More subs rewards teams with depth, wastes time, deemphasizes staminaOctober 17 2010 at 12:07 PM
Response to Simple Question
"Who benefits from limiting substitutions?"
!) each time a substitution occurs the whole play is stopped by the on-field official in which the on-field official has to take the name and number down on the book and check whether the player is actually registered and belong to the lineup list that coaches submitted before the game as well as not being a player that played already in the game. So since the play of the game can be potentially stopped six times (three for each team), anything more than six times and the game flow is too disrupted for players, on-field official and spectators. This is particularly true when stoppage (injury) time does not exist.
2) More subs also rewards teams who use a high work-rate to compensate for a lack of ability, by allowing them to bring on extra fresh players who can keep running at 100% when other players tire. With multiple subs it's easier for hard-working, but limited, teams to negate the skillful players by closing them down and stopping them from playing. Endurance and fitness become less important. That does not make for good football.
3 good players are disproportionately affected: without limits, a team can play excessively rough against an opponent's star player(s). Once a player is warned, the team can simply sub in another player to continue the rough play and so on.
Three subs is adequate for any regulation game; however if the game goes into overtime, an additional 1 sub should be allowed.
On the other hand, lots of subs does one thing having to do with a players longevity - that players careers would be longer...I can see it now: Beckham running out to the field for every free kick when he is 42!!!! Hey it doesn't stop Roger Clemens from pitching 5 mediocre innings so why should it stop soccer players
- Re: More subs rewards teams with depth, wastes time, deemphasizes stamina - Anonymous on Oct 18, 9:31 AM