10 Substitutions last Saturday

[LBBlue]

I reckon that on Saturday, it was the first time that all 10 possible substitutes were used, and didn’t it just kill the flow of the game.

63 minutes SUFC
67 minutes TAM
70 minutes TAM
72 minutes SUFC
76 minutes TAM
82 minutes SUFC
84 minutes SUFC and TAM
87 minutes TAM
93 minutes SUFC

Ok there was 7 minutes added time, but really who wants to pay to see a procession of players strolling off and onto the pitch - 10 substitutions in 30 minutes, an average of 1 every 3 minutes. 5 substitutions per side is totally unnecessary - I really don’t see what it adds to the game.

 

[SouthendSpence]

Wasn’t there a rule that even though can make 5, it has to be done in 3 “windows” therefore should be taking no more time than the old 3.

Clearly that’s been abandoned or isn’t enforced (or that’s the EPL & EFL/I’m just plain wrong).

 

[southendkid]

Wasn’t there a rule that even though can make 5, it has to be done in 3 “windows” therefore should be taking no more time than the old 3.

Clearly that’s been abandoned or isn’t enforced (or that’s the EPL & EFL/I’m just plain wrong).

That's just the EPL and EFL, I have no idea why the NL didn't implement the same rule.

 

[Stuart W]

I reckon that on Saturday, it was the first time that all 10 possible substitutes were used, and didn’t it just kill the flow of the game.

63 minutes SUFC
67 minutes TAM
70 minutes TAM
72 minutes SUFC
76 minutes TAM
82 minutes SUFC
84 minutes SUFC and TAM
87 minutes TAM
93 minutes SUFC

Ok there was 7 minutes added time, but really who wants to pay to see a procession of players strolling off and onto the pitch - 10 substitutions in 30 minutes, an average of 1 every 3 minutes. 5 substitutions per side is totally unnecessary - I really don’t see what it adds to the game.

Totally agree with you. I used to think that 3 was an extravagance, but 5 is just crazy. Nothing more than a time-wasting tool for the side leading, maybe more justification for the losing side.
However the Tamworth game reminded me of one of those pre-season friendlies where you end up with 44 different players on the pitch over the 90 minutes (32 was bad enough on Saturday).

 

[PIERS]

It’s for the new American market. They will be able to fit more adverts in

 

[fbm]

Whilst I totally get and pretty much agree with the sentiment, I also was delighted that we were able to actually bring on 5 substitutes and they were meaningful within their context (i.e. to kill the game/go more defensive).

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

I'm not sure why the National League think they know better than the Premier League and EFL in the way they implement the 5 subs rule. It seems they are just being contrary for the sake of it.

I think the EFL rule that the 5 subs can be used on 3 occasions during the match (plus half-time) should easily be sufficient which would make the maximum number of stoppages for substitutions 6 instead of 10.

 

[fbm]

I'd like to see all tactical substitutions banned in the last 10 minutes of a game and any substitution at all not allowed in injury time.
I'm not even sure why the game has to stop for a substitution - surely the 4th official can handle it?

 

[londonblue]

I reckon that on Saturday, it was the first time that all 10 possible substitutes were used, and didn’t it just kill the flow of the game.

63 minutes SUFC
67 minutes TAM
70 minutes TAM
72 minutes SUFC
76 minutes TAM
82 minutes SUFC
84 minutes SUFC and TAM
87 minutes TAM
93 minutes SUFC

Ok there was 7 minutes added time, but really who wants to pay to see a procession of players strolling off and onto the pitch - 10 substitutions in 30 minutes, an average of 1 every 3 minutes. 5 substitutions per side is totally unnecessary - I really don’t see what it adds to the game.

I've actually said in the past that I think allowing 5 substitutions allows lesser managers to get away with it just because they can afford a better squad. They don't have to find creative ways to make tactical changes, they just have to bring on a new player who can do the job they need.

It also negates the change in circumstances during a match. For example, you can tell your front players to press and chase everything from the start knowing that when they run out of steam after 60-odd minutes you can just bring on a substitute to continue that. Players don't have to pace themselves to last the full 90 minutes.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

I'm not sure why the National League think they know better than the Premier League and EFL in the way they implement the 5 subs rule. It seems they are just being contrary for the sake of it.

I think the EFL rule that the 5 subs can be used on 3 occasions during the match (plus half-time) should easily be sufficient which would make the maximum number of stoppages for substitutions 6 instead of 10.

In this instance, the National League are following the Laws of the Game as issued by IFAB. Paragraph 3.2 of Law 3 states:

“The number of substitutes, up to a maximum of five, which may be used in any match played in an official competition will be determined by FIFA, the confederation or the national football association. For men’s and women’s competitions involving the 1st teams of clubs in the top division or senior ‘A’ international teams where competition rules permit a maximum of five substitutes to be used, each team:

• has a maximum of three substitution opportunities*
• may additionally make substitutions at half-time”

Interesting that the EFL, which isn’t the top division, implement this, so there may be an exemption (this could be related to fixtures where there are appointed fourth officials to control the substitution process, for instance), but I don’t consider the National League’s stance to be contrary on this occasion.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

In this instance, the National League are following the Laws of the Game as issued by IFAB. Paragraph 3.2 of Law 3 states:

“The number of substitutes, up to a maximum of five, which may be used in any match played in an official competition will be determined by FIFA, the confederation or the national football association. For men’s and women’s competitions involving the 1st teams of clubs in the top division or senior ‘A’ international teams where competition rules permit a maximum of five substitutes to be used, each team:

• has a maximum of three substitution opportunities*
• may additionally make substitutions at half-time”

Interesting that the EFL, which isn’t the top division, implement this, so there may be an exemption (this could be related to fixtures where there are appointed fourth officials to control the substitution process, for instance), but I don’t consider the National League’s stance to be contrary on this occasion.

