Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Subs 16:10 - Jul 15 with 1754 viewsBazzaInTheLoft

Five from next season

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12029107/five-substitutes-to-be-al
0
Subs on 16:15 - Jul 15 with 1733 viewsAntti_Heinola

Of course, yet another rule to help the bigger clubs.
Laughable.

Bare bones.

2
Subs on 16:15 - Jul 15 with 1733 viewsextratimeR

I believe this change in law is to accommodate Manchester City if at any time they are in danger of losing a game.
1
Subs on 16:18 - Jul 15 with 1728 viewsEsox_Lucius

It's only a temporary amendment.

The grass is always greener.

0
Subs on 16:43 - Jul 15 with 1672 viewsNorthernr

EFL and Premier League still have to choose whether they want it.
Which they shouldn't.
Which means they probably will.
0
Subs on 17:14 - Jul 15 with 1616 viewsrsonist

Collateral effects that happen to be favourable to big clubs or detrimental to the flow of the game may be regrettable but are not the point. The only question relevant is whether it remains an appropriate amendment as regards player welfare. Probably it is over-cautious, but it is what it is. Isn't it?
0
Subs on 17:23 - Jul 15 with 1597 viewsKonk

Cool. Hopefully they’ll also introduce a rule whereby clubs playing in the Champions League get to field 14 players in PL matches and start each game 4-0 up at kick-off.

Fulham FC: It's the taking part that counts

0
Subs on 17:27 - Jul 15 with 1581 viewsNorthernr

Subs on 17:14 - Jul 15 by rsonist

Collateral effects that happen to be favourable to big clubs or detrimental to the flow of the game may be regrettable but are not the point. The only question relevant is whether it remains an appropriate amendment as regards player welfare. Probably it is over-cautious, but it is what it is. Isn't it?


This summer bit ok, but next season?
0
Subs on 17:39 - Jul 15 with 1556 viewsdaveB

they have to get rid of these water breaks, is like playing 4 quarters, absolutely ridiculous
6
Login to get fewer ads

Subs on 17:41 - Jul 15 with 1555 viewsrsonist

Subs on 17:27 - Jul 15 by Northernr

This summer bit ok, but next season?


Short pre season I would expect is the argument.

Look, I don't like it either but jumping to the conspiracies seems a bit much no.
0
Subs on 08:55 - Jul 16 with 1351 viewsrsonist

Subs on 17:39 - Jul 15 by daveB

they have to get rid of these water breaks, is like playing 4 quarters, absolutely ridiculous


Missed it at the time but Ornstein at the Athletic reported the other day these won't be back next season.
0
Subs on 09:32 - Jul 16 with 1317 viewsterryb

Subs on 16:43 - Jul 15 by Northernr

EFL and Premier League still have to choose whether they want it.
Which they shouldn't.
Which means they probably will.


I'm assuming that the EFL don't have to follow the Premier on this?

I can't believe that the majority of EFL clubs would be in favour (purely on economical grounds), but I would exopect the big clubs in the Premier to get their way.
0
Subs on 10:23 - Jul 16 with 1268 viewsdaveB

Subs on 09:32 - Jul 16 by terryb

I'm assuming that the EFL don't have to follow the Premier on this?

I can't believe that the majority of EFL clubs would be in favour (purely on economical grounds), but I would exopect the big clubs in the Premier to get their way.


No one has to do it, FIFA have just said that every league now has the option, makes it all feel a bit pre season with the drinks breaks and loads of subs
0
Subs on 10:56 - Jul 16 with 1231 viewsrobith

Hells bells, it's hard enough to not have Pep ruin your fantasy football week with 3, think of the havoc he'll wreak with 5 permanently
0
Subs on 11:17 - Jul 16 with 1210 viewsAntti_Heinola

Subs on 17:41 - Jul 15 by rsonist

Short pre season I would expect is the argument.

Look, I don't like it either but jumping to the conspiracies seems a bit much no.


