Jump to content

5 Subs


Sooperstar

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, cookieboy said:

mind that time we got 5 injuries at Tannadice ??

 

Before that I was totally against the 5 subs. Not a fan of it just for tactical changes as it disrupts the whole game (as in rugby as others have said) and benefits the bigger clubs (even if we are one!)  I would think 3 tactical subs is sufficient with up to 2 more for injuries. But it could be difficult for refs to police that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Hardy’s Dug
1 hour ago, Sooperstar said:

 

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.

To be fair though Robbie hasn’t used it often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

To be fair though Robbie hasn’t used it often.

i was curious about that and from my count only looking at league games we have used more than 3 subs in 8 games so around 1/4 of all games and it has been more common recently. is it maybe taken RN a little while to fully understand how to utilise it properly as remember the championship last year was the only one in scotland that did not allow 5 subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WheatfieldWarrior

I'm for keeping 5 subs - I think it makes things more interesting if there are more opportunities  to change the game.

 

We've used it a lot to freshen up the attack lately and it can help where a game would otherwise peter out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WheatfieldWarrior
2 hours ago, milky_26 said:

i was curious about that and from my count only looking at league games we have used more than 3 subs in 8 games so around 1/4 of all games and it has been more common recently. is it maybe taken RN a little while to fully understand how to utilise it properly as remember the championship last year was the only one in scotland that did not allow 5 subs

 

I  think it moves the threshold - if we were keeping a sub back in case of a late injury or injury to the goalkeeper, then we might use 3 or 4 subs vs 1 or 2 under the old system.

 

I'd be for goalkeepers not counting towards the total as well in the same way as concussions do currently.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, milky_26 said:

i was curious about that and from my count only looking at league games we have used more than 3 subs in 8 games so around 1/4 of all games and it has been more common recently. is it maybe taken RN a little while to fully understand how to utilise it properly as remember the championship last year was the only one in scotland that did not allow 5 subs

Jesus,

 

That's a new one for the Bob haters.

 

;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DETTY29 said:

Jesus,

 

That's a new one for the Bob haters.

 

;)

 

im not a RN hater, but i do remember when the 5 subs came in other leagues, managers had to adapt due to only being able to have 3 times when they used subs. Some managers took a while to adapt to it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FarmerTweedy
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 ****.

You'd have rather played at Dundee United with 10 men from half time and 9 men from around the hour mark?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for the 5 subs being made permanent. 

 

Gives every club more opportunity to change things and deal with injuries.  Next season is going to be a strange one with the mid season break and that combined with our potential European exploits makes it a good idea in my opinion. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FarmerTweedy
On 08/07/2020 at 12:29, 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.

IMO, the bit in bold would be a terrible idea. At the moment, it's 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, but you actually have to go out and score to get a win. With your idea, teams could get the win by actually playing out a 0-0 then winning the penalty shootout. In many cases, where one team is the underdog and/or under a lot of pressure during a game, it would make much more sense for them to just dig in and try to see out the 0-0 and take their chances in the shootout. You'd actually be incentivising teams to play defensive football and not risk trying to score!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FarmerTweedy
25 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

You'd have rather played at Dundee United with 10 men from half time and 9 men from around the hour mark?

I've only just noticed when this thread was started!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, milky_26 said:

i was curious about that and from my count only looking at league games we have used more than 3 subs in 8 games so around 1/4 of all games and it has been more common recently. is it maybe taken RN a little while to fully understand how to utilise it properly as remember the championship last year was the only one in scotland that did not allow 5 subs

 

5 subs only came in for Premiership from January. So that makes it 8 games out of 13 games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

IMO, the bit in bold would be a terrible idea. At the moment, it's 3 points for a win and 1 for a draw, but you actually have to go out and score to get a win. With your idea, teams could get the win by actually playing out a 0-0 then winning the penalty shootout. In many cases, where one team is the underdog and/or under a lot of pressure during a game, it would make much more sense for them to just dig in and try to see out the 0-0 and take their chances in the shootout. You'd actually be incentivising teams to play defensive football and not risk trying to score!

Or play extra time and "golden goal" wins. I get what you are saying but in my decades of watching football, I have seen way too many "park the bus" games where teams don't to win but instead, try not to lose. Its eye bleeding.

Need to find a way to incentivise goal scoring. That's what we are there to see (2 points for a score draw perhaps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, milky_26 said:

im not a RN hater, but i do remember when the 5 subs came in other leagues, managers had to adapt due to only being able to have 3 times when they used subs. Some managers took a while to adapt to it 

Sorry, the wink was meant to be in jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Sorry, the wink was meant to be in jest.

neilson oooooooooot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bannon Flick

The 5 sub rule is ok but definitely helps teams with the bigger squads, therefore the suggestion to restrict subs 3&4 to u21 Scottish players is a good shout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
On 31/03/2022 at 15:38, gnasher75 said:

 

Before that I was totally against the 5 subs. Not a fan of it just for tactical changes as it disrupts the whole game (as in rugby as others have said) and benefits the bigger clubs (even if we are one!)  I would think 3 tactical subs is sufficient with up to 2 more for injuries. But it could be difficult for refs to police that.

 

I much prefer the 5 subs. Limit to three instances during play (so a halftime switch doesn't impact things) but I think it's much better for the players and makes for a more interesting game. If you could find any way to police the 3 tactical/2 injury subs, that could work, but it just sounds like an invitation to fakery.