My issue is there is an established international standard for this which is, as you quoted, five subs but only three substitution opportunities (plus half time).

This seems to be tried and tested now, but the National League have chosen to do it differently and allow each team five substitution opportunities which can really slow the game down.

I don't see any good reason for this, to me it's just the National League saying "we're not the EFL, so we do things differently and we'll do it our way" - in my opinion they're doing it differently just because they can and not because it's better than the established way of doing it. That's why I think they are deliberately being contrary on this occasion.

I appreciate there are other opinions on the matter though.

 

[WestyReturns]

I reckon that on Saturday, it was the first time that all 10 possible substitutes were used, and didn’t it just kill the flow of the game.

63 minutes SUFC
67 minutes TAM
70 minutes TAM
72 minutes SUFC
76 minutes TAM
82 minutes SUFC
84 minutes SUFC and TAM
87 minutes TAM
93 minutes SUFC

Ok there was 7 minutes added time, but really who wants to pay to see a procession of players strolling off and onto the pitch - 10 substitutions in 30 minutes, an average of 1 every 3 minutes. 5 substitutions per side is totally unnecessary - I really don’t see what it adds to the game.

Whilst I agree with every you say give the quality of players and refereeing there was very little flow to the game even without the subs. It did emphasize it though!

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

My issue is there is an established international standard for this which is, as you quoted, five subs but only three substitution opportunities (plus half time).

This seems to be tried and tested now, but the National League have chosen to do it differently and allow each team five substitution opportunities which can really slow the game down.

I don't see any good reason for this, to me it's just the National League saying "we're not the EFL, so we do things differently and we'll do it our way" - in my opinion they're doing it differently just because they can and not because it's better than the established way of doing it. That's why I think they are deliberately being contrary on this occasion.

I appreciate there are other opinions on the matter though.

The issue is that the practice that is applicable to international football and the Premier League doesn't apply to the fifth tier of a national competition, so the National League haven't necessarily chosen to do it differently because they are following the procedure in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

For what it's worth, if they are able to explore restricting substitutions to three opportunities, I would be in favour of it (although I was also in favour of maintaining three substitutes from a maximum of five named).

 

[johnlattimerssponge]

Just too many subs allowed now IMHO and it can ruin the flow of the game and don’t get me started on changes made in stoppage time.

Three subs from six with a fourth allowed for an injured goalkeeper would be more than sufficient.

 

[Mick]

In this instance, the National League are following the Laws of the Game as issued by IFAB. Paragraph 3.2 of Law 3 states:

“The number of substitutes, up to a maximum of five, which may be used in any match played in an official competition will be determined by FIFA, the confederation or the national football association. For men’s and women’s competitions involving the 1st teams of clubs in the top division or senior ‘A’ international teams where competition rules permit a maximum of five substitutes to be used, each team:

• has a maximum of three substitution opportunities*
• may additionally make substitutions at half-time”

Interesting that the EFL, which isn’t the top division, implement this, so there may be an exemption (this could be related to fixtures where there are appointed fourth officials to control the substitution process, for instance), but I don’t consider the National League’s stance to be contrary on this occasion.

The National League is clearly a men's competition involving clubs' first teams. We are in the top division of that competition. Why can't it be applied?

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

The issue is that the practice that is applicable to international football and the Premier League doesn't apply to the fifth tier of a national competition, so the National League haven't necessarily chosen to do it differently because they are following the procedure in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

For what it's worth, if they are able to explore restricting substitutions to three opportunities, I would be in favour of it (although I was also in favour of maintaining three substitutes from a maximum of five named).

I think the point is that it's not mandatory at our level like it is at some higher levels. I think your original post on the topic was that it wasn't mandatory at EFL level either, but they chose to implement it - I think the National League should have made this choice too, rather than the different way they have chosen which seems to have no real benefits to the spectator experience and makes us out of kilter with the rest of the football world.

 

[Mick]

In IFAB's simplified Laws of the Game they simply state:

In senior football, each team is usually allowed to use up to five substitutes and usually has a maximum of three opportunities to make a substitution (excluding during half-time, the period between full-time and the start of extra time, and half-time in extra time).

It doesn't venture to define senior, but it's hard to imagine any sensible definition that didn't include the substantially full-time professional fifth tier of English football.

 

[Mick]

Interesting that the EFL, which isn’t the top division, implement this, so there may be an exemption (this could be related to fixtures where there are appointed fourth officials to control the substitution process, for instance), but I don’t consider the National League’s stance to be contrary on this occasion.

I too don't believe the NL are being contrary, nor do I think they are slavishly adhering to IFAB doctrine, I just don't think they had given it any thought.

 

[SouthendSpence]

The sensible* thing is to fall into line with EFL from next season

*But that's asking a lot!

 

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Just too many subs allowed now IMHO and it can ruin the flow of the game and don’t get me started on changes made in stoppage time.

Three subs from six with a fourth allowed for an injured goalkeeper would be more than sufficient.

Agree with all of that ......... except the part about allowing a substitution for an injured goalie. This would be used for a goalie to go "down injured" (e.g. holding the small of their back), take ages to get off the pitch & the new goalie strolling gently to their box.

Quite simply referees need to book players, managers, stewards, ball boys - in fact, anyone who does not play the game in the spirit it was intended & is unsporting.