|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 29, 2015 0:26:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by njpotter on Apr 29, 2015 1:08:32 GMT
4th sub during extra time wouldn't be all that big of a deal to me...definitely shouldn't be allowed during the first 90.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 29, 2015 6:09:21 GMT
I've always thought that the rule should be 3 outfield subs plus a goal keeper allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2015 6:12:46 GMT
We should adopt the old Scottish Premier League method, 7 subs consisting of 3 home grown under 21's. Good way of ensuring youth isn't forgotten and more chance of them getting game time....
|
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Apr 29, 2015 8:11:52 GMT
I've always thought that the rule should be 3 outfield subs plus a goal keeper allowed. I would be happy with that as a goalkeeper is such a specialist role. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 29, 2015 8:29:15 GMT
I've always thought that the rule should be 3 outfield subs plus a goal keeper allowed. I would be happy with that as a goalkeeper is such a specialist role. Does it run the risk of abuse though? 30 seconds to go of a quarter final, winning 2-1, you're a man down as you've had a player sent off for two yellow cards, you're getting absolutely battered left right and centre, all the momentum is with them. You blast the ball down the field for a goalkick to them. Do you then change your keeping knowing that if he trundles off slowly, all the momentum will drain out of the game? |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Apr 29, 2015 8:46:14 GMT
I would be happy with that as a goalkeeper is such a specialist role. Does it run the risk of abuse though? 30 seconds to go of a quarter final, winning 2-1, you're a man down as you've had a player sent off for two yellow cards, you're getting absolutely battered left right and centre, all the momentum is with them. You blast the ball down the field for a goalkick to them. Do you then change your keeping knowing that if he trundles off slowly, all the momentum will drain out of the game? The referees are entitled to extend the game to compensate. The rules are quite clear, the game should be two halves of 45 minutes, no such thing as "added time" the referees compensate for wasted time. So no problem. I understand the point about "momentum" but thst can be affected in many ways. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 29, 2015 8:57:17 GMT
Does it run the risk of abuse though? 30 seconds to go of a quarter final, winning 2-1, you're a man down as you've had a player sent off for two yellow cards, you're getting absolutely battered left right and centre, all the momentum is with them. You blast the ball down the field for a goalkick to them. Do you then change your keeping knowing that if he trundles off slowly, all the momentum will drain out of the game? The referees are entitled to extend the game to compensate. The rules are quite clear, the game should be two halves of 45 minutes, no such thing as "added time" the referees compensate for wasted time. So no problem. I understand the point about "momentum" but thst can be affected in many ways. The referees don't though do they? They don't extend it properly. |
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Apr 29, 2015 9:10:34 GMT
So basically players are VOTING to have less playing time on the pitch.
Sounds about right.
Ive long hated how the most overpaid profession in the world still needs a UNION to barter for more rights of the players.
The world is upside down I tell thee
|
|
|
|
Post by apb1 on Apr 29, 2015 9:30:23 GMT
I don't think we need any more disruption to the game. What surprises me is that no-one suggests that the whole 25 man squad should be available on match day. Rather like in the World Cup. Is it that the benches are too small?  |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 29, 2015 9:42:20 GMT
The referees are entitled to extend the game to compensate. The rules are quite clear, the game should be two halves of 45 minutes, no such thing as "added time" the referees compensate for wasted time. So no problem. I understand the point about "momentum" but thst can be affected in many ways. The referees don't though do they? They don't extend it properly. The rugby system is far better where they have a visible clock which is physically stopped when play stops for injuries or substitutions etc. The one thing you are certain of in rugby is that there will be 80 minutes of game time - however long that takes. If you had that system in football a lot of time wasting simply wouldn't happen, as players (and fans and managers) would be able to see the stopped clock and would know that it would not be restarted until they stopped their antics. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Apr 29, 2015 10:57:16 GMT
