Unlimited Substitutions in Soccer

764dak

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/soccers-tragic-flaw-made-a-farce-of-euro-cup-final.html

Basketball, hockey, beach soccer and futsal have unlimited substitutions so why not soccer?

Gerry91

For one, could ya imagine the last 5 minutes if a team is holding on? They'd just use another sub after each play to eat up time!

If there's any change I'd make to them is if they could happen a lot quicker

gandalf

Or a team like Chelsea or City replacing internationals with internationals against a team like Hull or Norwich who have limited resources.

764dak

Gerry91 wrote: »

For one, could ya imagine the last 5 minutes if a team is holding on? They'd just use another sub after each play to eat up time!

If there's any change I'd make to them is if they could happen a lot quicker

Stop clocks would have to be used just like the sports I mentioned.

Nuri Sahin

Love basketball, but I rather football not become too stop start like it.

Gatling

gandalf wrote: »

Or a team like Chelsea or City replacing internationals with internationals against a team like Hull or Norwich who have limited resources.

Imagine team loosing one nil ,bring on 8 attacking midfielder's and 3 strikers when they get the lead replace the 8 midfielder's with 8 defenders to defend the home box,

And an added bonus games would last a couple of hours longer win win for the fans

ArmaniJeanss

You'd play the game at a massive tempo for 90 minutes with unlimited substitutions - part of the enjoyment at the moment is how the game changes and becomes stretched as players tire into the second half.

Theoretically you'd be making it easier for the 'work your socks off closing down and defending in numbers teams' like say Greece or Ireland, and harder for teams like say Spain who base their game on making you work hard and tire yourself out.

Conversely you'd make it harder for smaller club teams to compete - at the moment you really only need a squad of 17/18 to be reasonably competitive but with unlimited subs it becomes a 25 player squad and the bigger clubs finances would tell.

dan1895

Never been to an international friendly? bloody horrible watching the last half hour as someone is being replaced every few minutes.

Richard Hillman

Not for me, unless they could sub during play and strict rules for 12 (or more) men on the pitch. Something like an automatic penalty, even if the sub has one foot on a blade of the the pitch grass.


It would take away that magical moment of an outfield player having to go in goals when they are out of subs.

Skid X

I'd rather see less Substitutes.

You hardly ever see outfield players going in Goals anymore - that was always great fun

about 3 minutes in

losthorizon

I remember the days when you could sub only one player and your goalie if need be. Them were the days.

KombuchaMshroom

3 is fine amount.

Only amendment that i think should be considered is adding an additional(s?) substitution when matches go into extra time. Too often extra time is ruined with players dropping with cramp or other fatigue related injuries, logical enough that if the game went on longer you should be allowed another sub or maybe even 2, but probably just the one more.

Mr Simpson

The only change I would make would be a concussion sub (given recently publicised events). An extra sub if a player gets a head injury.

I'd also like to see the clock stopped for subs to get rid of the awful amount of timewasting that goes on.

Kirby

No. Too much time wasting and messing would go on.

What I would change, and I've said this in here before, is the bench. I don't agree with having to name only 7 players on the bench. Any player registered for the club should be able to be subbed on at any time....similar to how any member of the 23 man squad at the world cup can come on during a game.

It would promote young players a lot more as if a game was over you could put on the developing academy kids. We would see a lot more Rooney's if 16 year olds were given a chance....and you simply cant risk taking a chance on a young player if you can only name a 7 man bench.

Guys like Ibe, Januzaj and Sterling would have been exposed to the first team quicker and I'd wager the English national team might actually have a better squad to pick from....which would shut them up for a bit as they are constantly moaning about it.

764dak

Kirby wrote: »

No. Too much time wasting and messing would go on.

What I would change, and I've said this in here before, is the bench. I don't agree with having to name only 7 players on the bench. Any player registered for the club should be able to be subbed on at any time....similar to how any member of the 23 man squad at the world cup can come on during a game.

It would promote young players a lot more as if a game was over you could put on the developing academy kids. We would see a lot more Rooney's if 16 year olds were given a chance....and you simply cant risk taking a chance on a young player if you can only name a 7 man bench.

Guys like Ibe, Januzaj and Sterling would have been exposed to the first team quicker and I'd wager the English national team might actually have a better squad to pick from....which would shut them up for a bit as they are constantly moaning about it.

I already mentioned having a stop clock so that would stop time wasting. Also, what if along with unlimited subs you also get a squad of 25 to choose from?

Gerry91

Mr Simpson wrote: »

The only change I would make would be a concussion sub (given recently publicised events). An extra sub if a player gets a head injury.

I'd also like to see the clock stopped for subs to get rid of the awful amount of timewasting that goes on.

