tartofmidlothian Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 From the quarter finals on. Good idea or not? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36904466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_liam06 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Something I've been advocating for ages. Take a look at the Champions League final, some guys were dead on their feet but had to carry on as there were no more subs left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Three is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Something I've been advocating for ages. Take a look at the Champions League final, some guys were dead on their feet but had to carry on as there were no more subs left. Stamina and the ability to pace yourself are and always have been part of the footballer's make up. If some of the best paid footballers in the world can't cut it, too bad. Allowing extra subs in extra time would just increase the incentive to play for extra time rather than try to win the game in 90 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I've been thinking about the idea of an emergency substitute for a while. Feel for clubs who make all 3 subs and are forced to see a player go off injured and play with 10 men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 If a games goes to extra time, then definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letsalldothebeattie Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 If a games goes to extra time, then definitely.Agree with this, do it like Tennis with the extra challenge for tie breaks. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_liam06 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Stamina and the ability to pace yourself are and always have been part of the footballer's make up. If some of the best paid footballers in the world can't cut it, too bad. Allowing extra subs in extra time would just increase the incentive to play for extra time rather than try to win the game in 90 minutes. Aye ok chief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_liam06 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I've been thinking about the idea of an emergency substitute for a while. Feel for clubs who make all 3 subs and are forced to see a player go off injured and play with 10 men. Then they should save a sub, just in case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Nah mate, according to a poster above, if they get injured then that's just too bad. Damn those pesky athletes! Just expressing my view, as the OP invited. Subs were originally introduced to address the injury issue but now most subs are used tactically and an 11 a side game has increasingly become a 14 a side game. 15 a side, 16 a side, American football or baseball levels of "substitution"? No thanks. The problems in the CL final seemed mainly to be cramp. It's tough but I'd expect a ?100k a week athlete to get through 90 or even 120 minutes without cramp. I can see a case in extra time but I think it would just result in even more games going to penalties, which is an unsatisfactory conclusion IMO. Players tiring or even getting injured is part of the game and if a team wins because it has more stamina then that seems to me a fairer outcome than a penalty kick lottery. Teams losing a player through injury still have the opportunity to win the game in open play. Less chance maybe if the side with 11 players some of whom may be tiring can bring on another fresh pair of legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Then they should save a sub, just in case. Sounds all well and good in theory but wouldn't you be frustrated if we were 1-0 down and Robbie refused to change it up incase someone got injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glottis Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I'd be happy with a 4th sub only if it had to be a keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellion Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Just expressing my view, as the OP invited. Subs were originally introduced to address the injury issue but now most subs are used tactically and an 11 a side game has increasingly become a 14 a side game. 15 a side, 16 a side, American football or baseball levels of "substitution"? No thanks. The problems in the CL final seemed mainly to be cramp. It's tough but I'd expect a ?100k a week athlete to get through 90 or even 120 minutes without cramp. I can see a case in extra time but I think it would just result in even more games going to penalties, which is an unsatisfactory conclusion IMO. Players tiring or even getting injured is part of the game and if a team wins because it has more stamina then that seems to me a fairer outcome than a penalty kick lottery. Teams losing a player through injury still have the opportunity to win the game in open play. Less chance maybe if the side with 11 players some of whom may be tiring can bring on another fresh pair of legs. Can see both sides of this. I agree with you about the stamina/cramp issue, but there are also instances where teams lose a player to a more serious injury and that affects the outcome. I do agree with you that it'd encourage teams to play for pens, and there's enough of that already. I don't mind the shootouts themselves, but the 30+ minute wait for them to start is often just tedious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jonesy Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 No subs. Reduce squad size and distribute players more equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicjohnston Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Does anyone Remember when one of the cups up here you were only allowed 3 subs on the bench. And it was often a managers dilemma, to either have a goalie on the bench or some form of attacker and no sub goalkeeper. I'm sure Aberdeen got stung by it in a final (Jim Leighton was keeper?) and Robbie winters (I think?!), went in and they got pumped 3-0 by someone.or have I totally made this all up! I'm sure I have a very vivid memory of seeing it on tv! