Sooperstar Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 I see this morning that IFAB are looking to keep the 5 subs rule in place for next season. Which of course means that they will probably make it permanent. Absolutely no need as far as I am concerned and it can only help the bigger clubs with stronger squads. Get it to ****. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaps Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Spot on! The drinks break needs to go as well. Not as if the players are playing in 40 degrees every game ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 15 minutes ago, Chaps said: Spot on! The drinks break needs to go as well. Not as if the players are playing in 40 degrees every game ffs. Matt Murray made a good point about the drinks break last night while commentating on the arsenal game. It was drop it unless the temperature was above a defined temperature, having something like that in the rules i think would work and help protect the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 If we have to start playing August 1st with 2 weeks training, 5 subs will be pretty helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manaliveits105 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Scotland is hot on sporting integrity and fairness so SPFL will allow 5 subs for Ceptic but normal 3 for everyone else . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martoon Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Five is way OTT. A fourth if a cup tie goes into ET, perhaps, but five is ridic. Started with 1 sub, then 2...by mid century it will be the entire 11. Can't have the delicate, modern day player getting too fatigued, sweaty and dirty, can we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudeskaboyuk Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 I really think its a great idea to keep this permanently . What's the point of having a squad of players if you cant play them. This would allow more of the youngster's game time by getting bled into games without as much risk. My only concern is the time wasting factor but I am sure this could be worked out. I would rather be able to sub off a player who is carrying a knock than continue to play them with the risk of aggravating the injury and then having an extended lay off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, rudeskaboyuk said: I really think its a great idea to keep this permanently . What's the point of having a squad of players if you cant play them. This would allow more of the youngster's game time by getting bled into games without as much risk. My only concern is the time wasting factor but I am sure this could be worked out. I would rather be able to sub off a player who is carrying a knock than continue to play them with the risk of aggravating the injury and then having an extended lay off. The current set up is during play each team can only make subs 3 times. Edited July 8, 2020 by Mikey1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tian447 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 They should keep the 5 sub rule, but with the condition that 2 of them have to be homegrown U21 (or U20) players. It would be hard to Police, but would mean that Youth players would get more game time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjcc Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Thought this was about Rod’s mid morning Snack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Being able to change half the field is a bit shit if this is to be a permanent change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Sooperstar said: I see this morning that IFAB are looking to keep the 5 subs rule in place for next season. Which of course means that they will probably make it permanent. Absolutely no need as far as I am concerned and it can only help the bigger clubs with stronger squads. Get it to ****. Rugby was ruined by the possibility of replacing half the team during a game - which of course helps the countries and teams with stronger squads. Football would be stupid to make the same mistake. Tiredness and the mistakes it causes, is what opens up games in the final 30 mins... Edited July 8, 2020 by Spellczech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Famous 1874 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 5 subs is absolutely shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruyff Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 I like it. 😬 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 7 minutes ago, Spellczech said: Rugby was ruined by the possibility of replacing half the team during a game - which of course helps the countries and teams with stronger squads. Football would be stupid to make the same mistake. Tiredness and the mistakes it causes, is what opens up games in the final 30 mins... one thing i feel has happened in rugby is players seem to be conditioned to last 50-60 mins rather than a full 80 mins. We could see the same thing happening in football with this sort of change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, milky_26 said: one thing i feel has happened in rugby is players seem to be conditioned to last 50-60 mins rather than a full 80 mins. We could see the same thing happening in football with this sort of change True, I guess is was chicken and egg - They introduced subs then professionalism meant players were putting on more muscle and thus causing and receiving more injuries, which required more substitutions...But rugby is that sort of sport. There are footballers who can barely last 60 mins already - Rudi Skacel was the most obvious one in our case. Edited July 8, 2020 by Spellczech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 I have no problem with 5 subs however; what I do have a problem with is bloody time wasting and bringing a sub on with 3 minutes to go or even in extra time itself. Blatant fecking cheating and I include us in that as well. Needs to stop! Needs to be a rule change. Unless there's a goalkeeper sent off, or an injury that means a player can no longer continue, there should be no substitutions for the final 10 minutes of normal time and any additional added time. I pay to watch football not bloody chess!