Home & Garden0 min ago
Subs
15 Answers
Italy suffered, unusually, in making three substitutions and then having a man injured and unable to continue. Is it time for a rule permitting a 4th substitute when there is an injury, certified by a doctor , which prevents the last player continuing? The doctor's approval would prevent a 4th substiturion for tactical reasons.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
They should use a system similar to what is currently used in rugby league and name 16 players at the start; during the game each manager can make 10 interchanges (rather than substitutions), effectively 10 swaps between the 11 players on the field and the 5 on the bench. That way if a player gets injured or tired they can be taken off (and replaced by one of those on the bench) but can come back on later in the game if they recover. A player who receives a red card cannot take part in the rest of the game but it would still be 11 a side. It works very straightforwardly and successfully in RL.
Point 1:
Some of are old enough to remember the days before substitutions were allowed. If a team had two players taken off the pitch through injury in the first ten minutes of the game they then had to play the rest of the match with 9 players.
Substitutions were brought in SOLELY to allow for injured players to be replaced. However, rather than imposing an [impractical] test upon the level of injury, team managers were allowed to bring on substitutes for any reason whatsoever (up to the maximum number allowed which, in most competitions, was usually two).
So (based upon the original reason for allowing substitutions) managers are already allowed to replace three INJURED players; if they choose to replace players who've not suffered actually injuries they have no right to complain when they later run out of substitutes.
Point 2:
Many people genuinely suffer from back injuries which cause them excruciating pain but which doctors can't find any physical cause for (or which take many months of tests to diagnose). Equally, many people 'throw a sickie' at work by claiming (non-existent) back pain. How could a doctor possibly tell, within only a minute or so, whether a player's 'back strain' was genuine or not?
Similarly, when refereeing local league football matches, I've had several situations where (following a clash of heads) a player has required medical attention because he hadn't got a clue where he was. (i.e. severe concussion). It wouldn't be hard to fake such a condition.
Most GPs would be happy with a 50% success rate on correctly diagnosing a medical condition upon a first consultation. (The statistics show that the success rate is actually considerably lower than that, unless you accept "it's probably a virus" as a diagnosis!). Doctors have a hard enough job in diagnosing a problem when the patient is almost certainly being truthful; it would inevitably be much harder if there was a possibility of deception.
Some of are old enough to remember the days before substitutions were allowed. If a team had two players taken off the pitch through injury in the first ten minutes of the game they then had to play the rest of the match with 9 players.
Substitutions were brought in SOLELY to allow for injured players to be replaced. However, rather than imposing an [impractical] test upon the level of injury, team managers were allowed to bring on substitutes for any reason whatsoever (up to the maximum number allowed which, in most competitions, was usually two).
So (based upon the original reason for allowing substitutions) managers are already allowed to replace three INJURED players; if they choose to replace players who've not suffered actually injuries they have no right to complain when they later run out of substitutes.
Point 2:
Many people genuinely suffer from back injuries which cause them excruciating pain but which doctors can't find any physical cause for (or which take many months of tests to diagnose). Equally, many people 'throw a sickie' at work by claiming (non-existent) back pain. How could a doctor possibly tell, within only a minute or so, whether a player's 'back strain' was genuine or not?
Similarly, when refereeing local league football matches, I've had several situations where (following a clash of heads) a player has required medical attention because he hadn't got a clue where he was. (i.e. severe concussion). It wouldn't be hard to fake such a condition.
Most GPs would be happy with a 50% success rate on correctly diagnosing a medical condition upon a first consultation. (The statistics show that the success rate is actually considerably lower than that, unless you accept "it's probably a virus" as a diagnosis!). Doctors have a hard enough job in diagnosing a problem when the patient is almost certainly being truthful; it would inevitably be much harder if there was a possibility of deception.
I went to see Fulham v Swansea last season.
Swansea played very well and were 3-0 up with minutes to go, but had not used any substitutes.
The announcer said there were 3 minutes of added time.
The Swansea manager then decided to put on all 3 substitutes at the same time (remember this is in ADDED time). Three Swansea players stood at the side of the pitch.
This took a while to "sort out". No sooner had all three substitutes come on than the whistle went.
It is about time this "abuse" of substitutes was stopped.
I think there should be NO substitutions after 85 minutes, for ANY reason (even genuine injury).
Swansea played very well and were 3-0 up with minutes to go, but had not used any substitutes.
The announcer said there were 3 minutes of added time.
The Swansea manager then decided to put on all 3 substitutes at the same time (remember this is in ADDED time). Three Swansea players stood at the side of the pitch.
This took a while to "sort out". No sooner had all three substitutes come on than the whistle went.
It is about time this "abuse" of substitutes was stopped.
I think there should be NO substitutions after 85 minutes, for ANY reason (even genuine injury).
As regards the Swansea story the ref can do whatever he likes. What he should have done is book the three subs for time wasting and add another three minutes.
As regards the doctor, he would always err on the side of the player to avoid getting sued if he is wrong
Re the outfield player going in goal, this is where the goalie is sent off and not allowed a substitute. Sometimes the sub goalie comes on and an outfield player taken off.
I like the RL system but it will never be adopted in football.
As regards the doctor, he would always err on the side of the player to avoid getting sued if he is wrong
Re the outfield player going in goal, this is where the goalie is sent off and not allowed a substitute. Sometimes the sub goalie comes on and an outfield player taken off.
I like the RL system but it will never be adopted in football.
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News7 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
Technology11 mins ago
