the losing team making the late sub for no other reason than to waste time. Would just like to see it stopped somehow.
  • Scoham
    Scoham Posts: 37,447
    Powell did say at the VIP event last week at the Valley that he expected seven subs to return next season and there might be a U21 stipulation with it .
    Seems Bristol City have confirmed this (don't know about any u21 rule though)
  • PaulCAFC
    PaulCAFC Posts: 857
    It's being voted on at the Football League AGM later this month for the return of 7 subs or up to 7 subs. Good for the younger players if clubs vote it back.
  • Stu_of_Kunming
    Stu_of_Kunming Posts: 17,125
    I agree, but most of the time it's the losing team making the late sub for no other reason than to waste time. Would just like to see it stopped somehow.
    Why would a team that is losing want to waste time?

  • Sponsored links:



  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,256
    Back to seven subs for this coming season.
  • Mortimerician
    Mortimerician Posts: 5,222
    I'm on my own on this, but I think there was more skill to the manager's job when they had a couple of subs to work with and didn't have half the squad farting around on the bench.
  • Henry Irving
    Henry Irving Posts: 85,287
    Back to seven subs for this coming season.
    Is that confirmed?

    Good thing for us but do agree with Morti
  • Hampshire_Addick
    Hampshire_Addick Posts: 93
    Back to seven subs for this coming season.
    Is that confirmed?

    Good thing for us but do agree with Morti


    BREAKING NEWS: ‪#FootballLeague‬ clubs have voted to return to 7 subs next season following proposals from Birmingham City & Derby County
  • WSS
    WSS Posts: 25,079
    Hope it includes x number of u21s
  • Chrispy51
    Chrispy51 Posts: 473
    I'm on my own on this, but I think there was more skill to the manager's job when they had a couple of subs to work with and didn't have half the squad farting around on the bench.
    You may say skill, but ultimately it can be luck. Should you choose a defender, midfielder and striker and your three and hope that your Goalie doesnt get injured? Why not have the options to change the game, have a couple of midfielders, a defensice and an attacking one, a couple of different defenders and a couple of strikers to manage the game accordingly. The old three sub rule was fine at the time, but as soon as having 5 or 7 options became available, the 'jack of all trades' type players - who are ultimately not very good in any position - find their real level and the standard of football seen by the fans improves.

    Agree with WSS though that I hope there is a set number of U21 players - logically the extra two seats on the bench.

  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,772
    I think it is the way football has progressed and the reasons for going down to 5 were financial not nostalgic or for the betterment of the game due to some teams having the embaressment of not being able to fill their allocation/ or not being able to afford an extra room in the travel Inn! All in all, it is better for the game to have 7 - it gives you more of a chance to blood new players for a start!
  • Splodge
    Splodge Posts: 514
    Definitely good for us. Last season there were times where the likes of Hughes/Wagstaff/Pritchard couldn't even make the bench, so it keeps more of the squad involved. It also allows the opportunity to keep young players on the bench, and if we're ever 3-0 up and comfortable at home to Barnsley with 30 minutes left, what a great chance to give younger players a run-out. Players like Ade Azeez.

Categories

“Marketplace”