A revolutionary rule for the new year. Your thoughts please

[stockyfox]

I was not impressed to see Jeff Schlupp sent on to the field of play at Doncaster with only two or three minutes remaining. What was the point? What did Nigel Pearson expect? What was the reaction of the fans? Have you given any thought to what the player's private thoughts might be?

Basically, to my mind, when it is so late in the game, it is a little more than a time wasting move and indeed, in those last few moments, how many times do we see players, especially goalies, booked for 'time-wasting'?

Such a late substtution is more of a disruptive influence on the game and as in Schlupp's entrance at Donny, smacks more of desperation than anything positive.

Therefore, all things considered, if a new rule was introduced forbidding the introduction of any further substitutes after say 80 minutes of play unless in the case of serious injury and adjudged to be so by the referee, would you as a fan, welcome this, reject it out of hand or give it a trial run for a season?

[Trav Le Bleu]

I see your point and agree to an extent, but who judges what a serious injury is and whether a player is faking it? Also, as Brian Clough said, "it only takes a second to score a goal." (I just searched Wikiquote to reassure myself this was a Cloughie quote (I'm 99.9% certain) and can you beleive there are NO Clough quotes? )

Maybe no subs in injury time?

[liamsm]

I was not impressed to see Jeff Schlupp sent on to the field of play at Doncaster with only two or three minutes remaining. What was the point? What did Nigel Pearson expect? What was the reaction of the fans? Have you given any thought to what the player's private thoughts might be?

Basically, to my mind, when it is so late in the game, it is a little more than a time wasting move and indeed, in those last few moments, how many times do we see players, especially goalies, booked for 'time-wasting'?

Such a late substtution is more of a disruptive influence on the game and as in Schlupp's entrance at Donny, smacks more of desperation than anything positive.

Therefore, all things considered, if a new rule was introduced forbidding the introduction of any further substitutes after say 80 minutes of play unless in the case of serious injury and adjudged to be so by the referee, would you as a fan, welcome this, reject it out of hand or give it a trial run for a season?

We don't seem to get Ref's that can referee properly now you wanting them to train as doctors so they can assess a players injury

[Captain...]

It would just lead to players faking serious injuries, wasting even more time and accusations of faking. I assume you are talking about the Ipswich game not Donny where NP didn't even bother to put Schlupp on the bench, also what constitutes a serious injury, player cramping up is not serious, but I would rather make a sub than have a player with cramp struggling on for 10 minutes.

The fact is that all substitions have an automatic 30 seconds added on to injury time (well at least they did a few years ago) so any time wasting effect is negated.

I would like to see this rule in place if only to make NP give subs more time to make an impact, it really was a wasted opportunity to get some fresh legs on the pitch and run at Ipswich, after we scored we had momentum and could have won the game if we were a little more positive.

[StanSP]

Cue players feigning a serious injury.

As much as I want to get rid of time-wasting too cos it really gets on my nerves (including when Leicester do it), this just won't work. I don't think you can just ban subs. A yellow-card for time-wasting is enough.

[The Padster]

I'd agree wholeheartedly if this was implemented. I was watching Liverpool with a 'pool mate of mine and ,not for the first time, Benitez made one sub in something like the 88-89th min and then another around 92-93 mins, I was sitting there saying that it was such a cowardly (the other team were definately outplaying Liverpool at this point and pushing for a goal) and timewasting move, the latter more appropriate for this topic. Although your suggestion of after 80 mins does allow for people to time waste more as pointed out so I would only do it for after at the earliest the 85th min and potentially more towards the 87-88th.

[Captain...]

What I would like to see is yellow cards resulting in sin bin for 5 minutes, as it is nobody is going to give a shit about being booked for timewasting, because it wastes more time getting booked, this would be my one rule change, it would make football more interesting, encourage teams to attack and stop people committing cynical fouls where you take someone out on the halfway line to stop a break.

Referees would have to be a bit more lenient with yellow cards, but as it is a yellow means fvck all, just be more careful for the rest of the game.

That and change the hand ball rule, but I will save that one for another post.

[Spiritwalker]

I totally agree with your point however it would be impossible to regulate. The only way to impliment this would be to automaticly add on 5mins

for every substitute made by a losing team after 80 mins.

Another rule I would like to be introduced is, a free kick given for obstruction when a player runs to the corner just to shield the ball. This

pisses me off more than anything else in football.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Cue players feigning a serious injury.

As much as I want to get rid of time-wasting too cos it really gets on my nerves (including when Leicester do it), this just won't work. I don't think you can just ban subs. A yellow-card for time-wasting is enough.

This

[Jordan]

Referees should just do a better job of extending stoppage time when there's a late substitution.

If the ref is going to give at least 4 minutes of stoppage time, but two late substitutions eat up a minute, then don't blow the full-time whistle before the clock strikes 95:00.

[Captain...]

I totally agree with your point however it would be impossible to regulate. The only way to impliment this would be to automaticly add on 5mins

for every substitute made by a losing team after 80 mins.

Another rule I would like to be introduced is, a free kick given for obstruction when a player runs to the corner just to shield the ball. This

pisses me off more than anything else in football.

I assume you meant the winning team, why would the losing team want to waste time?

Agree with you about players shielding the ball in the corner, mainly because we are crap at it, I remember us trying to do it a few years back and being so bad at it we got robbed of the ball and they went up the other end and scored. It is all aspects of it whether it is the keeper waiting 10 seconds to pick up the ball or just passing the ball around at the back with no intent to score more goals, I think rugby and cricket have the right idea offer teams bonus points for winning by 5 goals, or a losing bonus for only losing by one, I was sick of seeing us do it under Sven, score one then shut up shop and it is even worse to have it done to us at Ipswich.

