Restricting the number of subs to 3

[smelmoth]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

[trileacman]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

Id agree with it up until the point where a ref disses out 3 black cards for f**k all and your left with no subs. We'd 2 bullshit black cards in the first half v Donegal in the Ulster final 2 years ago, only 3 subs would have ruined us. Likewise most teams would probably have there 3 subs used by about 60 mins and an unfortunate injury could see them play the last 10 with 14 men.

[Owen Brannigan]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

Id agree with it up until the point where a ref disses out 3 black cards for f**k all and your left with no subs. We'd 2 bullshit black cards in the first half v Donegal in the Ulster final 2 years ago, only 3 subs would have ruined us. Likewise most teams would probably have there 3 subs used by about 60 mins and an unfortunate injury could see them play the last 10 with 14 men.

If there were 3 subs there would be few or no black cards.

[smelmoth]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

Id agree with it up until the point where a ref disses out 3 black cards for f**k all and your left with no subs. We'd 2 bullshit black cards in the first half v Donegal in the Ulster final 2 years ago, only 3 subs would have ruined us. Likewise most teams would probably have there 3 subs used by about 60 mins and an unfortunate injury could see them play the last 10 with 14 men.

I would have sympathy with a team suffering poor refereeing. I would have no sympathy for a team that suffered from its own indiscipline.

As for injuries you would question a manager rushing out all his subs and not making sensible contingency for black cards and injuries. Look at what sensible rugby managers do. They have 8 subs but limited flexibility in what positions they can cover. You will see the subs that are used last tend to be the ones where the player coming off or on covers the non orthodox substitutions  eg the scrum half who can play on the wing or full back and the loose head or hooker who can play at flanker in a needs must basis. The postions in Gaelic football are a lot more fluid so rushing out your subs and leaving nothing in reserve for contingencies would be just plane bad management

[inthrough]

I would go a step further & allow only one substitution in the last 10 minutes of a game.

This would put to an end the practise of running the bench in an effort to waste time & break up the continuity of the game.

[smelmoth]

I would go a step further & allow only one substitution in the last 10 minutes of a game.

This would put to an end the practise of running the bench in an effort to waste time & break up the continuity of the game.

With only 3 subs chances are that problem would go away

[sid waddell]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

Id agree with it up until the point where a ref disses out 3 black cards for f**k all and your left with no subs. We'd 2 bullshit black cards in the first half v Donegal in the Ulster final 2 years ago, only 3 subs would have ruined us. Likewise most teams would probably have there 3 subs used by about 60 mins and an unfortunate injury could see them play the last 10 with 14 men.

I would have sympathy with a team suffering poor refereeing. I would have no sympathy for a team that suffered from its own indiscipline.

As for injuries you would question a manager rushing out all his subs and not making sensible contingency for black cards and injuries. Look at what sensible rugby managers do. They have 8 subs but limited flexibility in what positions they can cover. You will see the subs that are used last tend to be the ones where the player coming off or on covers the non orthodox substitutions  eg the scrum half who can play on the wing or full back and the loose head or hooker who can play at flanker in a needs must basis. The postions in Gaelic football are a lot more fluid so rushing out your subs and leaving nothing in reserve for contingencies would be just plane bad management

Jim Gavin did this in the 2013 All-Ireland final when Dublin were allowed five substitutions - he had made them all by 53 minutes in. They were down to 13 effective players by the end.

One could make the argument that the reason for the increased number of substitutions is precisely because the game has become more physically punishing, but six substitutions really is a gift to the "strong" counties.

One only has to look at the contributions the Dublin substitutes make, game on game. One could easily make the argument that Mayo would have won the last two All-Irelands were only three substitutes allowed.

Running the bench to its fullest also has the effect of breaking the momentum of the other team at opportune times. Breaking the momentum of your opposition has become an art form. This is a legitimate way of doing it.

I'd like to see an experiment with the following: A matchday panel of 18 players with unlimited changes as in Aussie Rules - but you can only use those 18 players whatever happens. One black card would reduce that panel to 17 with 15 still on the pitch, two would reduce it to 16 and so on. A player who receives a red card would remain non-replaceable.

However the replacement process would have to be drastically speeded up for it to work.

[Rossfan]

They do it in Aussie Rules and Rugby League easy enough.
I'd go with 20 plus a goalie who could only replace the goalie.

[trileacman]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

Id agree with it up until the point where a ref disses out 3 black cards for f**k all and your left with no subs. We'd 2 bullshit black cards in the first half v Donegal in the Ulster final 2 years ago, only 3 subs would have ruined us. Likewise most teams would probably have there 3 subs used by about 60 mins and an unfortunate injury could see them play the last 10 with 14 men.

I would have sympathy with a team suffering poor refereeing. I would have no sympathy for a team that suffered from its own indiscipline.

