Jump to content

Only 3 subs


Clerry Jambo

Recommended Posts

Suits us perfectly.

 

Robbie will have them fit as fleas if nothing else. Too many substititions just break up play and generally annoy the Shit out supporters anyway, i predict big scores coming our way once again as the Mickey Mouse clubs won't be able to throw on fresh legs to keep the score down late on when they're jiggered.

 

Good move by the Championship clubs. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mikey1874

    14

  • David Black

    6

  • Beni

    5

  • John Findlay

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

A_A wehatethehibs

The most stupid thing about it is, and I couldn’t genuinely give a toss as Hearts will hammer these clubs either way, the rules have only been changed to protect the players. The players aren’t going to be at normal match fitness levels due to the amount of time elapsed since the last games, so the risk of injury is significantly increased. I wonder if the PFA may get involved as it’s their members whose bodies and careers are at increased risk irrespective what club 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Black said:

Do we really need to have a GK on the bench in this league. How often does a GK have to go off injured, very rarely.

Its more likely to be needed incase your keeper gets a red card, I would imagine you can still have 7 players on the bench but you can only use 3 during a match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jambonian said:

Ach...when I started going Tynie in the early 80s, clubs only had two subs anyway. Then they made it three to include a goalie. It went to five and then seven. It can be an advantage, an example would maybe be if a club is holding out for a 1-1 draw against us they can't waste time making substitutions. The disadvantage though is for players like Haring. Hearts will need fully fit subs so reducing the chance of Haring getting say the last fifteen/twenty minutes to build his fitness level up. Also, the last time Neilson was in charge he was well known for making changes in the last few minutes to waste time and hold on to what we had, it'll stop him doing that. It cost us a lot of points with the amount of goals we lost late in games. It just means that we'll have to put out the strongest team we can on the day, not bringing the likes of Naismith for example on with twenty to go and making sure the points are in the bag early.

I take it five are still allowed in Cup competitions?

 

 Also bad news for any young players getting a chance. No wonder the International squad is an embarrassment. Young Scots players are not getting enough game time to make any impact.

Edited by jambonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Black said:

Do we really need to have a GK on the bench in this league. How often does a GK have to go off injured, very rarely.

 

Why do you need 7 outfield players on bench? 

 

Goalkeepers on bench for red cards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

happy with the 3 subs, if anything it would give the smaller clubs more of an advantage - replenish fitness levels, time wasting etc. so not sure where this angle of a BLOW TO HEARTS is coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think folk are getting confused here. We can still name lots of subs, its just 3 we can use in league games, which is ample. Potentially 10 stoppages of play for substitutions in the second half is grim

Edited by Poseidon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, jamboinglasgow said:

Another petty decision made to stop Hearts from getting an unintended advantage. 

 

I just expected it to be one rule for the whole of SPFL not each league deciding what they want.

Ironically, I think 3 subs suits us, as we will benefit from additional space as opposition players tire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

Think folk are getting confused here. We can still name lots of subs, its just 3 we can use in league games, which is ample. Potentially 10 stoppages of play for substitutions in the second half is grim

Exactly. Nothing has changed its just silly that the league(s) above and below have a different rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Suits us perfectly.

 

Robbie will have them fit as fleas if nothing else. Too many substititions just break up play and generally annoy the Shit out supporters anyway, i predict big scores coming our way once again as the Mickey Mouse clubs won't be able to throw on fresh legs to keep the score down late on when they're jiggered.

 

Good move by the Championship clubs. 

 

 

This is true. Nonetheless a breathtakingly backward decision if it is indeed the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this voted by each individual league or as a whole?
If it was by league I’d love to know who voted for it in our league , it just stokes my hatred of the vast majority of teams in this Mickey Mouse football set up we find ourselves in .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Poseidon said:

Think folk are getting confused here. We can still name lots of subs, its just 3 we can use in league games, which is ample. Potentially 10 stoppages of play for substitutions in the second half is grim

 

You can only makes substitutions 3 times during play. So maximum of 6 stoppages same as with 3 subs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should be a blanket rule for all leagues.

 

Won't make much difference to us anyway. Expect we will be a couple of goals up in most games by the time we need to make changes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, five wan said:

The more I think of this the more I think it actually suits us,.

to have midfielders, wingers strikers running at part time players who are not as fit as us in the last 20-30 mins of a game they will end up just throwing out a leg to stop one of our players, yellow/red cards and penalties should be there. If they are allowed 5 subs a defender gets a yellow they can just sub him off, they haven’t thought this through.

plays into our hands

In the real world yes. I can’t wait on the SPFeckinL bringing Ian Brines out of retirement to officiate all our games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Scottish football :rofl::facepalm:

 

Tinpot. 

 

The Scottish Professional Football League - taking tinpot to a new level! Maybe dungcaster should approach Tefal as a league sponsor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You can only makes substitutions 3 times during play. So maximum of 6 stoppages same as with 3 subs. 

