Restricting the number of subs to 3

[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

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.

it's a game of bloody football, not some 12 hour shift down a deep shaft mine

[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.

it's a game of bloody football, not some 12 hour shift down a deep shaft mine

Sure that talk wont win you anything.

A game to some . . .

[From the Bunker]

The Greatest is correct. This rule (like all new rules) is all about obstructing Dublin. People should look to the real reasons our games are a mess!

[Jayop]

I'm not into reducing the number of subs but I agree totally that the black card rule had the consequence of favouring the bigger teams with stronger panels. If one of the Leitrim starters gets a black its a huge issue with a big drop in quality coming on. If a top team gets one then the subs are almost like for like or even an improvement in some cases. Basically I hate everything about the black card.

[smelmoth]

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.

So a rule that would apply in club football and the >95% of County games that don't involve Dublin reads to you like "how do stop Dublin winning "??. Paranoia??

[smelmoth]

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

The idea that coaches would not seek to exploit any advantage given to them is naive. More subs will mean more work rate and more selections and tactics base on work rate

[smelmoth]

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.

Nothing wrong with proposing changes. You are proposing changes yourself

I outlined a number arguments in favour of this change and they go beyond limiting 1 team or 6 teams.

As for you critique;
Amateur players get injured today and they go to work. Few teams lose 3 players to injury in a game. And fewer still to the type of injury that is compounded by playing on that impacts on them doing their job on s Monday morning. Save your subs for those situations
Feigning blood injuries? Easy to manage that one.
Fitness levels would increase. Possibly so. Pilot it and find out
More possession play. Again a possibility but trial it and find out. I am one who favours wider rule changes and there could be other ways to disincentivise possession play

I know that you don't see any benefits in the 3 subs and we can minute that and move on

[blewuporstuffed]

I really dont see how reducing the number of subs back down to 3 would benefit the game in the slightest.

If you bring it right down to the grass roots level, it actually has the potential to reduce the number of young lads getting time.

[smelmoth]

I really dont see how reducing the number of subs back down to 3 would benefit the game in the slightest.

If you bring it right down to the grass roots level, it actually has the potential to reduce the number of young lads getting time.

Which grass roots are those. Round my way they are not playing 15 aside as it is

[Rossfan]

Reduce it back to 5 like it was before the black card.
Increasing to 6 only gave teams latitude to commit black card offences.

[smelmoth]

Reduce it back to 5 like it was before the black card.
Increasing to 6 only gave teams latitude to commit black card offences.

5 would be better than 6 but no point in tinkering. Do something meaningful.

The original point is that there are negative issues to be addressed in respect of defensive tactics, hammerings, indiscipline and abuse of subs to run down the clock or disrupt the flow. I'm not sure if the resistance to the idea is because they don't think that these exist, think they will go away by themselves or think that the issues are real but that the proposed measure won't work

[Baile Brigín 2]

I really dont see how reducing the number of subs back down to 3 would benefit the game in the slightest.

If you bring it right down to the grass roots level, it actually has the potential to reduce the number of young lads getting time.

Thats the only downside i can think of. Nothing to stop in in IC only though

[armaghniac]

I really dont see how reducing the number of subs back down to 3 would benefit the game in the slightest.

If you bring it right down to the grass roots level, it actually has the potential to reduce the number of young lads getting time.

Thats the only downside i can think of. Nothing to stop in in IC only though

Apart from young lads, there are very skilled old lads who might be very useful for part of a game. Lots of great games where the old warrior came on and scored the winning point.

[Baile Brigín 2]

I really dont see how reducing the number of subs back down to 3 would benefit the game in the slightest.

If you bring it right down to the grass roots level, it actually has the potential to reduce the number of young lads getting time.

Thats the only downside i can think of. Nothing to stop in in IC only though

Apart from young lads, there are very skilled old lads who might be very useful for part of a game. Lots of great games where the old warrior came on and scored the winning point.

And they did under the 3 sub days. No reason they wont again

[smelmoth]

I really dont see how reducing the number of subs back down to 3 would benefit the game in the slightest.

If you bring it right down to the grass roots level, it actually has the potential to reduce the number of young lads getting time.

Thats the only downside i can think of. Nothing to stop in in IC only though

Apart from young lads, there are very skilled old lads who might be very useful for part of a game. Lots of great games where the old warrior came on and scored the winning point.

And they did under the 3 sub days. No reason they wont again

Correct. The sub would still be there to cover injury or introduce something different. But it would be less useful in making routine like for like replacements once the tank has been emptied and force astute coaches to look again at how they go about things. Good coaches won't have a problem