Sometimes the logic of using subs very late in a game baffles me. Hull did it last night ........winning one nil and under siege from the phlegm garglers for an equaliser Bruce brings on a sub in the 90th minute thus handing Liverpool and extra minute of injury time. Doesn't make sense to me. Yes it's obviously done to try and break up play but it's a risky strategy for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 29, 2015 11:05:07 GMT
The referees don't though do they? They don't extend it properly. The rugby system is far better where they have a visible clock which is physically stopped when play stops for injuries or substitutions etc. The one thing you are certain of in rugby is that there will be 80 minutes of game time - however long that takes. If you had that system in football a lot of time wasting simply wouldn't happen, as players (and fans and managers) would be able to see the stopped clock and would know that it would not be restarted until they stopped their antics. Agreed. Considering Southampton were time wasting in the 23rd minute though, we'd probably still be playing now  |
|
|
|
Post by redandwhitetundra on Apr 29, 2015 12:41:03 GMT
I don't think we need any more disruption to the game. What surprises me is that no-one suggests that the whole 25 man squad should be available on match day. Rather like in the World Cup. Is it that the benches are too small? Quite possible. FIFA regulations stipulate the bench has to have space for minimum 18. As far as I'm aware, the FA rules don't state a set size dependent on the league rule. Which I think is why you see at the newly promoted teams the seats around the benches being 'closed' for use by the away team/home team staff. I seem to recall Stoke doing it for the first season..? It's also interesting that the majority of clubs name a 20-man travelling squad, and then choose to drop 3. As you say - why not just take them all provided everyone is fit..? Regards the 'time wasting'... Referees are meant to add 30-seconds for every substitute and goal, plus any additional time for time wasting or injuries. As you say - very few do it. There are also very few referees who are strong enough to add on time to the end of the additional indicated time... This is why (I believe) most managers/coaches make changes in the additional time, in the hope the referee won't add more on. |
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 29, 2015 13:11:18 GMT
I don't think we need any more disruption to the game. What surprises me is that no-one suggests that the whole 25 man squad should be available on match day. Rather like in the World Cup. Is it that the benches are too small? Quite possible. FIFA regulations stipulate the bench has to have space for minimum 18. As far as I'm aware, the FA rules don't state a set size dependent on the league rule. Which I think is why you see at the newly promoted teams the seats around the benches being 'closed' for use by the away team/home team staff. I seem to recall Stoke doing it for the first season..? It's also interesting that the majority of clubs name a 20-man travelling squad, and then choose to drop 3. As you say - why not just take them all provided everyone is fit..? Regards the 'time wasting'... Referees are meant to add 30-seconds for every substitute and goal, plus any additional time for time wasting or injuries. As you say - very few do it. There are also very few referees who are strong enough to add on time to the end of the additional indicated time... This is why (I believe) most managers/coaches make changes in the additional time, in the hope the referee won't add more on. The only ref I've ever seen do it was Howard Webb at the end of the Manchester derby. 4 minutes of added on time. City scored early in stoppage time and they took an age getting back to the half way line. By the time they did, almost all the stoppage time was up. Webb made them play about another 2 minutes of time. Of course, we all know what happened next as Mr Owen scored his first and only relevant goal for Man Utd. Who was the Man City manager that day? Mark Hughes, who went ballistic in his post-match interview however MOTD analyzed the time added on and in fact, Webb got it spot on. Never seen another ref, before, or since, do that. Perhaps it was a favour for Mr Ferguson. |
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Apr 29, 2015 13:15:13 GMT
I've always thought that the rule should be 3 outfield subs plus a goal keeper allowed. I would wholeheartedly agree with that, great idea |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Apr 29, 2015 13:33:35 GMT
Dunner Werrit,any changes will only be allowed if the bigger clubs benefit the most from any rule changes.
|
|
Martin53
Academy Starlet
City til I die. Stoke til I croak.