Ah right,  so if you want to to use 5 you need to throw them on more than 1 per stoppage. Didnt know that, cheers. I still like having just the 3 though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Why do you need 7 outfield players on bench? 

 

Goalkeepers on bench for red cards. 

Sorry you seem to be mis understanding what I am saying. I never said we need 7 outfield players on the bench.  My point is that for the vast, vast majority of games GK's are neither sent off or injured. So to utilise the 3 subs rule to the max. I would suggest it is the waste of a place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, heartyhub said:

In the real world yes. I can’t wait on the SPFeckinL bringing Ian Brines out of retirement to officiate all our games.

You heard that rumour as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Black said:

Sorry you seem to be mis understanding what I am saying. I never said we need 7 outfield players on the bench.  My point is that for the vast, vast majority of games GK's are neither sent off or injured. So to utilise the 3 subs rule to the max. I would suggest it is the waste of a place. 

 

A goalkeeper on bench still allows 6 outfield players

 

Is 6 not enough? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
46 minutes ago, andydog said:

Personally, I think it should only be 3 subs. Clearly 5 subs gives yet another advantage to bigger clubs, in particular rangers and celtic. Most championship clubs will be running with very small squads this year so they'd get little benefit of the extra two subs and clearly ourselves and Dundee would, hardly surprising they voted against it. Not a great look for the spfl to have such inconsistency though.

Yet the two leagues below voted for 5 subs with small squads etc, the extra subs is more to do with the fitness of the players as they’re more likely to get injured late in a game. The decision of our rivals not to vote is all about us, for the reasons already given. When they’re struggling with injuries or positive tests I hope we don't give them any emergency loans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Poseidon said:

We're the only league to have it right IMO. 5 subs is a joke. But to have it different across different competitions is nonsensical 

:spoton:

 

Why stop at 5, why not have 7 or 9?

More goals are scored at the end of the match as players tire, and losing teams chase the game.

Replacing half the outfield players seems like a solution to a non existent problem to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamboinglasgow said:

Another petty decision made to stop Hearts from getting an unintended advantage. 

 

I just expected it to be one rule for the whole of SPFL not each league deciding what they want.

The fools in charge trotted out the usual line "it's a members organisation....".

 

We lack any semblance of leadership and governance in Scotland, shambles.

 

I don't actually care whether it's 3 or 5 subs but to have 3 leagues going 1 way and 1 going the other is a nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newton51 said:

Pure joke! League 1 and 2 accepted this new rule. This is against us solely as know we have a better squad!

 

 

This is specifically aimed at Hearts, no doubt about it.  If Leagues 1 and 2 had rejected it it would have been just too bad but this is personal!!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamboinglasgow said:

According to the Sun it may not be vindictiveness against us but incompetence in the Championship. They said only 3 clubs in the Championship gave a response by the end of the 28 day deadline, as they require 8 teams to vote on it for the rule change to go through, the motion failed.

 

Just incrediable. 

You seriously couldn't make this stuff up. There's Scout groups better run. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, baxterd1974 said:

The fools in charge trotted out the usual line "it's a members organisation....".

 

We lack any semblance of leadership and governance in Scotland, shambles.

 

I don't actually care whether it's 3 or 5 subs but to have 3 leagues going 1 way and 1 going the other is a nonsense.

 

Will of the clubs. The only 4 words Doncaster knows alongside "Not too hard tonight, Peter". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

A goalkeeper on bench still allows 6 outfield players

 

Is 6 not enough? 

I think we are at cross purposes here. Are we still allowed to have 7 players on the bench but are only allowed to use whatever 3 we need. If so I didn't realise we could still have 7 to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Suits us perfectly.

 

Robbie will have them fit as fleas if nothing else. Too many substititions just break up play and generally annoy the Shit out supporters anyway, i predict big scores coming our way once again as the Mickey Mouse clubs won't be able to throw on fresh legs to keep the score down late on when they're jiggered.

 

Good move by the Championship clubs. 

 

 


Agreed. We won’t suffer despite the DR headline. In fact I’m against 5 subs anyway but the fragmentation is daft. What’s the point in the SPFL if every league can make up its own thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jambo92 said:

happy with the 3 subs, if anything it would give the smaller clubs more of an advantage - replenish fitness levels, time wasting etc. so not sure where this angle of a BLOW TO HEARTS is coming from.

 

 

The point is it's not really a "blow" to Hearts it's just specific in targeting us.  I'm quite happy with 3 but it doesn't change the blatant truth that everything has been done that could be done, from the expulsion form the Premiership, training being stopped and now this.

 

Next it will be clubs saying that can't complete a season and the Championship will be mothballed.  And just wait til the refs get going!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another example of the smaller clubs trying to disadvantage us, exactly like what is being discussed on the ‘let them die’ thread. Thankfully though it will make almost zero difference... other than to piss us off further. They will get their medicine this season. Looking forward to it immensely.
 