Or even just like GAA/Rugby whatever where they seem to come on/off without fuss/delay most of the time

This nonsense of holding up the board, waiting for the guy to stroll off while basically stopping at certain intervals to applaud the fans, while the sub stands and applauds causes way too much time wasting and is commonly used as a means of killing a good minute coming to the close of a game

Stopping the clock would sort it, but while that isn't in place they really should just look at making it a much quicker process

Mars Bar

764dak wrote: »

I already mentioned having a stop clock so that would stop time wasting. Also, what if along with unlimited subs you also get a squad of 25 to choose from?

Stopping a clock isn't going to freeze real time though.

Skid X

Kirby wrote: »

What I would change, and I've said this in here before, is the bench. I don't agree with having to name only 7 players on the bench. Any player registered for the club should be able to be subbed on at any time....similar to how any member of the 23 man squad at the world cup can come on during a game.

You're going to need bigger dressing rooms, and bigger dug-outs for that. Maybe bigger buses too.

And it's going to cost clubs more in match bonuses.

I don't know if the additional costs would be worth it - ultimately it would mostly be the same substitutes getting game time every week.

Kirby

Skid X wrote: »

You're going to need bigger dressing rooms, and bigger dug-outs for that. Maybe bigger buses too.

And it's going to cost clubs more in match bonuses.

I don't know if the additional costs would be worth it - ultimately it would mostly be the same substitutes getting game time every week.

I think you are confused about what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting every under 18 and reserve team player should be kitted out on match day. That's ridiculous.

What I'm talking about is that currently, every premier league team having between 25 and 30 first team players.......only 18 of whom are eligible to play on match day. All first team members should be available to be subbed on in my opinion, just like at major tournaments.

Secondly, your match bonuses will remain the exact same as the 3 sub rule still applies. Players on benches don't earn bonuses for being in the squad.

Skid X

Kirby wrote: »

Dressing room size and dug out costs mean virtually nothing to clubs who rake in several million a year, as every premier league club does.

Secondly, your match bonuses will remain the exact same as the 3 sub rule still applies. Players on benches don't earn bonuses for being in the squad.

Not every club plays in the Premier League, though.

I can't see a significant change from the current position occurring, to be honest.

Kirby

Skid X wrote: »

Not every club plays in the Premier League, though.

That's true but its also the reason why it took so long for goal line technology to come in.

Should the pro's not play with linesman or nets because amateur leagues cant afford them? Should we not have club doctors for safety because conference clubs cant afford them? etc. etc. Where does it stop? It's a poor argument because it leads to stagnation in the game.

Anything that can be changed to improve the game, should be done.

Skid X

Kirby wrote: »

That's true but its also the reason why it took so long for goal line technology to come in.

Should the pro's not play with linesman or nets because amateur leagues cant afford them? Should we not have club doctors for safety because conference clubs cant afford them? etc. etc. Where does it stop? It's a poor argument because it leads to stagnation in the game.

Anything that can be changed to improve the game, should be done.

None of that means having a travelling legion of benchwarmers every week would be good for the game as a whole.

Good players will get their chances sooner or later.

Richard Hillman

Kirby wrote: »

No. Too much time wasting and messing would go on.

What I would change, and I've said this in here before, is the bench. I don't agree with having to name only 7 players on the bench. Any player registered for the club should be able to be subbed on at any time....similar to how any member of the 23 man squad at the world cup can come on during a game.

It would promote young players a lot more as if a game was over you could put on the developing academy kids. We would see a lot more Rooney's if 16 year olds were given a chance....and you simply cant risk taking a chance on a young player if you can only name a 7 man bench.

Guys like Ibe, Januzaj and Sterling would have been exposed to the first team quicker and I'd wager the English national team might actually have a better squad to pick from....which would shut them up for a bit as they are constantly moaning about it.

I think they have full squad benches in Serie A this season

Jesus Wept

Gatling wrote: »

Imagine team loosing one nil ,bring on 8 attacking midfielder's and 3 strikers when they get the lead replace the 8 midfielder's with 8 defenders to defend the home box,

That'd be great craic.

dfx-

Bad memories of England friendlies back under Eriksson, 11 subs at halftime.

yabadabado

Why do they even bother stopping the game for substitutions ?The game should continue and let the players get on/off with out the time wasting.

corcaigh07

I'd like to see the rule changed where a player can't come back on after being subbed.

It's not a situation that would come often, I admit.

LuckyLloyd

With respect to timekeeping and subs, it seems fairly obvious that the ref should not be responsible for managing the clock. There should be a timekeeper off the field who focuses on stopping it every time the ball is out of play. A simple change that would significantly improve one of the most flawed aspects of the game at the top level.