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Pans Jambo said: I have no problem with 5 subs however; what I do have a problem with is bloody time wasting and bringing a sub on with 3 minutes to go or even in extra time itself. Blatant fecking cheating and I include us in that as well. Needs to stop! Needs to be a rule change. Unless there's a goalkeeper sent off, or an injury that means a player can no longer continue, there should be no substitutions for the final 10 minutes of normal time and any additional added time. I pay to watch football not bloody chess!!! Players can fake injuries - remember rugby tried this and Leicester got caught using fake blood! Would be hard to put in any kind of controls over this - ban subs after 85 mins and you'd get some dirty tackles which might only be a yellow but could cause a dead leg or player needing to go off... Some things ain't broke so why try to fix them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Watching games, it hasn't seemed like a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locky Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 What's the rules on this? Can't a governing body adopt that as a rule anyway? Italian clubs have named 12 subs per game for a good few seasons now and earlier this season decided to make 5 subs available to be fielded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Just now, Spellczech said: Players can fake injuries - remember rugby tried this and Leicester got caught using fake blood! Would be hard to put in any kind of controls over this - ban subs after 85 mins and you'd get some dirty tackles which might only be a yellow but could cause a dead leg or player needing to go off... Some things ain't broke so why try to fix them? But they are broke. Time wasting is a shit! Having 5 subs is OK but can you imagine some shitey wee team scoring an equaliser at Tynecastle in the 80th minute then using 5 substitutions to waste time? Needs clear and concise rules in place to stop that shite. & while I am in the mood, it's supposed to be a game with fairness and sportmanship but seems that's only for TV & newspaper interviews, posters and before kick-off when they shake hands. After that its OK for "professional fouls, diving in the box, feigning injuries, greeting to the ref about throw-ins and corners, kicking the ball away, encouraging the ref to book opposition players, adding a couple of sneaky yards at a free kick, running halfway along the touchline when performing a throw-in, keepers taking ages to take a by-kick and time wasting with subs etc. Pisses me off. Like wee bairns at a school park. Man up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Sooperstar said: I see this morning that IFAB are looking to keep the 5 subs rule in place for next season. Which of course means that they will probably make it permanent. Absolutely no need as far as I am concerned and it can only help the bigger clubs with stronger squads. Get it to ****. Like us you mean? 😛 I don’t necessarily disagree but by Scottish standards we should benefit from it in that case. I thought I would but I don’t mind the ‘breaks‘ and extra subs, the breaks often seem to give the managers an opportunity to change the momentum in games by getting a tactical change made when they’re getting battered. Extra subs in theory should mean less stupid sending offs for 2nd yellows too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said: But they are broke. Time wasting is a shit! Having 5 subs is OK but can you imagine some shitey wee team scoring an equaliser at Tynecastle in the 80th minute then using 5 substitutions to waste time? Needs clear and concise rules in place to stop that shite. & while I am in the mood, it's supposed to be a game with fairness and sportmanship but seems that's only for TV & newspaper interviews, posters and before kick-off when they shake hands. After that its OK for "professional fouls, diving in the box, feigning injuries, greeting to the ref about throw-ins and corners, kicking the ball away, encouraging the ref to book opposition players, adding a couple of sneaky yards at a free kick, running halfway along the touchline when performing a throw-in, keepers taking ages to take a by-kick and time wasting with subs etc. Pisses me off. Like wee bairns at a school park. Man up! You call it time-wasting but managers would call it one of their chances to influence a game...ie tactics Besides it is only one method of time-wasting... Perhaps the 30 seconds that a substitution takes needs added back on as a minute, if it happens in the last 15 mins of a match? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 3 minutes ago, Spellczech said: You call it time-wasting but managers would call it one of their chances to influence a game...ie tactics Besides it is only one method of time-wasting... Perhaps the 30 seconds that a substitution takes needs added back on as a minute, if it happens in the last 15 mins of a match? I hate it. I would change a lot of football rules. I would have 10 minute "sin-bins" for yellow cards and time wasters, goals that are 12" wider & 6" higher (imagine the amount of shots that skim the post/bar that would be goals. I would rather see us win 5-3 than 2-1). a review on the off-side rule (I would have a margin of error at the width of a man instead of the current bawhair). Games cannot be "no-scoring" so all 0-0 games go to penalties. etc. Would be a better game to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 14 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said: I hate it. I would change a lot of football rules. I would have 10 minute "sin-bins" for yellow cards and time wasters, goals that are 12" wider & 6" higher (imagine the amount of shots that skim the post/bar that would be goals. I would rather see us win 5-3 than 2-1). a review on the off-side rule (I would have a margin of error at the width of a man instead of the current bawhair). Games cannot be "no-scoring" so all 0-0 games go to penalties. etc. Would be a better game to watch. Yeah there is little as unsatisfactory as a 0-0 where both teams just nullify the opposition. Strange how Scottish football used to be about winning but then became about "not losing"...3 points for a win did nothing to change this...However, I don't think allowing 3 subs instead of 2 did anything to improve the game either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 2 hours ago, Chaps said: Spot on! The drinks break needs to go as well. Not as if the players are playing in 40 degrees every game ffs. I think the drinks breaks will stay as it helps the players avoid injuries, maybe one around 75 minutes. It shouldn’t be a opportunity for coaches to change things though, the drinks should be taken the other side of the pitch from the dug outs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasquale for King Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 I think we will probably go to four up here first, always a bit behind. Let’s face it we could’ve made 8-9 subs in most of our games this last couple of years considering how poor the team has been. Maybe one or two of the four or five should be a player under 21. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debut 4 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Spellczech said: Rugby was ruined by the possibility of replacing half the team during a game - which of course helps the countries and teams with stronger squads. Football would be stupid to make the same mistake. Tiredness and the mistakes it causes, is what opens up games in the final 30 mins... Agree....How much more do we want to sanitise the game, refine it to the point we lose its unpredictability, become even more pretentious and less of a spectacle? it’s just so off putting, imo. Sport was always about an element of risk and it’s part of what gives supporters excitement. There’s a line for everything of course but the over protection of players softens an already softened game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEHEART1874 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 If it goes to 5 full time then yes I agree make 2 of them under 21's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ribble Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 2 hours ago, rudeskaboyuk said: I really think its a great idea to keep this permanently . What's the point of having a squad of players if you cant play them. This would allow more of the youngster's game time by getting bled into games without as much risk. My only concern is the time wasting factor but I am sure this could be worked out. I would rather be able to sub off a player who is carrying a knock than continue to play them with the risk of aggravating the injury and then having an extended lay off. Think that's already taken care of as teams are only allowed to stop the game 3 times for subs, so you have make either 1,2,2 or 1,1,3 subs etc. As for the drinks break, i'm all for it in all honesty, it's been used to great effect by some managers as a 'time out' to adjust tactics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkDevriesScores4 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Could stop the clock on any subs made in the last ten mins. Would prevent time wasters as they would have nothing to gain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¼½¾ Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 12 minutes ago, MarkDevriesScores4 said: Could stop the clock on any subs made in the last ten mins. Would prevent time wasters as they would have nothing to gain They should stop the clock anytime the ball goes out of play, and have the time displayed where all can see it. That might put an end to the silly time added on if the likes of Celtic need a late goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 If this has morphed into a how do we improve football debate...here you go. The game is 2 30-minute periods of action. The always-visible stadium clock stops when the ball goes out of play or for any other stoppage. Instantly puts an end to the ersehole goalkeeper running out to the edge of his box to berate his defence then sauntering back to collect the ball for a goal kick then trotting with the ball to the other side of the box as happens all too frequently now. Clock stopped - incentive to waste time eliminated, problem vanishes.. I'm not too fussed about a draw after 90 minutes being changed but if some sort of tie-break is needed, make it ice hockey style. A player has 10 seconds to run with the ball from the halfway line and score. The attacker may not touch the ball again after the keeper has touched it. There you go FIFA. That'll be £5 million for the consultancy fees. Just give it to FoH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Spellczech said: Yeah there is little as unsatisfactory as a 0-0 where both teams just nullify the opposition. Strange how Scottish football used to be about winning but then became about "not losing"...3 points for a win did nothing to change this...However, I don't think allowing 3 subs instead of 2 did anything to improve the game either... When it was 1 sub it was more of a big deal. Subs were almost as rare as red cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Boof said: If this has morphed into a how do we improve football debate...here you go. The game is 2 30-minute periods of action. The always-visible stadium clock stops when the ball goes out of play or for any other stoppage. Instantly puts an end to the ersehole goalkeeper running out to the edge of his box to berate his defence then sauntering back to collect the ball for a goal kick then trotting with the ball to the other side of the box as happens all too frequently now. Clock stopped - incentive to waste time eliminated, problem vanishes.. I'm not too fussed about a draw after 90 minutes being changed but if some sort of tie-break is needed, make it ice hockey style. A player has 10 seconds to run with the ball from the halfway line and score. The attacker may not touch the ball again after the keeper has touched it. There you go FIFA. That'll be £5 million for the consultancy fees. Just give it to FoH. I would watch the shit out of that Boof!!! I'm in!!! (Can they use basesball bats at each other in the centre circle at FT if it's 0-0 instead though)? Edited July 8, 2020 by Pans Jambo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlandjambo3 Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Shit........I thought this was about sandwiches 🥪 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 On 08/07/2020 at 10:18, Sooperstar said: I see this morning that IFAB are looking to keep the 5 subs rule in place for next season. Which of course means that they will probably make it permanent. Absolutely no need as far as I am concerned and it can only help the bigger clubs with stronger squads. Get it to ****. Just to confirm IFAB confirmed last week, 5 subs is a permanent change. Leaving each league to decide. EPL have agreed it for next season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canscot Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 On 08/07/2020 at 05:29, Pans Jambo said: I hate it. I would change a lot of football rules. I would have 10 minute "sin-bins" for yellow cards and time wasters, goals that are 