Not a conspiracy, rsonist - it's a fact. It will help the bigger sides. They're unlikely to vote against something in their best interests, no?
The reasoning has some merit (although not a lot, in my opinion. If 6 players can play 90 mins, why not 8? And if you're worried about player welfare, rotate game to game more), but my point was it would be another rule, like the constantly increasing number of subs allowed on the bench, that hugely benefits the richest and biggest clubs.

Bare bones.

0
Subs on 11:24 - Jul 16 with 1196 viewsWatford_Ranger

Looking forward to a whole season of increasingly lengthy water breaks followed by no additional injury time.
1
Subs on 13:08 - Jul 16 with 1141 viewsrsonist

Subs on 11:17 - Jul 16 by Antti_Heinola

Not a conspiracy, rsonist - it's a fact. It will help the bigger sides. They're unlikely to vote against something in their best interests, no?
The reasoning has some merit (although not a lot, in my opinion. If 6 players can play 90 mins, why not 8? And if you're worried about player welfare, rotate game to game more), but my point was it would be another rule, like the constantly increasing number of subs allowed on the bench, that hugely benefits the richest and biggest clubs.


I haven't disputed that it favours a bigger squad. I said it was collateral. When your reaction is "Of course, yet another rule to help the bigger clubs. Laughable." that is a suggestion of a concerted, covertly intentional ulterior opportunism, which is not factual.
0
Subs on 13:14 - Jul 16 with 1129 viewsrsonist

In any case I don't see why the rule might not also allow game time for players that aren't well paid international calibre squad filler. Konk's grumbling but maybe if his lot had the additional leeway to give the likes of O'Riley minutes the lad wouldn't be toddling off to Germany right now. Maybe we'd have had Kakay playing sooner, or more scope for Smyth's impact subness. It doesn't have to be all bad.

Anyway I'm not advocating it stays or anything.
0
Subs on 16:39 - Jul 16 with 1076 viewsqpr_1968

Subs on 10:56 - Jul 16 by robith

Hells bells, it's hard enough to not have Pep ruin your fantasy football week with 3, think of the havoc he'll wreak with 5 permanently


your not wrong rob, had de bruyne triple captain yesterday.

Poll: how many games this season....home/away.

0
Subs on 20:44 - Jul 16 with 1014 viewsBAWHoops

AT lower levels will be madness to introduce this.
Having to fork out 2 more appearance fee bonus' every week seems a quick way to lose money

http://blogandwhitehoops.wordpress.com/

0
Subs on 21:32 - Jul 16 with 973 viewsactonman

I’m sure the Preston’s of the world won’t use the opportunity to disrupt and stop the game with even more time wasting by making strategic subs at key points in the game
0
Subs on 22:25 - Jul 16 with 939 viewsenfieldargh

Arry boy 'were a bit short on players so I've ad to put 4 keepers on the bench'

captains fantastic
Poll: QPR V BURNLEY WIN DRAW DEFEAT

0
Subs on 22:50 - Jul 16 with 909 viewsSharpy36

Subs on 17:39 - Jul 15 by daveB

they have to get rid of these water breaks, is like playing 4 quarters, absolutely ridiculous


On tuesday we had in the first half, a sub, a goal and a water break but only ended up with a minutes extra time ?

'You didn't know that was wrong, but now you do. If you do it again, I'll know you are doing it on purpose.'

0
Subs on 23:39 - Jul 16 with 883 viewsBoston

Subs on 16:18 - Jul 15 by Esox_Lucius

It's only a temporary amendment.


Oh, like a temporary new tax?

Poll: Thank God The Seaons Over.

0
Subs on 03:14 - Jul 17 with 837 viewstimcocking

A shame. Worse.
0
Subs on 06:22 - Jul 17 with 801 viewsVancouverHoop

Subs on 21:32 - Jul 16 by actonman

I’m sure the Preston’s of the world won’t use the opportunity to disrupt and stop the game with even more time wasting by making strategic subs at key points in the game


Good point. As things are they would slow the game down more. Maybe a rule that says subs can only be made at half time or during cooling breaks – should they continue – would prevent Prestonisation?
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024