Kirby

Exactly. I mean you see it in every game. A goalie takes an age to take a free kick or a goal kick and the referee sighs and makes a big show of pointing to his watch like he's going to add it on......and invariably he doesn't. How often have you seem a game with 6 subs only have about 4 minutes of added time after a load of time wasting? All the bloody time.

They either forget or just can't be bothered.

GavRedKing

The only thing I'm not fond of is time wasting, every team does it when they're a goal up going into the last 5-10 mins but the ref usually say hes adding it on, we're told its 30 seconds per sub and at elast 30 seconds per goal by the time it hits the net and players celebrate and kick off again.

I'd there must be 4 subs a game at least most weekends, often its 6, so thats 3mins there alone without allowing for goals or injuries so the token gesture of 4 mins that goes up added time most weekends is inaccurate I reckon.

3 subs from a bench of 7 is perfect I reckon, unlimited subs would kill the game and would be like American football in some regards when you could bring on your set piece specailist when you've a chance and replace him as soon as play stops.

dan1895

GavRedKing wrote: »

3 subs from a bench of 7 is perfect I reckon, unlimited subs would kill the game and would be like American football in some regards when you could bring on your set piece specailist when you've a chance and replace him as soon as play stops.

Ian Harte would of approved of this.

roanoke

dfx- wrote: »

Bad memories of England friendlies back under Eriksson, 11 subs at halftime.

I think the best one I ever saw was one Ireland v Russia 2002. They subbed the entire team and then subbed one of the subs for a total of 12.

http://ie.soccerway.com/matches/2002/02/13/world/friendlies/ireland-republic/russia/633517/

==

Also wrt to unlimited subs in general and the bigger teams having the advantage of a strong bench, I'm not sure if that would necessarily turn out that way?

For instance, how many times have we seen a team full of international stars held 0-0 by a bunch of jouneymen for 80-85 minutes only for the inevitable goal to come in the dying minutes (or even seconds)?

A lot of the so called minnow teams who lose games late on to the big boys seem be down to mental and physical fatigue due the chasing the ball for 55%-65% of the game.

So for the sake of argument say Hull have a well balanced squad of journeymen, then even if all they have to bring on is 10 more Paul McShane's, that might be enough to help them hang on in the latter stages for a draw against a fresh opposition bench.

mitosis

One of my peeves is the large bench. There ought to be a bench limit of three and two subs permitted. That, more than anything, would lend to even the gap between rich and poor clubs

764dak

GavRedKing wrote: »

The only thing I'm not fond of is time wasting, every team does it when they're a goal up going into the last 5-10 mins but the ref usually say hes adding it on, we're told its 30 seconds per sub and at elast 30 seconds per goal by the time it hits the net and players celebrate and kick off again.

I'd there must be 4 subs a game at least most weekends, often its 6, so thats 3mins there alone without allowing for goals or injuries so the token gesture of 4 mins that goes up added time most weekends is inaccurate I reckon.

3 subs from a bench of 7 is perfect I reckon, unlimited subs would kill the game and would be like American football in some regards when you could bring on your set piece specailist when you've a chance and replace him as soon as play stops.

dan1895 wrote: »

Ian Harte would of approved of this.

I like the rule in beach soccer and basketball where you have to take your own shots if you get fouled.

MaroonAndGreen

Unlimited substitutions would take away from the fascination of the tactical side of the game.

I mean, a lot of debate can be stirred about what 3rd sub a manager is going to use etc.

3 subs is just about right

764dak

Did anyone see the South Africa vs Spain match?

ush

764dak wrote: »

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/soccers-tragic-flaw-made-a-farce-of-euro-cup-final.html

Basketball, hockey, beach soccer and futsal have unlimited substitutions so why not soccer?

Lets go multiball and 4 sets of goals.

Too Tough To Die

764dak wrote: »

Did anyone see the South Africa vs Spain match?

Yeah, i watched it.

pickarooney

764dak wrote: »

Did anyone see the South Africa vs Spain match?

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Yeah, i watched it.

And?

Too Tough To Die

Spain had used up all their substitutions when Valdes got injured, Arbeloa was all set to go in goals and then Spain tried to bring on Reina instead. The South African bench, who as i understood it should have say on whether or not Reina can come on after all the substitutions have been used protested against it but were overruled.

According to the commentary, the fact that Spain used more substitutions than they were allowed downgrades the match from a friendly to a training match, meaning no player earns a cap for the game and the goal scored will not be included in the players stats.

I'm not sure if the commentary team were correct in what they said though.

Neil3030

Re: timewasting - why not do as they do in US sports and not stop the clock for substitutions?

Basically the rule could be that once the ball goes out of play you can sub the players, but if play restarts in the meantime and a member of your team touches the ball before you only 11 players on the field, it's a foul.

