Baneofthegame
Full Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2019
- Messages
- 3,012
GG to the smaller clubs.
Half time subs are already "free" in the 5 subs rules. You can make 5 subs and can do them across 3 "in-play stoppages". So you can make 2 at HT and then three individual subs in the second half if you want.If we're that keen on doing 5 subs, maybe we could even organise it so that 3 subs can be made at any point in the game, but the other subs have to be made at half-time. E.g. 2 at half time and 3 in the second half.
Ah, cheers. Not sure if I knew that already or not. It's unusual how many teams often don't alter their teams at half team.Half time subs are already "free" in the 5 subs rules. You can make 5 subs and can do them across 3 "in-play stoppages". So you can make 2 at HT and then three individual subs in the second half if you want.
Good thread for you hereThere should be a clock stop for substitutions onwards. 10 substitutions in a game can lead to 20 minutes being lost
The clock stop has logic to avoid time wasting if the 5 subs per team are allowed. That thread has no logic whatsoeverGood thread for you here
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/moving-the-goals-in-football.456260/
The clock stop has logic to avoid time wasting if the 5 subs per team are allowed. That thread has no logic whatsoever
Explain how I'm crying about it? I'm criticising it and calling it stupid, is that enough for me to be crying about it?But everyone knows what the restriction is, stupid or not. You can choose (99% of time) to never leave yourself vulnerable to it, the same as you can choose to never make your third sub in regular rules but that's not optimal and that means sometimes you'll get unlucky but it is no different than crying about being forced down to 10 men in regular 3 sub rules when a player gets injured and you've made all your subs, you can't being a player on, it's outside the rules.
Shit rule, heavily favors rich clubs.
Couple more along these lines, but this.GG to the smaller clubs.
Could you link that article please?What do we think of this: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...oes-not-benefit-the-big-clubs-and-here-is-why
According to the times, Chelsea are very keen on 5 subs next season. For Chelsea to get their wish, 70% of Premier League clubs have to agree to keep the 5 subs rule next season.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...five-substitutions-rule-next-season-hnt6vlwxjCould you link that article please?
Interesting, cheers. I know Lampard has had a moan about the teams still in Europe not getting a delayed start.
If we are 3-0 up at 60 mins, we can bring the kids or James/Lingard to see the game out. Don’t see why we need to bring good players on then.So more reason to get both Grealish and Sancho in next season. Imagine going 3 nil up at 60 mins and have options of Pogba, Bruno, Sancho, Rashford, Martial, Greenwood to rotate in front 4.
Decent theory which does makes sense.What do we think of this: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...oes-not-benefit-the-big-clubs-and-here-is-why
According to the times, Chelsea are very keen on 5 subs next season. For Chelsea to get their wish, 70% of Premier League clubs have to agree to keep the 5 subs rule next season.
Quite happy with this at Brighton, Potter would like 11 if he could get away with it!All the more reason to get better squad depth. This will probably be beneficial to CIty the most.
Smaller clubs would hate this, makes it harder to compete.