Substitution question...

SideWinder · 19 Dec 2007 at 21:45

Why do football teams bring on players for the last 3 or so minutes? What is the point? It really annoys me.

Random example -

2141: That's Andriy Shevchenko's last action of the match and he is replaced by Steve Sidwell as Chelsea run down the clock.

2139: GOAL Chelsea 2-0 Liverpool
Wayne Bridge seems to have taken far too long to get his cross in but he eventually gets the ball across and Michael Ballack's header reaches Andriy Shevchenko and he squeezes the ball home, beating Charles Itandje at his near post.

2136: Three minutes to go at Stamford Bridge. Meanwhile, Getafe beat Anderlecht 2-1 in the Uefa Cup meaning Spurs finish second in Group G and will play one of the teams who came third in the Champions League group stage.

wedgie · 19 Dec 2007 at 21:45

Wastes time.

Styles · 19 Dec 2007 at 21:46

That question is actually answered in the text for 21:41 in your post.

wedgie · 19 Dec 2007 at 21:47

Indeed, ever noticed how it's more often than not the team that is winning that does it?

Raymond Lin · 19 Dec 2007 at 21:48

wedgie said:
Wastes time.

and some times if its a player from outside the EU it counts as a game, as the need to play 75% of games in order to renew their work permit. And also need to play certain number of games to qualify for a league winner's medal.

Ciba · 19 Dec 2007 at 22:13

In theory it shouldn't waste time as a subsitition is worth 30seconds of added time. So bringing a sub on during injury time just increases it.

HangTime · 19 Dec 2007 at 22:16

The problem is of course, that the 'theory' is BS

Ever noticed how even in games with injuries and say 5 subs in the second half, often you only get around 2-3mins added time? If it was done properly, the majority of games would like have 4-5mins extra time at the bare minimum (typically 2.5-3mins being taken from subs even before other stoppages, injuries and time wasting is taken into account).

BaZ87 · 19 Dec 2007 at 22:18

IINM as a rough guide its 30secs added on for every sub, card and goal but like you say it never works out that way.

cheets64 · 19 Dec 2007 at 22:43

And the ball is in player for 45-50mins average.

kaiowas · 20 Dec 2007 at 08:18

I remember when sky first started televising games and showing all their various stats. At that time the ball was usually in play for somewhere around 60 minutes. Always struck me then that the best way to stamp out timewasting and arguments over how much stoppage time to play would be to just play for 60 minutes and have a timekeeper who stopped the clock whenever the ball leaves play.

Anksy · 20 Dec 2007 at 08:26

Ciba said:
So bringing a sub on during injury time just increases it.

dosnt increase it anymore, it used to (YEARS ago) , not anymore thats why its tactical now

wonder if the player who comes on in extra time feels embarrassed LoL! i would, id probably be having a little sulk to myself

Tute · 20 Dec 2007 at 11:31

kaiowas said:
I remember when sky first started televising games and showing all their various stats. At that time the ball was usually in play for somewhere around 60 minutes. Always struck me then that the best way to stamp out timewasting and arguments over how much stoppage time to play would be to just play for 60 minutes and have a timekeeper who stopped the clock whenever the ball leaves play.

Isn't that how rugby works?

nikebee · 20 Dec 2007 at 11:35

Tute said:
Isn't that how rugby works?

Indeed it is.

AmateurJimmy said:
dosnt increase it anymore, it used to (YEARS ago) , not anymore thats why its tactical now

It is supposed to though, but most officials don't bother adding it on.

decmatt · 20 Dec 2007 at 16:09

Laws of the game state the referee is the sole time keeper, the board being held up is just a guide, if the referee chooses to accept that or not is a diffferent matter.

Gilly · 20 Dec 2007 at 16:21

AmateurJimmy said:
dosnt increase it anymore, it used to (YEARS ago) , not anymore thats why its tactical now

It does, it is an additional 30 seconds for each sub. Brought in in recent seasons.

Ciba · 20 Dec 2007 at 16:27

Solac said:
Laws of the game state the referee is the sole time keeper, the board being held up is just a guide, if the referee chooses to accept that or not is a diffferent matter.

The board indicates the MINIMUM amount of time to be added on indicated to the 4th official by the referee.

nikebee · 20 Dec 2007 at 16:51

Solac said:
Laws of the game state the referee is the sole time keeper, the board being held up is just a guide, if the referee chooses to accept that or not is a diffferent matter.

Indeed, Ciba who posted just above me is right. The board is what the referee has indicated to the fourth official as the minimum amount of stoppage time to be played.

The referee tells the fourth official that 4 minutes minimum will be played, then the board will go up showing 4 minutes. The referee may play another 30 seconds or another minute depending on what happens in stoppage time.

Anksy · 20 Dec 2007 at 20:20

Santa said:
It does, it is an additional 30 seconds for each sub. Brought in in recent seasons.

not with all the games ive watched every week ! :confused:

check yourself with the weekend games, theres bound to be some teams that will make stoppage time subs, the ref wont add more time on trust me.

only time when ive seen time being added on is if the players take ages to walk off the field and the ref will signal...
also when the keepers time waste
also if the ball is kicked away
or a obvious obstruction to play (use your imagination

)
or in only some cases a player is unjured

BaZ87 · 20 Dec 2007 at 20:24

They're supposed to but its usually not the case.

Gilly · 20 Dec 2007 at 20:37

I meant in the letter of the law