Comments on: Too Many Substitutions?

By: Bjarkovic

Bjarkovic — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:06:45 +0000

Hugo – I see your point, and I agree. But having an emergency sub would have to be something that would definately not be abused so it would be the managers choice whether to use the substitution or not. It’s just an idea, but I could definately envision certain Chelsea players feigning injury on Jose’s orders just to get a sub on.

By: Barrington Gilbert

Barrington Gilbert — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 00:11:12 +0000

Ahmed, I was going to write to you regarding the picture that is used in this. The child being called a whore and having a banana stuffed in her mouth? You know the one, don’t you. Apparently, you put it there.
Is it just me or is this sick. I have young daughters and I don’t know if you think it’s funny or erotic, either way, take it off. It is sick.

By: Chris Traverse

Chris Traverse — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:47:31 +0000

outside of friendlies, i have a different stance on substitutions. i think that goalkeepers should be outside the three subs you can make in a game. That way, you have an extra player on the bench to chose from, and its impossible to use this rule for any unruly gain. who will benefit from putting their sub keeper in goal after making 3 changes unless?

By: Hugo Steckelmacher

Hugo Steckelmacher — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:39:38 +0000

Bjarkovic – the injured player would have to be absent from the next one or two games? So what happens when someone gets something like, say, a twisted ankle, or a broken nose, both injuries that legitimately require players to come off for treatment, and yet at the same time should not keep players out for prolonged periods of time? It sounds like we’re punishing players for picking up niggling injuries!! Think about it – the player who commits the foul leading to these injuries may not even be booked, and yet the wronged party ends up with a suspension of sorts.

By: Bjarkovic

Bjarkovic — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:20:09 +0000

I think it’s a silly idea. Even if you had that rule, you’d still have a potential 4 substitution “rounds” (2 for each team). 3 isn’t that much. I’d much rather see a 3+1 rule where you could substitute an injured player even if you had used up your 3 substitutions. There could be limitations to it such as having to use one of the 3 players that had previously gone off (except for goalies) and to prevent abuse, the injured player would have to be absent from the next one or two games.

In the case of friendlies, yes, there are too many substitutions. But that’s for players to get runouts for the manager to assess them and get some match practice, even ease players back to full fitness. These aren’t the games that we’re worried abouts so I don’t really know why you are complaining about those subs, because as you rightly said football junkies are the ones that enjoy them and are probably the only ones that want to watch them.

By: olliey

olliey — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:11:21 +0000

you shouldnt have to use up 1 of your substitutions if your forced into it (injury)imo but then this could lead to people faking injuries and all that crap. Otherwise people like john oshea have to go in goal and make 1 on 1 saves from people like robbie keane!!!

By: LiamOKelly

LiamOKelly — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:23:37 +0000

That is a good idea just too bad it will never happen

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:22:50 +0000

Nic, the pic you put up wasn’t loading so I substituted it with this one

On to the article itself – I think it’s a fair idea, although if an injury happens to a player you don’t want to be forced to make a double substitution just because the rules say so … or do you?