blcknwhte_lj Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Apologies in advance I this has been discussed elsewhere (I couldn't be arsed trawling through all the 'we are all doomed.... doooooooomed!' threads). Last night, Jordan Stewart was stretchered off after what was reportedly a horror foul by Mullen of Livingston. The latter received a straight red card, but because we had used all our subs, we were also reduced to 10 men. Now, surely this cannot be reasonable. For me, if a straight red results in the wronged against team being reduced to ten men as a result of consequent injury, they should be permitted to make a further substitution. Thoughts (and I am not thinking specifically about whether this would have influenced the match last night)? I suggested this to a friend yesterday but his response was that it would be open to abuse. A player might fake bad injury in order to get fresh legs on the park? I'm sure some arshole like Mourinho would figure out a way to abuse the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambiebud Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I sympathise with what you're saying Drew, but it would unworkable. All that would happen is teams would get a defender to feign injury and bring on a striker in his place. Having 3 subs is reasonable and the circumstances from the other night are rare. Leave it as it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 You get 3 subs. If you use them all up then tough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marrez Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 We would have been screwed last night if we were allowed a 4th sub, as soon as McMullan came on the subs all buggered off up the tunnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 That is why we have officials. ETA - Oh, and is a straight red card foul on a player 'bad luck'? Really? Who is being silly now? Its bad luck for a team with no subs left and an injured player! I doubt Mullen thought about the number of subs we had left when he made the tackle! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank McGarvey' wonky legs Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Agree with Drew I would also like to see blood replacements like in rugby until the player is ready to come back on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I sympathise with what you're saying Drew, but it would unworkable. All that would happen is teams would get a defender to feign injury and bring on a striker in his place. Having 3 subs is reasonable and the circumstances from the other night are rare. Leave it as it is I can appreciate that concern, but I am only talking about straight red card scenarios (not 2nd yellow). In such instances, the referee is making his call based on the nature of the foul, not the outcome, as it were. In other words, if he is doing his job, a referee shouldn't be influenced in making his decision by a player rolling about in feigned agony, but by his interpretation of the foul itself. Like in any other aspect of the game, there is potential for the wrong call to be made, but the suggestion that it is simply bad luck for a team to be doubly disadvantaged in the context of a serious foul against one of their players doesn't wash with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Its bad luck for a team with no subs left and an injured player! Nonsense. It is bad luck if the player picks up an injury, not if he is subjected to a straight red card foul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Nonsense. It is bad luck if the player picks up an injury, not if he is subjected to a straight red card foul. So under your proposal Morton should have been allowed 4 substitutes against us when Conlan was sent off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) Shouldn't this be in the "Utter Nonsense" section? Like I said..................... Kidding apart, the reality is that this are so unworkable it would become a farce. PS "Oh no it wouldn't"......................"Oh yes it would" Edited August 27, 2015 by faraway saint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 what a ludicrously unworkable suggestion, perhaps the answer is to send off two people if a team are reduced to ten through injury How do you stop it being abused? A shite player gets crocked but can play on, he suddenly realises that the culprit is heading up the tunnel, so he makes out he has to leave the field in order to get fresh legs on. Don't say it won't happen. And they can send off up to 2 players before a 3rd ordering off will see a club forfeit a game, we will need to have an extra 2 subs added to the total on the bench to ensure a pool of different positions. And if the keeper is the injured party, after we have changed keepers, what then? We send off the opposition keeper to balance thigs up? Sometimes life just ain't fair, we can't change the rules every time we come off second best-unless you are Celtic. In any case, would an extra sub on Tuesday not just have been an extra player who stank the place out? This is not the reason we areout of a cup already Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) That is why we have officials. ETA - Oh, and is a straight red card foul on a player 'bad luck'? Really? Who is being silly now? Aye, like that works already Edited August 27, 2015 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Apologies in advance I this has been discussed elsewhere (I couldn't be arsed trawling through all the 'we are all doomed.... doooooooomed!' threads). Last night, Jordan Stewart was stretchered off after what was reportedly a horror foul by Mullen of Livingston. The latter received a straight red card, but because we had used all our subs, we were also reduced to 10 men. Now, surely this cannot be reasonable. For me, if a straight red results in the wronged against team being reduced to ten men as a result of consequent injury, they should be permitted to make a further substitution. Thoughts (and I am not thinking specifically about whether this would have influenced the match last night)? Yes agreed. This could and should be introduced ASAP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Yes agreed. This could and should be introduced ASAP. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ If further proof were needed this wouldn't work. To clarify my point, Oaky doesn't understand football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 We would have been screwed last night if we were allowed a 4th sub, as soon as McMullan came on the subs all buggered off up the tunnel. that should not have been allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Aye, like that works already Like what works? The officials making decisions, you mean? Might as well get rid then, eh? Free for all. That would work better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Like what works? The officials making decisions, you mean? Might as well get rid then, eh? Free for all. That would work better. No thats silly... What if a rule was brought in, if you fouled a player, who had to leave the game, and there were no substitutes left to bring on from the foulee's team.... Everyone in the foulers team with a beard could only head the ball for 15 minutes, or till the end of the game, which ever came first...? That would re address things in respect of fairness, and perhaps send out a message to the bearded players.... "No Feckin Hipsters Here!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Would this be confined to there just being an extra sub where a player gets an injury following a straight red card tackle? What about a yellow card tackle? What about a foul where no card is produced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Would this be confined to there just being an extra sub where a player gets an injury following a straight red card tackle? What about a yellow card tackle? What about a foul where no card is produced? I've already said, just a straight red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Would this be confined to there just being an extra sub where a player gets an injury following a straight red card tackle? What about a yellow card tackle? What about a foul where no card is produced? It depends if its just a moustache as opposed to a beard mate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 So under your proposal Morton should have been allowed 4 substitutes against us when Conlan was sent off? Did the fouled player have to be substituted because of the Red Card Foul? No. So no extra sub. Some folk are just trying to twist a simple idea, just for arguments sake. They KNOW what Drew originally meant. If they don't, they are just.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopCat Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 It's a noble cause but it's open to abuse and wouldn't work. It would mean that managers would tell their players ' If we have used all our subs and you get a tackle which you think could be a red, make sure you stay down and milk it incase I want to make another sub '. And rightly so, if a rule like that's there you'd expect your club to take full advantage of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Like what works? The officials making decisions, you mean? Might as well get rid then, eh? Free for all. That would work better. Didn't think i would have to spell it out Bt offiials DO occassionally get the wool pulled in a game-why introduce a potentially pivotal and game-changing rule that is shot full of holes. In rugby, it is very limited as the blood sub rule and that is only there because of the prevalence of bleeding and the risks associated with it. Even that has been royally abused, from time to time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 At the end of the day, I just put it out there for discussion, and thanks for (almost) all the contributions. If nothing else, it distracted a little from the numerous tear-stained threads we have had since Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Did the fouled player have to be substituted because of the Red Card Foul? No. So no extra sub. Some folk are just trying to twist a simple idea, just for arguments sake. They KNOW what Drew originally meant. If they don't, they are just.... What you really mean is that because you agree with Drew's point of view then no-one else is allowed to have an opinion and to disagree. Cue for your usual personal abuse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.