 

Edited by Beast Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You can only makes substitutions 3 times during play. So maximum of 6 stoppages same as with 3 subs. 

 

I'd leave substitutions to the 4th official, with no stoppage in play, like in ice hockey. It would put a stop to all the pissing about and time wasting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let them keep pulling the tiger’s plonker through the bars. See what happens. We see you Raith Rovers, Ayr United, Alloa and chums. See you on the park soon. :) 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why’s this a bad thing?  Alloa bringing on a part time joiner, protein seller and scotmid worker when clinging on to a 0-0 draw making five subs would hinder us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sub4TiddlerMurray
3 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

 

The point is it's not really a "blow" to Hearts it's just specific in targeting us.  I'm quite happy with 3 but it doesn't change the blatant truth that everything has been done that could be done, from the expulsion form the Premiership, training being stopped and now this.

 

Next it will be clubs saying that can't complete a season and the Championship will be mothballed.  And just wait til the refs get going!

 

 

 

This is a failure of leadership in the SPFL. If you allow each league to vote separately, then of course the Championship teams will vote to do whatever they can to "level the playing field" by limiting any potential advantage that Hearts (as the clear big fish in a small pond) might have. These teams are not at fault, it's clearly in their interest to vote as they did.

 

Either the SPFL Board have an agenda against Hearts or, more likely, it's yet more incompetence for failing to see that this would be an embarrassing outcome for the Scottish game. A vote across all the lower leagues would have avoided inconsistency or any potential for it to be seen as targeting Hearts. 

 

Personally, I think it's just the usual incompetence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

This is a failure of leadership in the SPFL. If you allow each league to vote separately, then of course the Championship teams will vote to do whatever they can to "level the playing field" by limiting any potential advantage that Hearts (as the clear big fish in a small pond) might have. These teams are not at fault, it's clearly in their interest to vote as they did.

 

Either the SPFL Board have an agenda against Hearts or, more likely, it's yet more incompetence for failing to see that this would be an embarrassing outcome for the Scottish game. A vote across all the lower leagues would have avoided inconsistency or any potential for it to be seen as targeting Hearts. 

 

Personally, I think it's just the usual incompetence.


The SPFL are effectively the clubs.  It’s not a governess.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pasquale for King
1 hour ago, fancy a brew said:

:spoton:

 

Why stop at 5, why not have 7 or 9?

More goals are scored at the end of the match as players tire, and losing teams chase the game.

Replacing half the outfield players seems like a solution to a non existent problem to me.

 

 

It was introduced for the sake of the players fitness and likelihood of being injured, like the drinks break. But only for leagues playing to a finish. Not sure why it’s been extended, probably to suit big clubs with huge squads to give more players games. 
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11985236/five-substitutions-per-team-permitted-by-ifab-to-help-aid-players-return

 

But the EPL voted against it.https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12043357/premier-league-clubs-vote-against-allowing-five-substitutes-in-2020-21-season

Edited by Pasquale for King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sub4TiddlerMurray
6 minutes ago, Last Laff said:


The SPFL are effectively the clubs.  It’s not a governess.  

 

Doncaster is paid £400k+ to do what then?

Edited by Sub4TiddlerMurray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smaller clubs trying to gain an advantage however I feel this one actually puts them at a disadvantage as player fitness for teams will be poor at the beginning.

 

As long as we have the players up to s good level of fitness the 3 subs won't have much effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Findlay said:

Cant get worked up about this. 3,subs, 5 subs I couldnt give a toss.

 

You don't see the oddity in 3 divisions having 5 subs and the other division only having 3 subs?

 

Whether it's been done to try and disadvantage us is irrelevant but we now have different rules of the game between the divisions. It's farcical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Black said:

I think we are at cross purposes here. Are we still allowed to have 7 players on the bench but are only allowed to use whatever 3 we need. If so I didn't realise we could still have 7 to choose from.

 

Yeah, it's that only 3 subs can actually come on so same as last season and also the EPL this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sub4TiddlerMurray said:

 

Doncaster is paid £400k+ to do what then?


To get stuff like the highest TV deal ever.  To be a mouthpiece for all the clubs too.

 

People can’t complain Doncaster is paid a ludicrous wage concerned about finances while being delighted the SFA or lower Scottish League clubs are not getting a penny just now.  If they do, it’s hypocritical.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hungry hippo said:

 

Yeah, it's that only 3 subs can actually come on so same as last season and also the EPL this season.

Thanks. I confess I hadn't read the article and wrongly assumed they had voted for only 3 subs on the bench. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Samuel Camazzola

Three is what it should be. The only 'benefit' will be for the clubs who can't fill their bench with five. 

 

Complete nonsense that the play-offs will have different ruling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have said, it's bizarre that the rule isn't consistent across all leagues.

 

Regardless of that, I expect us to win every game at a canter in any case, no matter how many subs we can play.

 

To be honest, I'd still expect us to win every game even if we were forced to play a man short.

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...