6 Subs

[GrahamC]

Can someone explain why Cardiff were allowed to make 6 subs?

I know the first one was a concussion substitution but is it really now the rule that they can still make 5 more as a result?

They did so using 4 breaks as well, which when we copied them by making 4 in 4 separate substitutions really did break the game up.

[steviestevieneville]

Concussion sub first one 

[Meh]

kinda answering yourself there

[Alex_BCFC]

The rule changes on subs are ridiculous. Why just make it you can change the whole team as it’s getting that way these days…

[Fuber]

13 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Can someone explain why Cardiff were allowed to make 6 subs?

I know the first one was a concussion substitution but is it really now the rule that they can still make 5 more as a result?

They did so using 4 breaks as well, which when we copied them by making 4 in 4 separate substitutions really did break the game up.

Concussion subs have carried over from last season.

Base subs moved from three to five.

1st is concussion sub, further five allowed.

They made the further 5 subs in 3 breaks hence allowed.

[pongo88]

Even with 6 subs Cardiff always looked second best to City 

[View from the Dolman]

If it didn't allow you to make a substitution outside of your normal allocation, what would make it any different to a normal substitution?

[ralphindevon]

5 subs can be made in 3 blocks plus a concussion sub at any time…….I think

[cider hoss rules]

Am I right in also assuming that as they made 6 subs, one for the concussion, we are also entitled to?

Or was that just last year that was in effect?

[Northern Red]

1 minute ago, cider hoss rules said:

Am I right in also assuming that as they made 6 subs, one for the concussion, we are also entitled to?

Or was that just last year that was in effect?

Correct. And our 4 subs were made in 4 blocks so effectively one of them was the equivalent of their concussion sub.

[And Its Smith]

Hopefully nobody has any issue with extra allowance for concussion injuries!

[Lrrr]

It is the right thing, with Cardiff if the keeper had to go off as well as Bagan then Cardiff would only have have had 1 sub time left. Unless you said a concussion sub counted as one of your 5 but you didn’t lose one of your 3 opportunities to make a sub. 

[bearded_red]

The big question surely has to be how you can use six subs and yet leave Callum O’Dowda on the pitch for 90 minutes.

[Lanterne Rouge]

5 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

It is the right thing, with Cardiff if the keeper had to go off as well as Bagan then Cardiff would only have have had 1 sub time left. Unless you said a concussion sub counted as one of your 5 but you didn’t lose one of your 3 opportunities to make a sub. 

I wonder what would have happened if the keeper had had to go off with concussion (it did look like a head injury of some sort) - would another concussion sub in addition to the five + 1 already allowed?

It`s bound to happen in a game sometime.

[View from the Dolman]

9 minutes ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I wonder what would have happened if the keeper had had to go off with concussion (it did look like a head injury of some sort) - would another concussion sub in addition to the five + 1 already allowed?

It`s bound to happen in a game sometime.

Yes, two concussion substitutes are available. 

[TBW]

I thought the concussion sub only came into play AFTER you've used all your existing subs... seems stupid for them to be able to change more than half of their team during a game. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

2 minutes ago, TBW said:

I thought the concussion sub only came into play AFTER you've used all your existing subs... seems stupid for them to be able to change more than half of their team during a game. 

I think it`s more about preventing a player from playing on when he shouldn`t and doing himself more damage.

[GrahamC]

50 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Hopefully nobody has any issue with extra allowance for concussion injuries!

None at all.

It just seemed odd that as it was their first sub they were still allowed to make 5 more, but as has been explained to me, them’s the rules.

[italian dave]

I could have sworn we made 4 subs, all at different times. Thought it was meant to be limited to three occasions when you can make changes. 

[Chivs]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Hopefully nobody has any issue with extra allowance for concussion injuries!

I do.  Obviously, concussion, or worse, could be fatal and needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.  However, I can't see the difference with respect to substitutions with, for example, someone breaking their leg.

Why doesn't that justify an additional substitution?

[View from the Dolman]

2 minutes ago, Chivs said:

I do.  Obviously, concussion, or worse, could be fatal and needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.  However, I can't see the difference with respect to substitutions with, for example, someone breaking their leg.

Why doesn't that justify an additional substitution?

Part of the IFAB reasoning is the extra substitution being permitted encourages you to take off the player if there's a doubt about a potential concussion. 

You're most likely coming off with a broken leg - apparently it happened once to Dave Whelan in a cup final but not heard much about that one.