As for injuries you would question a manager rushing out all his subs and not making sensible contingency for black cards and injuries. Look at what sensible rugby managers do. They have 8 subs but limited flexibility in what positions they can cover. You will see the subs that are used last tend to be the ones where the player coming off or on covers the non orthodox substitutions  eg the scrum half who can play on the wing or full back and the loose head or hooker who can play at flanker in a needs must basis. The postions in Gaelic football are a lot more fluid so rushing out your subs and leaving nothing in reserve for contingencies would be just plane bad management

To be honest I hate that about rugby union. Teams benches often carry "utility backs" who can play anywhere from 11-15 and loose forwards who'll play from 4-8. Fergus Mc fadden got years in a Ireland squad whilst better more specialised exponents of the game got shafted because they couldn't carry the spread.

It's f**king up a lot of outhalfs now too because instead of nailing down and specialising at being a 10 they end up playing in the quasi centre role at 12 for most of their early career. So at the steepest part of a young outhalfs learning curve he's taught how to be a jack of all trades and the master of none.

[smelmoth]

One could make the argument that the reason for the increased number of substitutions is precisely because the game has become more physically punishing, but six substitutions really is a gift to the "strong" counties.

Wrong way around. Part of the reason for the current state of very negative tactics which require such physical demands is because almost 50% of the outfield players can be subbed. And disproportionately these are the forwards
 

Running the bench to its fullest also has the effect of breaking the momentum of the other team at opportune times. Breaking the momentum of your opposition has become an art form. This is a legitimate way of doing it.

Within the rules certainly. But if the manager only had 3 subs to make and had limited capacity to use that tactic I don't think anybody would miss it from the game.

I'd like to see an experiment with the following: A matchday panel of 18 players with unlimited changes as in Aussie Rules - but you can only use those 18 players whatever happens. One black card would reduce that panel to 17 with 15 still on the pitch, two would reduce it to 16 and so on. A player who receives a red card would remain non-replaceablewould have to be drastically speeded up for it

I would not welcome this. The game has moved too far in the direction of favouring physical fitness over skill. This would waste the opportunity to do something about that

[smelmoth]

It's an idea Sid floated on the "RIP" thread. It's a runner.

We see today the hammerings big team can give smaller teams with the depth of their panel often a key factor.

Separately the very negative tactics that many mangers deploy involve packed defenses and asking the forwards to undertake a huge workload in terms of foraging up front or tracking back. This is in the full knowledge that the forwards will be subbed when spent.

There is also at times a flippant attitude in taking a black card for the team.

Restricting the number of subs to 3 could and probably would make inroads into this

Id agree with it up until the point where a ref disses out 3 black cards for f**k all and your left with no subs. We'd 2 bullshit black cards in the first half v Donegal in the Ulster final 2 years ago, only 3 subs would have ruined us. Likewise most teams would probably have there 3 subs used by about 60 mins and an unfortunate injury could see them play the last 10 with 14 men.

I would have sympathy with a team suffering poor refereeing. I would have no sympathy for a team that suffered from its own indiscipline.

As for injuries you would question a manager rushing out all his subs and not making sensible contingency for black cards and injuries. Look at what sensible rugby managers do. They have 8 subs but limited flexibility in what positions they can cover. You will see the subs that are used last tend to be the ones where the player coming off or on covers the non orthodox substitutions  eg the scrum half who can play on the wing or full back and the loose head or hooker who can play at flanker in a needs must basis. The postions in Gaelic football are a lot more fluid so rushing out your subs and leaving nothing in reserve for contingencies would be just plane bad management

To be honest I hate that about rugby union. Teams benches often carry "utility backs" who can play anywhere from 11-15 and loose forwards who'll play from 4-8. Fergus Mc fadden got years in a Ireland squad whilst better more specialised exponents of the game got shafted because they couldn't carry the spread.

It's f**king up a lot of outhalfs now too because instead of nailing down and specialising at being a 10 they end up playing in the quasi centre role at 12 for most of their early career. So at the steepest part of a young outhalfs learning curve he's taught how to be a jack of all trades and the master of none.

Chill. Asking an out half to cover inside Centre has been part of rugby since subs were invented

Blind side flanker to lock or vice versa is a small shift

[TheGreatest]

Reads like another "how do we change the rules to stop Dublin winning thread"

Amateur game, fast paced, physical game. The amount of subs is right for an amateur game.

[Solo_run]

I think they should increase the number of subs and could place less emphasis on fitness

[JoG2]

Reads like another "how do we change the rules to stop Dublin winning thread"

Amateur game, fast paced, physical game. The amount of subs is right for an amateur game.

What would happen if the number of subs was reduced to 3 do you think? What has 'amateur' got to do with it??  Load of nonsense

[TheGreatest]

Reads like another "how do we change the rules to stop Dublin winning thread"

Amateur game, fast paced, physical game. The amount of subs is right for an amateur game.

What would happen if the number of subs was reduced to 3 do you think? What has 'amateur' got to do with it??  Load of nonsense

What is a load of nonsense is this is the 3rd or 4th thread talking rule changes to limit the big 6-8 teams in the country.

I am in favour of not just a 2 tier structure but 3 tier structure.

To answer your question, some possibilities may be:

Injured or compressed players remaining on the pitch to do further damage to themselves and  go to work the next day.
Feigning blood injuries to allow more subs.
Fitness levels would have to increase by a few %, will suit the top teams more.
Games would go even slower in the final quarter of matches and even more possession.

Just some thoughts.  I don't see any benefits to the actual game by only allowing 3 subs.