Rule Changes

**poster** · 26/01/2011, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Nah Nah Nah Nah

Pretty sure it happened us in the Carlisle Grounds a couple of years ago as well

The last game of '07?

We had a crap team out for a reason that day

**Lim till i die** · 27/01/2011, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by shantykelly

I refer you to post 17

I just think it would be better to have the promotion and relegation sorted at this stage than to be messing around with widdle like the seven subs. I'm not strongly opposed to seven subs like.

**Sam_Heggy** · 27/01/2011, 8:01 AM

If only there was an Irish version

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by shantykelly

I refer you to post 17

Sure let's make it a million subs then, why not.

As LTID said, what's the point in adding the two subs? Are we just changing the rules for the fun of it?

And for Lep, yeah, Bray can stay with five subs and not extend their dugouts, but what about the away dugout?

It all seems a bit needless is all.

**holidaysong** · 27/01/2011, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

What's the point? You can only use three anyway.

With five subs most teams will have a decent goalkeeper, defender, midfielder, winger and striker on the bench to cover their bases regarding injuries and tactical changes. With 7 subs, teams can stick two youngsters on the bench in addition to this, while still covering their bases regarding injuries. Then if they're comfortably winning the game with 20 minutes left they can give them a run out to gain much needed experience. With only 5 subs, managers would be less likely to take a gamble in naming two or even one inexperienced youngsters on the bench. It gives managers a way to introduce A team and u-20 players into the first team without having to significantly limit the options on your bench.

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 11:10 AM

How many teams really have that big a squad - taking injuries into account - that they can fill the bench with experienced players? And if they're not going to put one youngster in the 16, they may fill the 18 out with a full-back and a different type of mid (attacking/defensive).

I see your point, and maybe it's just the UCD factor (not having any experienced players at all), but I'm fairly meh about it.

**John83** · 27/01/2011, 11:20 AM

I remember being much happier with the seven-man bench in Spain for tactical reasons in Football Manager.

In practical terms, I doubt it matters much. I'd guess most of the negative sentiment above is just normal conservatism.

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by John83

I'd guess most of the negative sentiment above is just normal conservatism.

I think LTID has it right. The FAI are making a bit of a deal about bigging up the bench and they won't tell us what we have to do to stay up this year. Just makes no sense.

**John83** · 27/01/2011, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I think LTID has it right. The FAI are making a bit of a deal about bigging up the bench and they won't tell us what we have to do to stay up this year. Just makes no sense.

A single sentence at the foot of an announcement on the league website mostly about a rule change involving taxation of players is "making a bit of a deal"? Give me a break.

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 11:50 AM

A bit of a deal, yeah. Are you saying a press release - which that article presumably was - isn't making a bit of a deal? Not a big deal, mind; just a bit of a deal. The negative sentiment - which should properly be termed apathy; like LTID, I'm not fussed about it; I just don't see the point really - isn't about conservatism as you say; it's about apathy with this while bigger issues need to be dealt with.

The tax issue is actually more interesting though. Presumably players have been reclaiming tax and then playing on in the past? It reads like a rule put in place to stop something currently happening from continuing.

**John83** · 27/01/2011, 11:54 AM

So something as insignificant as the number of substitutes should be announced how? In an unannounced display in the inaccessible, unlit cellar in Abbotstown, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'?

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 12:08 PM

Perchance by a letter to the clubs?

**John83** · 27/01/2011, 12:18 PM

I'd love to see the reaction here to people turning up for the first game of the season to find that the FAI'd changed the number of subs without bothering to tell the fans.

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 12:20 PM

Anyone who'd complain about that should be instantly banned.

(And I acknowledge that that'd mean a fair few bannings)

**stann** · 27/01/2011, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by The Lep

Originally Posted by peadar1987

Clubs are struggling enough as it is without having to shell out extra for dugouts that are 40% wider. Another stupid and short-sighted move from the FAI!

Not really, clubs wont have to name 7 subs if they dont want to.

You did see the

at the end of Peadar's post, didn't you?

Originally Posted by The Lep

You dont keep up do you...

Apparently not.

Look what you started now!

**poster** · 27/01/2011, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Perchance by a letter to the clubs?

I'm quite sure the clubs were contacted by letter/e-mail form.

**pineapple stu** · 27/01/2011, 12:55 PM

I'd bloody hope so! But my point is that's plenty.

**poster** · 27/01/2011, 1:06 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But my point is that's plenty.

Nice of them to keep the fans up to date too.

**Dodge** · 27/01/2011, 1:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

The FAI, dealing with the really important issues once again.

There's a fairly big issue there. It isn't the subs rubbish but the amateur players thing. Bohs were looking to sign at least 3 experienced heads on an amateur basis but won't be able to now.