[And Its Smith]

4 minutes ago, Chivs said:

I do.  Obviously, concussion, or worse, could be fatal and needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.  However, I can't see the difference with respect to substitutions with, for example, someone breaking their leg.

Why doesn't that justify an additional substitution?

A player cannot carry on with a broken leg.  The temptation in the past with concussions is for either the player or coach to say ‘I’m fine’ partly so they don’t waste a sub.  This takes that temptation away.  Concussion subs are now in play for rugby and cricket for that very reason. It is critically important that football does the same and it’s good to see it happening. 

[The Journalist]

1 minute ago, Chivs said:

I do.  Obviously, concussion, or worse, could be fatal and needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.  However, I can't see the difference with respect to substitutions with, for example, someone breaking their leg.

Why doesn't that justify an additional substitution?

I think the difference is fairly obvious - a player could be encouraged (or want) to play on despite showing signs of concussion, thus doing themselves serious damage without knowing it, when this is a bit more difficult if you’ve broken your leg!

I guess where it really comes into play is when a team has used up all their allotted subs at the time the player suffers that head injury. By allowing the extra sub it takes away some of that temptation to try to continue in order to avoid going down to 10 men.

And, going back to Graham’s point, there’s a good argument this is the ONLY time the rule should come into play, rather than when the team can still call upon their allotted five.

[Chivs]

3 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Part of the IFAB reasoning is the extra substitution being permitted encourages you to take off the player if there's a doubt about a potential concussion. 

You're most likely coming off with a broken leg - apparently it happened once to Dave Whelan in a cup final but not heard much about that one.

No idea who/what IFAB is.  Why haven't managers said to players late in the game "Run into their big lump and fall over. When you get up, claim you are seeing double and love the little tweetie pies flying around"?

[Sleepy1968]

There are a few OTIBers who remember when there were no subs. A lot of us will remember when there was just one allowed.

Nowaday's football is a squad game and more subs benefit the bigger teams who have more strength in depth. I'm not necessarily a fan, but it's happened, and I don't have a massive problem with it, except it's difficult to keep track of what's gone on. It would be useful if they kept track of the totals on the scoreboard somehow. On second thoughts, maybe that would just confuse more ...

[steviestevieneville]

2 hours ago, Alex_BCFC said:

The rule changes on subs are ridiculous. Why just make it you can change the whole team as it’s getting that way these days…

I would of agreed with you in previous seasons . However , if there’s a league that will benefit then it’s the championship. We all know how intense it is , so if you can rest more players then it hopefully cuts down on injuries . Need a squad with little drop off in quality though 

[Chivs]

4 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

I think the difference is fairly obvious - a player could be encouraged (or want) to play on despite showing signs of concussion, thus doing themselves serious damage without knowing it, when this is a bit more difficult if you’ve broken your leg!

I guess where it really comes into play is when a team has used up all their allotted subs at the time the player suffers that head injury. By allowing the extra sub it takes away some of that temptation to try to continue in order to avoid going down to 10 men.

And, going back to Graham’s point, there’s a good argument this is the ONLY time the rule should come into play, rather than when the team can still call upon their allotted five.

Yeah, I think this is my point. I can understand* if you get a concussion injury after your 5 subs then you get another sub.

If it happens with subs still available, then it's just another substitution?

 

*Actually, I don't agree with this as the trainer should be getting you off if you are concussed but I see why some would agree.

[View from the Dolman]

4 minutes ago, Chivs said:

No idea who/what IFAB is.  Why haven't managers said to players late in the game "Run into their big lump and fall over. When you get up, claim you are seeing double and love the little tweetie pies flying around"?

IFAB is the International Football Association Board (composed of members representing The FA, the Scottish FA, the FA of Wales, the Northern Irish FA and FIFA - it's the body that determines the laws of the game.

[And Its Smith]

8 minutes ago, Chivs said:

No idea who/what IFAB is.  Why haven't managers said to players late in the game "Run into their big lump and fall over. When you get up, claim you are seeing double and love the little tweetie pies flying around"?

Concussion is very serious and can lead to Alzheimer’s. To trivialise it by faking it would be pretty disgusting in my view. Appreciate you might not agree 

[BCFC101]

26 minutes ago, Chivs said:

No idea who/what IFAB is.  Why haven't managers said to players late in the game "Run into their big lump and fall over. When you get up, claim you are seeing double and love the little tweetie pies flying around"?

I believe there might also be some rules around players that have come off as a result of concussion being mandated to miss the next game. Not sure what the rule is exactly but that would deter anything like that