Another thing I simply can't understand is why they don't allow physios come on during play. FFS if they can do it in rugby they can do it in soccer. This would instantly remove all the timewasting you see with players feigning injury and reserve stoppages to genuine cases.

roanoke

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

According to the commentary, the fact that Spain used more substitutions than they were allowed downgrades the match from a friendly to a training match, meaning no player earns a cap for the game and the goal scored will not be included in the players stats.

More importantly than that though is that a win (even a friendly) vs Spain is a great points bonus for a team in the FIFA rankings.

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-20-bafana-could-lose-fifa-ranking-points-after-spain-win

South Africa – currently ranked 61st in the world, 60 places behind the Spanish side – stand to gain more than 500 points if the result stands, which could see them rocket up the rankings.

The article indicates that the SA manager didn't object to the sub but left it up to the referee to decide.

I wonder are managers even aware of this rule? I must admit I hadn't heard it until just now. I mean that's actually knowledge that an international manager could use to his advantage in certain situations.

Regardless though I agree with the SA position. If they lose the result and ranking points because of this I think it'll be pretty disgraceful. It's basically punishing a team for acting in the spirit of fair play.

death1234567

764dak wrote: »

Basketball, hockey, beach soccer and futsal have unlimited substitutions so why not soccer?

Because its a terrible idea, isn't practical and wouldn't add anything to the game.

Too Tough To Die

roanoke wrote: »

More importantly than that though is that a win (even a friendly) vs Spain is a great points bonus for a team in the FIFA rankings.

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-11-20-bafana-could-lose-fifa-ranking-points-after-spain-win



The article indicates that the SA manager didn't object to the sub but left it up to the referee to decide.

I wonder are managers even aware of this rule? I must admit I hadn't heard it until just now. I mean that's actually knowledge that an international manager could use to his advantage in certain situations.

Regardless though I agree with the SA position. If they lose the result and ranking points because of this I think it'll be pretty disgraceful. It's basically punishing a team for acting in the spirit of fair play.

I'm not sure about that, things got pretty heated between the benches and he was in the middle of it. Maybe he let the ref mediate when he made his way over to the sideline.

roanoke

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

I'm not sure about that, things got pretty heated between the benches and he was in the middle of it. Maybe he let the ref mediate when he made his way over to the sideline.

The article has him saying

"They were coming to me and asking me if it was okay to bring the player on. I said that I didn't have a problem with that, I'm not the referee, I don't control the game."

but then they also say....

Bafana coach Gordon Igesund contested the substitution, while Spain's coach Vicente del Bosque said South Africa supported the decision and it was left to the referee's discretion.

which seems to go against his quote, so I don't really know for sure. I decided to take his quote as being his own position on the matter.

Too Tough To Die

roanoke wrote: »

The article has him saying



but then they also say....



which seems to go against his quote, so I don't really know for sure. I decided to take his quote as being his own position on the matter.

The second quote is more in line with how it appeared to me watching the game. He looked quite pissed off at the time.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

Another thing I simply can't understand is why they don't allow physios come on during play. FFS if they can do it in rugby they can do it in soccer. This would instantly remove all the timewasting you see with players feigning injury and reserve stoppages to genuine cases.

I'm gonna keep banging the drum I have been for a while, anyone who requires medical attention other than for blood must be substituted. Someone who needs attention for a head injury shouldn't be allowed to carry on anyway. Someone who's being a little bitch until someone comes along with magic gloves would be able to run off whatever's meant to be wrong with them.

764dak

FIFA to rule that South Africa’s 1-0 win over Spain never actually happened

http://www.insidespanishfootball.com/87586/fifa-to-rule-that-south-africas-1-0-win-over-spain-never-actually-happened/

Rubbish Spain had to cheat against South Africa.

pickarooney

That's not how things work. You can't just cheat and then use that to take away another team's victory and ranking gain.

Is it? Is this how bad it's got? Is football the new wrestling/boxing/cycling?

roanoke

It's funny how we frequently hear of teams getting fined/banned for fielding ineligible players etc. Yet Spain do something similar and they're actually rewarded?

From a refereeing pov, what's going on here is even worse than Henry in 2009 imho. That was just something the ref missed in open play. The idea that refereeing team can't even stick to the clerical requirements of the fixture is a joke. This is right up there with Graham Poll booking Simunic three times in a game at the 2006 WC imho.

Also using that "it's just a friendly" is no excuse either. Effectively there no longer are friendlies in international football anymore.

Incidentally, Del Bosque has always struck me as a character who knows every trick in the book. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew full well what might happen in this situation.

dreamers75

Only change that should happen is subs are rolled on as in no stoppage. You want someone off he runs off during play and another comes on only when the subbed player is off the pitch.

Ref can control this easily.

Makes subs tactical and required rather then timewasting exercises.