Timewasting in all it's guises should be punished because it is the paying fans who have to sit through it,

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Referees should just do a better job of extending stoppage time when there's a late substitution.

If the ref is going to give at least 4 minutes of stoppage time, but two late substitutions eat up a minute, then don't blow the full-time whistle before the clock strikes 95:00.

This makes sense

[Spiritwalker]

Yes I did mean winning team.

[red5]

I didn't see schlupp come on against doncaster, it was beckford

[funkyrobot]

I'd reject it out of hand. Silly idea. What's wrong with tactical last minute subs? If you don't like it, watch a sport without subs, like snooker or table tennis.

[stockyfox]

May I first thank those of you who have taken the trouble to post to this thread - so far. Please continue to do so if you have a point.

I think we are all agreed that we as fans don't want to see time-wasting tactics employed by any team but forbidding substitutions at some point would be difficult to regulate.

However, almost as a throwaway, I reckon that Trav Le Bleu's thought - 'No subs in added time' is worth pursuing. Added time is 'compensation' time making up for stoppages during the official 90 mins.

Coupled with that, I fully agree with Captain Shrapnel's point that a yellow card should result in say 5 mins in the sin-bin. So if a player is deemed to be time-wasting in the 88th minute, he is sent off. I think that would have a salutary effect on players and tactics.

Finally, red5! Yes you are correct. It was Becks at Donny and Schlupp against the tractor boys!

[Guest MattP]

Ridiculous idea.

A game last 90 minutes and a manager can use three substitutes over that period, what's the problem?

It's laughable to think a side could go 1-0 up at Old Trafford in the 81st minute then not to able to shore up the midfield or defence.

[stockyfox]

I respect your point of view MattP but as you say 'A game lasts 90 mins and a manager can use 3 subs over the whole of that period'. So when he brings on two subs in the 3rd and 4th min of added time, I see that as a negative move, not in the spirit of the game, an insult to the player, and designed purely to disrupt proceedings that spoils the game as a spectacle for both the fan who is hoping against hope that the other team wo'nt score and the fan of the other team who is urging their team to equalise or get the winning goal.

That is 'the problem'.! Respecting the fan who has paid a small fortune to be entertained, excited, thrilled, on the edge of their seats till the final whistle.

And I remember all those seasons when there was no such things as subs!!!

[Guesty]

Wouldn't work and as annoying as it can be it's just part of the game. Sounds like something they'd do in the MLS.

I could understand something after the 90th min. But you'd still just have players fake an injury which would then take even longer to deal with.

[Kenners]

As others have said, I agree with the sentiment, but its now a part of the game unfortunately.

I totally agree with your point however it would be impossible to regulate. The only way to impliment this would be to automaticly add on 5mins

for every substitute made by a losing team after 80 mins.

Another rule I would like to be introduced is, a free kick given for obstruction when a player runs to the corner just to shield the ball. This

pisses me off more than anything else in football.

It is not an offence to shield the ball if it is in playing distance. You cannot have special cases for every law of the game. People are moaning at referees as it is, giving them more things to deal with is the last thing we should do.

[yorkie1999]

I've got a better idea. Go down to the kp tomorrow have a couple of pints and a laugh, and whatever happens don't take it personally and enjoy the fact that your not at work.

[Donut]

Its not really a rule, but i would certainly like to see, in the case of a player going down injured and a member of his OWN team putting the ball out of play a scenario where the other team picking up the throw in wasnt obliged to give the ball back.

I think this just leads to the feigning of injuries that arent serious at all and ive long had my ideas that this is a pressure relieving mechanism at times (from set pieces, to gain team mates a breather etc).

it just makes me immensely frustrated when the game loses momentum in these instances.

Id also much rather have 7 subs back on the bench.

[stockyfox]

I've got a better idea. Go down to the kp tomorrow have a couple of pints and a laugh, and whatever happens don't take it personally and enjoy the fact that your not at work.

I did say in my thread 'The Pantomime Season Approaches....' (17th Dec) after the farce at Donny, Well you just had to laugh because if you didn't , you would cry'. There was a time I used to be really upset and moodywhen we lost. My dad used to say 'It knocks your duck off!' Nowadays, I'm more used to it, that is disappointing results and performances. I suppose its called 'Conditioning'!

[Alexikokopops]

I refer you all to my post in this thread

Stop the clock when there's a stoppage in play. Let's actually play 90 minutes rather than adding a spurious amount of time on at the end. Why bother with ridiculous rules that will just complicate things further when there's a perfectly simple solution?

Bam, problem solved. NEXT

This

It also solves other problems, like teams trying to do time wasting substitutions near the end, players wasting time by arguing with the ref. Also we wouldn't have to worry about players wasting time with goal celebrations so everyone could have a whale of a time.

I'm literally a genious.

[stockyfox]

Alex

Whilst I think that 'Stopping the Clock' is a perfectly valid suggestion, I have to ask 'Which clock would be stopped?' - the ref's watch? the 4th official's? an official clock displayed on the ground?

It works fine in Rugby Union but there again, the rule makers in Rugby are light years ahead in their thinking compared with their dozy equivalents at the FA and I have serious doubts that such a step could be standardised across all 92 league clubs.

Rugby has sin-bins for yellow cards, video refs and replays, and after 80 mins, the game finishes the next time the ball goes out of play. Injuries are attended on the field of play while the game goes on. No having to leave the field nonsense, no time wasting tactics and the crowd know precisely where they are at!