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Footballers and football teams should be trained to perform at their peak over the standard 90 minutes which will cover nearly all matches. Anything else is daft IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmfc_liam06 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Can see both sides of this. I agree with you about the stamina/cramp issue, but there are also instances where teams lose a player to a more serious injury and that affects the outcome. I do agree with you that it'd encourage teams to play for pens, and there's enough of that already. I don't mind the shootouts themselves, but the 30+ minute wait for them to start is often just tedious. Or the flip side is that a side could look to add more firepower during extra time and go for the win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Probably a decent idea especially when player welfare is a huge concern. I'm not sure emergency subs would be a good thing as it could be open to tactical subs with people not actually injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellion Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Or the flip side is that a side could look to add more firepower during extra time and go for the win? In theory, yeah. It just doesn't seem to happen very often. More and more, even good teams seem to settle for pens at quite an early stage. One possible positive effect would be if it helped underdogs or weaker teams who get knackered more easily during normal time. Having an extra sub might be useful for them in that it'd make the game less likely to be decided by exhaustion or fitness levels alone. Overall I'm not convinced. Seems like a bit of a gimmick. If big clubs are worried about their players getting exhausted towards the end of the season, there are always other things they can do to minimise risk, like not flying them across the world for made up friendly tournaments in mid-July. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bellion Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Does anyone Remember when one of the cups up here you were only allowed 3 subs on the bench. And it was often a managers dilemma, to either have a goalie on the bench or some form of attacker and no sub goalkeeper. I'm sure Aberdeen got stung by it in a final (Jim Leighton was keeper?) and Robbie winters (I think?!), went in and they got pumped 3-0 by someone.or have I totally made this all up! I'm sure I have a very vivid memory of seeing it on tv! It was the Scottish Cup Final in about 2000 or 2001. Leighton had to go off after about 5 mins IIRC. Rangers ended up beating them 4-0 but I remember they basically stopped trying to score when they went 4 ahead. Kind of like 2012, except Aberdeen had the excuse of having a striker in goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Does anyone Remember when one of the cups up here you were only allowed 3 subs on the bench. And it was often a managers dilemma, to either have a goalie on the bench or some form of attacker and no sub goalkeeper. I'm sure Aberdeen got stung by it in a final (Jim Leighton was keeper?) and Robbie winters (I think?!), went in and they got pumped 3-0 by someone.or have I totally made this all up! I'm sure I have a very vivid memory of seeing it on tv! It can go the other way. IIRC in a Cup Final against Rangers around 1996 we had keeper Myles Hogath as on of our 3 subs. We had several injuries early in the game including Gary Locke and ended up having to keep an injured player on for most of the match. Anybody have more details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 From the quarter finals on. Good idea or not? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36904466 I'm all for this. No chance the GFA will adopt this unless it benefits the ugly sisters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I'm all for this. No chance the GFA will adopt this unless it benefits the ugly sisters. I'm all for this. No chance the GFA will adopt this unless it benefits the ugly sisters. It would, the clubs with bigger/better squads could afford to risk starting less of their top players knowing that if they went behind they could bring more on. Terrible idea in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Sounds all well and good in theory but wouldn't you be frustrated if we were 1-0 down and Robbie refused to change it up incase someone got injured?I would, but it is part of the game. What if two players get injured after all subs have been made. Do we then start allowing five subs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I'd be happy with a 4th sub only if it had to be a keeper.Whilst it never had to be, that was initially the purpose of the third sub, but most teams chose to use an outfield player instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 It can go the other way. IIRC in a Cup Final against Rangers around 1996 we had keeper Myles Hogath as on of our 3 subs. We had several injuries early in the game including Gary Locke and ended up having to keep an injured player on for most of the match. Anybody have more details? Don't recall that, but Myles Hogarth could also put as an outfield player, and did so in some reserve/youth games, grabbing a goal or two in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I'd keep with three subs but allow a team to only substitute the goalkeeper in the event he's injured after all three subs have been made. Teams having to put an outfield player in and go down to ten men is an unfair lottery imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jb66 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I've been thinking about the idea of an emergency substitute for a while. Feel for clubs who make all 3 subs and are forced to see a player go off injured and play with 10 men. Maybe allow a subbed player back on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 However did they manage in the days before any substitutes were allowed. I remember when it was only 2 subs allowed and that wasn't that long ago. Bunch of pansies nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Cheever Loophole Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Three is enough. Exactly, this will give the more well off clubs more of an advantage. It's wrong! How did the extra official behind the goals, in certain competitions work out, pish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westendjambo Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I've been thinking about the idea of an emergency substitute for a while. Feel for clubs who make all 3 subs and are forced to see a player go off injured and play with 10 men. Agree with this but eventually players will fake injury to benefit from the fourth sub. That would annoy me lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy2 Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Three is enough for me, although definitely see the merits of a goalkeeper replacing a goalkeeper if required, as the fourth sub in the case of injury only. No putting Tim Cruel on to face penalties as a tactic, unless it's part of the three subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Statto Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 It should only be if extra time is to be played. One substitute for every 30 minutes, 3 for the 90 minute match and 1 for the 30 minutes extra time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.