Posts: 117
|
Post by Martin53 on Apr 29, 2015 17:50:52 GMT
I completely agree with an extra sub for extra time. Over 90 minutes you're allowed 3 subs, basically one sub per half-hour. On that logic for half-an-hour's extra time it makes sense to allow another sub.
|
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Apr 29, 2015 19:11:35 GMT
With the cost of tickets as high as they are, why not allow 5 subs and play 60 minutes each half. Make them earn their coin ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Apr 29, 2015 20:16:20 GMT
One extra sub, purely in the event of extra time, makes a lot of sense. I'd also agree with the Lakeland view of a " free" goalkeeper substitution at any time, so long as it was only in the event of injury meaning the starting keeper was unable to continue. So that appears to me advocating up to five subs, in a game involving extra time and, up to four in a normal 90 minute game. I guess my only concern would be goalkeepers feigning injury, under management instruction. But they wouldn't do that, would they?
|
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Apr 29, 2015 20:19:03 GMT
One extra sub, purely in the event of extra time, makes a lot of sense. I'd also agree with the Lakeland view of a " free" goalkeeper substitution at any time, so long as it was only in the event of injury meaning the starting keeper was unable to continue. So that appears to me advocating up to five subs, in a game involving extra time and, up to four in a normal 90 minute game. I guess my only concern would be goalkeepers feigning injury, under management instruction. But they wouldn't do that, would they?
|
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Apr 29, 2015 22:00:58 GMT
Personally I would not allow subs after the 80th minute.
|
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Apr 30, 2015 11:54:44 GMT
Personally I would not allow subs after the 80th minute. Interesting rule, what about an injury? |
|
|
|
Post by bounderboy on Apr 30, 2015 13:11:42 GMT
To me the spectacle of games are often ruined by red cards - if you are down to 10 men or not.
Having an extra sub would make it more feasible to remove the players walking a proverbial tight rope on a yellow and making red cards a lot less likely.. However as we found during the Sven years we learnt that too many subs just wrecks a game too..
I would be happy with 4 to be trialled.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 30, 2015 15:25:51 GMT
One of the biggest complaints on these 'Proboards' has been that neither TP nor MH knows how to use subs. Adding an extra sub would probably cause TP's and MH's brains to explode!
|
|
obhstokie
Academy Starlet
Vis Unita Fortior
Posts: 230
|
Post by obhstokie on Apr 30, 2015 16:45:11 GMT
I think that 3 subs throughout still, but if a player is forced off through injury you can sub someone on. However how do you determine whether they are faking an injury for a sub? But some rule like that would be beneficial I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 18:07:37 GMT
I've always thought that the rule should be 3 outfield subs plus a goal keeper allowed. I would wholeheartedly agree with that, great idea I only think a goalkeeper should be allowed to be replaced if the keeper gets injured and not if he gets sent off. |
|
|
|
Post by daibando on Apr 30, 2015 22:45:59 GMT
Personally I would not allow subs after the 80th minute. Exactly. It's ridiculous to bring a player on in the 90th plus minute. Mourinho brought on two players, I think it was against Arsenal last week, in the 92 and then the 93 rd minute!! Slows the game down and wastes time as the refs hardly ever had any more time on for it. |
|
|
|
Post by enuntio on Apr 30, 2015 23:10:16 GMT
Faffing around is needed. Having just watched Rayo Vallacano play Valencia with 2 red cards being rightly brandished, but the main issue is how the players react to decisions, feign injury, try to get opponents booked and sent off. Top flight games can be scrutinised by pitch side refs with camera replays being used to assist the referee. We need a 3rd card to stamp out this blatant cheating, time wasting, mard arsed histrionics, back chatting the officials...
Sin bin them. If a team is going to loose a few bodies for 5 minutes at a time, it may improve the spectacle in the long run. 60 minutes each half, 5 outfield subs, sin bin cards. The last 15 minutes of the second half would be interesting, and as for extra time :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 1, 2015 7:28:40 GMT
Personally I would not allow subs after the 80th minute. Exactly. It's ridiculous to bring a player on in the 90th plus minute. Mourinho brought on two players, I think it was against Arsenal last week, in the 92 and then the 93 rd minute!! Slows the game down and wastes time as the refs hardly ever had any more time on for it. So, if a player breaks his leg in a compound fracture in the 90th minute and there are 10 minutes of added time to be played and his team have not used all their subs, you would not allow a sub to replace him because it is late in the game? Oh well, you are entitled to your opinion but it won't make much sense to most fans.  |
|
