Why not 6 subs? why not 10?

October 8, 2007 8:12 AM

Why are only three substitutes allowed in professional Association Football?

The only explanation I can think of is that it is to avoid slowing down the game, but I can't see how this out weighs the unfairness of having your team screwed over when you have no subs and a player gets injured not to mention the increased incentive to cause intentional injury. Anybody know the reason behind the rule?

posted by afu to sports, hobbies, & recreation (13 comments total)

I think it's just a restriction that makes the game more challenging and strategic (especially for the person selecting the team) and makes it no less entertaining for the crowd. Watching 22 exhausted players chase after the ball during extra time is actually a lot of fun!

You could just as easily say why don't we get rid of the offside rule, since that would make things easier too? Or, why can't they pick up the ball and run with it? It's these constraints that make the game (and all others) interesting!

Even if you lift the restriction, there will always be an incentive to cause intentional injury (to remove an effective opponent from the game). But causing intentional injury will still be against the rules and attract severe punishment, typically a sending off. I'm a referee, and I can't think of a single violent challenge motivated by anything more sophisticated than a desire to injure a particular opponent. How many substitutes the opposition have left never enters into it.

There are competitions that lift the restriction, especially friendlies (so you can try different players, combinations and formations for low stakes), kid's games (so everyone gets a chance) and full-length games in very hot conditions.

Also, you might find The Battle of Brammall Lane interesting.
posted by caek at 8:26 AM on October 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'd probably agree with caek that it is probably meant to be a strategic element of the game. The way I see it there are 4 possible ways of dealing with subs in major sports 1.) no substitutions (professional team cycling) 2.) Limited number of subs (the aforementioned Association Football and Volleyball), 3.) Once substituted for, the player is done (baseball) 4.) Unlimited substitutions (American football, hockey, basketball). Each lends itself to the sport at hand and provides some different challenges that you have to prepare for.

As an aside it would be interesting if a historian of the game of Association Football could tell us if that rule has always been in place or if it has been changed over the years.
posted by mmascolino at 8:32 AM on October 8, 2007

Probably to stop abuse and to stop managers (coaches) from swapping out tired players. That is, Player A is looking tired so the coach tells him to take a fall at the next opportunity. Player A is then swapped out with a new, fresh player, who can inject new life into the game.
posted by long haired lover from liverpool at 8:36 AM on October 8, 2007

a team like Chelsea, with a huge squad full of world class players could swap their entire (tired) team to prepare for extra time, for example. a smaller team wouldn't be able to, and would be very unfair
posted by derbs at 8:38 AM on October 8, 2007

This Wikipedia page describes the introduction of substitutes (only in the sixties!). They are limited because it's a sport, and fitness/endurance is one of the aspects of the competition. Other sports usually have limits on rest breaks (for individual sports) and substitution as well, for instance in rugby union you can replace up to seven players during the game, but once they're off they stay off.

I know in my league, they limit subs at the top two divisions and everyone else plays with free interchange - the difference in fitness is remarkable between the second division and the third, and it really changes the game. Also, to me the American football practice of switching half the team every few minutes seems absurd - players should be able to cope with more than one set play.*


*Exaggerated and stereotyped, I know.
posted by jacalata at 8:38 AM on October 8, 2007

Obviously to keep down those exciting high scores.
posted by Bonzai at 8:44 AM on October 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Probably to stop abuse and to stop managers (coaches) from swapping out tired players. That is, Player A is looking tired so the coach tells him to take a fall at the next opportunity.

No. You can substitute a player whenever and why ever you want. They don't have to be injured.

Interestingly, I'm trying to think of sports that don't/barely restrict substitutions when the game is played professionally at the highest level and I'm only coming up with American sports.
posted by caek at 8:45 AM on October 8, 2007

More subs are allowed in international friendly matches and it totally ruins the game. All of the flow is lost as the second half of the match desends into a stop-start mish-mash of players switching around.

The limit of three per match forces the coach to think strategically and plan ahead.

mmascolino: There's also a fifth way, used in rugby union, where temporary subs are allowed to replace injured (ie bleeding) players. Once the injured player is treated, he comes back on and the sub goes off.

Although of course this would rely on players genuinely being injured. Not a problem in rugby, but with the amount of fakery in football...
posted by afx237vi at 8:49 AM on October 8, 2007

A FIFA report (pdf) considers your issue, afu, regarding a player being injured subsequent to a tactical substitution. Their rationale states that making allowances in this instance to increase number of subs post genuine injury would "increase the tactical scope for substitution" and alter the "character of the game". I take this to mean that the tiring of players and the limit to the coach's options is a desired aspect of the game. Can't find an explicit justification of the rule though.
posted by Gratishades at 9:14 AM on October 8, 2007

The game would be a completely different one if substitutions were allowed. For one thing, as soon as either team scored a goal, the most practical tactical move would be to replace all the attacking players with defenders to preserve the lead. That would pretty much suck.
Secondly, the use of substitutes at all is a relatively recent development. Football used to be 11 vs 11, and back in the day, it was common to see an injured player hopping around in a forward position for the remnant of the match. Later, substitutions were allowed in case of injury, and now tactical substitutions have become an important part of the game. There is a balance between conservatism and attempts to improve the game by tinkering with its laws. So your question is the wrong way round: if you consider the history of the game, it is not that subs are restricted by the laws, but that recently substitution has become allowed. You're not screwed if you run out of subs; you just need to use them wisely and be thankful that you are allowed that flexibility at all.
posted by nowonmai at 9:35 AM on October 8, 2007

The simple answer is 'just because'.

It's a historical thing. The precedent is 'no substitutes at all', and though that's gradually been revised over the past 40 years, the spirit of the precedent still guides it -- that is, you leave the field of play with essentially the same team that started. (The idea of an outfield player putting on a green shirt and gloves and going into goal is anathema to the spirit of American sport, but it's an increasingly rare treat for fans of the beautiful game.)

(One of the turning points, I think, was Chile-Italy in the 1962 World Cup, also known as The Battle of Santiago.)

It's also bound up with the game's amateur origins, which is borne out in similar sports. Until the advent of professionalism, rugby union only allowed the injury 'replacement'; the growing use of the substitute fielder to give bowlers a rest has been bemoaned, and not just by cricket traditionalists. And so on. The increased physical demands and injury risks of modern sport make substitutions necessary, but the guiding tradition remains to stop wholesale team-switches in competitive matches.
posted by holgate at 9:46 AM on October 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

afx237vi writes "this would rely on players genuinely being injured. Not a problem in rugby,"

Well, actually it is a problem in rugby: even though they have to be bleeding to use the interchange! (BBC)
posted by jacalata at 10:10 AM on October 8, 2007

It would completely change the character of the game. Australian Rules football has a four man bench with unlimited interchange (although the game doesn't stop for interchanges so it doesn't slow the game down). In the past few years interchange rates have sky-rocketed as teams figure out they are better off having their best on-ball players play in shorter bursts with regular rests, rather than play at 90% capacity (due to all the running) for the entire game. Do give an idea of the running involved, a top midfielder will cover up to 20km in a game.

The league is looking at limiting the number of interchanges in future seasons.
posted by markr at 1:14 AM on October 9, 2007