 

I *would* like to see a rule that says no subs except for head knocks in injury time, or even after 80'. I absolutely hate the substitution-as-time-wasting tactic. It's so cynical and it's insulting to the players who get switched.

 

11 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

THERE ARE FOUR SUBS!

 

:isee:

 

10 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Or play extra time and "golden goal" wins. I get what you are saying but in my decades of watching football, I have seen way too many "park the bus" games where teams don't to win but instead, try not to lose. Its eye bleeding.

Need to find a way to incentivise goal scoring. That's what we are there to see (2 points for a score draw perhaps).

 

Please no. Too many American sports refuse to end in a draw and it cheapens the game. You have plenty of time to score in regular time. If a team parks the bus, break them down. If 0-0 draws are the problem, reform the offside rule so that traps are harder to execute. Mucking with the end of game is what the NHL did and it means teams get a point for losing a game in overtime, which is just offensive IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Led Tasso said:

 

I much prefer the 5 subs. Limit to three instances during play (so a halftime switch doesn't impact things) but I think it's much better for the players and makes for a more interesting game. If you could find any way to police the 3 tactical/2 injury subs, that could work, but it just sounds like an invitation to fakery.

 

I *would* like to see a rule that says no subs except for head knocks in injury time, or even after 80'. I absolutely hate the substitution-as-time-wasting tactic. It's so cynical and it's insulting to the players who get switched.

 

 

:isee:

 

 

Please no. Too many American sports refuse to end in a draw and it cheapens the game. You have plenty of time to score in regular time. If a team parks the bus, break them down. If 0-0 draws are the problem, reform the offside rule so that traps are harder to execute. Mucking with the end of game is what the NHL did and it means teams get a point for losing a game in overtime, which is just offensive IMO.

Not true. They get a point for tying in regulation. The extra point is awarded for winning in overtime or the shootout that follows an overtime tie. 
Lets face it. A 0-0 hockey game is or can be WAAAAAY more entertaining than almost all 0-0 football games. You can have 0-0 hockey games with over 60 shots ON net not just AT the net. Goalies play out of their skin and make 0-0 exciting and entertaining. Most times I watch a 0-0 football game and think “Well that is 90 mins of my life I will never get back!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
29 minutes ago, Canscot said:

Not true. They get a point for tying in regulation. The extra point is awarded for winning in overtime or the shootout that follows an overtime tie. 
Lets face it. A 0-0 hockey game is or can be WAAAAAY more entertaining than almost all 0-0 football games. You can have 0-0 hockey games with over 60 shots ON net not just AT the net. Goalies play out of their skin and make 0-0 exciting and entertaining. Most times I watch a 0-0 football game and think “Well that is 90 mins of my life I will never get back!”

 

Potayto potahto. It goes into the record book in a separate column than the draw. You still get a point for a match you lost, and where the other side gets three points.

 

It's the regular season. Just end the game in regulation and give each team a point. OT is foolish there, an OT loss point just makes it worse.

 

And we'll disagree on excitement. Sure, there are turgid football matches but I've seen some banging 0-0 matches. I tried to get into hockey when the Hurricanes moved into town but I couldn't stay with it. We have a Stanely Cup contender closing in on the end of the season and I still couldn't name a single player on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

Potayto potahto. It goes into the record book in a separate column than the draw. You still get a point for a match you lost, and where the other side gets three points.

 

It's the regular season. Just end the game in regulation and give each team a point. OT is foolish there, an OT loss point just makes it worse.

 

And we'll disagree on excitement. Sure, there are turgid football matches but I've seen some banging 0-0 matches. I tried to get into hockey when the Hurricanes moved into town but I couldn't stay with it. We have a Stanely Cup contender closing in on the end of the season and I still couldn't name a single player on the roster.

I meant to add that the extra point is kinda hokey. As in theory in an 82 game season a team could go through the whole season and tie every game but still end up with 82 points! Very unlikely I know. There is no doubt the “loser” point does skew the standings somewhat. 

I just watched a tie game the other night between Edmonton and LA. Fantastic game. Went to a shoot out. Edge of seat end to end stuff. Of course it is the business end of the season now regarding vying for playoff spots so that adds a lot rather than at the beginning of an 82 game slog when not so much is at stake. 
And how many football games have you seen a goalie make 30 or more saves in one game?

Just in case you are wondering. I grew up in Scotland and played football there and in Canada until I was 38 yrs old. So I am not just a hockey fan with an opinion on football.😉

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2022 at 20:26, cookieboy said:

mind that time we got 5 injuries at Tannadice ??

Yes, with only 3 subs we'd have played the second half with ten men then what, around 25 minutes with 9 men? (can't recall when Souttar went off).

 

I'm fine with the 5 subs rule as even when not replacing injured players, we can make tactical changes, or bring on fresh legs for the last quarter or so, and we have a strong bench (or did prior to all of our injuries) so I think it works to our benefit compared to most other teams in our league outside of the arse cheeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

82 games in a season? Bloody hell!

Yes. Then a possible 28 playoff games if your team makes it all the way to the Stanley Cup final. (4x best of 7 game series). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nookie Bear
On 08/07/2020 at 12:29, 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.


I would sort out the timekeeping (especially if we have 5 subs). 
We have offside calls to the millimetre but the actual length of the game is really arbitrary. 
 

At the very least additional time should be on a “ball in play” basis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...