12" wider & 6" higher (imagine the amount of shots that skim the post/bar that would be goals. I would rather see us win 5-3 than 2-1). a review on the off-side rule (I would have a margin of error at the width of a man instead of the current bawhair). Games cannot be "no-scoring" so all 0-0 games go to penalties. etc. Would be a better game to watch. Sounds like you would enjoy watching the NHL Pans! Some of those rules are in effect. If a game is tied after regulation they each remove two skaters so it is 3 on 3 sudden death for five minutes maximum. Fantastic action. If still tied it goes to a shootout. Winner gets two points and loser gets one point for tie in regulation time. A lot of purists do not like it but it certainly adds to the spectacle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pans Jambo Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 19 minutes ago, Canscot said: Sounds like you would enjoy watching the NHL Pans! Some of those rules are in effect. If a game is tied after regulation they each remove two skaters so it is 3 on 3 sudden death for five minutes maximum. Fantastic action. If still tied it goes to a shootout. Winner gets two points and loser gets one point for tie in regulation time. A lot of purists do not like it but it certainly adds to the spectacle. We all love football, but maybe a slight refresh to make it more exciting wouldn't be a bad thing. We are there to be entertained after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tian447 Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 29 minutes ago, Canscot said: Fantastic action. If still tied it goes to a shootout. Winner gets two points and loser gets one point for tie in regulation time. A lot of purists do not like it but it certainly adds to the spectacle. That sounds like a good rule actually. Could work in football league matches, a draw goes to a penalty shootout straight away, but they keep extra time for Cup matches. Win: 3 Points Draw -> Win on Penalties: 2 points Draw -> Lose on Penalties: 1 point Loss: 0 points The only thing is, it means the reward for winning a match in 90 minutes isn't much better than the team who park the bus and fluke their way through on penalties. Maybe they could trial actually losing points for losing games? Currently when you lose a league match, you just don't gain any ground, and you can lose a game and stay where you are if the team 2 points behind you only draws. It would be interesting to see what happens if teams were actually penalised for losing games: Win: 3 Points Draw -> Win on Penalties: 1 point Draw -> Lose on Penalties: 0 points Loss: -1 points We already have teams that start the season on negative points, so there can't really be any argument about teams being on less than 0 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boag1874 Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 (edited) Better for player welfare, means more chances for squad/academy players & lets you manage niggly injuries/bookings more carefully. Happy to see it stay. edit: what about a tweak where 2 of the subs have to be academy/home grown? Edited March 31, 2022 by boag1874 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 21 minutes ago, boag1874 said: Better for player welfare, means more chances for squad/academy players & lets you manage niggly injuries/bookings more carefully. Happy to see it stay. edit: what about a tweak where 2 of the subs have to be academy/home grown? The first part is something that seems to be ignored with the 5 subs. Players are playing more and more games, both through planinng and through unforseen circumstances. See Scotland possibly playing 6 games in 15 days in June. If we want the quality of football to stay high then you cant have players playing a crazy amount of games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooks Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 I prefer it and I hope that we keep it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hardy’s Dug Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 On 08/07/2020 at 10:18, Sooperstar said: I see this morning that IFAB are looking to keep the 5 subs rule in place for next season. Which of course means that they will probably make it permanent. Absolutely no need as far as I am concerned and it can only help the bigger clubs with stronger squads. Get it to ****. We’ll be one of them so whilst I get your sentiment if we get a run in Europe this will help us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henroddy Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 People on here saying 5 would only benefit the bigger clubs. Newsflash! We ARE one of the bigger clubs. Think back the last run of games when we have been struggling to break teams down. Our subs have been great players. They've come on and changed the games. Far more than your lower ranked team players who probably have a decent starting 11 but not much in way of subs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooperstar Posted March 31, 2022 Author Share Posted March 31, 2022 17 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said: We’ll be one of them so whilst I get your sentiment if we get a run in Europe this will help us. 10 minutes ago, Henroddy said: People on here saying 5 would only benefit the bigger clubs. Newsflash! We ARE one of the bigger clubs. Think back the last run of games when we have been struggling to break teams down. Our subs have been great players. They've come on and changed the games. Far more than your lower ranked team players who probably have a decent starting 11 but not much in way of subs. One of the main issues with football perfectly illustrated. It suits us so it's a good thing. But we'll moan like **** about unfair things which go against us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 Hope to see a manager brave enough to make 2 or 3 subs when it isn't working after 20 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieboy Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 mind that time we got 5 injuries at Tannadice ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher75 Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 2 minutes ago, cookieboy said: mind that time we got 5 injuries at Tannadice ?? 6 including Ginnelly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieboy Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 1 minute ago, gnasher75 said: 6 including Ginnelly true . forgot that mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.