Limited substitutions

[ObliviousScout]

During Sunday's NCAA Soccer Championship, announcer John Harkes commented that he did not like the college substitution rules because they permit a player to leave the game and then re-enter. At the professional and international levels (and in other countries at most levels), once a player leaves the game he can not come back in.

A tournament this past weekend in Virginia (that involved Academy teams) used limited substitution rules (there were seven substitutions permitted, with no re-entry), and I thought it worked very well. It limited the amount of time wasted when coaches sub players in and out repeatedly. I also felt it improved the flow of the match. The coaches were still able to get all their players adequate playing time by making several substitutions in the second half. I also notice that the upcoming Disney Showcase will be using a similar limited substitution rule.

What are your thoughts on this? Should we encourage more limited substitution rules in College? In youth soccer?

[aevange8]

During Sunday's NCAA Soccer Championship, announcer John Harkes commented that he did not like the college substitution rules because they permit a player to leave the game and then re-enter. At the professional and international levels (and in other countries at most levels), once a player leaves the game he can not come back in.

A tournament this past weekend in Virginia (that involved Academy teams) used limited substitution rules (there were seven substitutions permitted, with no re-entry), and I thought it worked very well. It limited the amount of time wasted when coaches sub players in and out repeatedly. I also felt it improved the flow of the match. The coaches were still able to get all their players adequate playing time by making several substitutions in the second half. I also notice that the upcoming Disney Showcase will be using a similar limited substitution rule.

What are your thoughts on this? Should we encourage more limited substitution rules in College? In youth soccer?

We should but we wont. It requires the game to be played differently. You can't run for 90 minutes straight. You have to conserve energy better and pick and choose the moments you want to go forward, etc.

[ref47]

i have worked men's leagues with limited subs. it is definitely easier to administer and does not interrupt the game as much as unlimited subs. from a ref pov it makes things easier. from a player pov, you don't get to play as much. the starting 11 get the time.

players in rec and lesser competitive levels are not as fit as senior am or higher levels. they need short rest periods. good or bad, that is fact. youth players need the same rest periods, even mor than older players. youth players seem to lack the concept of conservation of energy for when it is needed (to go the full 90). they run full out until they expend it all. while they might learn that this is not good if they had limited subs, it would also lessen the opportunity for others to play more. choices.

state cup went to limited type subs this year. in each half, once you were out you could not reenter. sub number limited to bench strength but bench limited to 7 persons. this seemed to be a good compromise between fully limited and unlimited reentry.

[o5iiawah]

Absolutely. the "unlimited subs" idea really slows the game down and makes it difficult to manage. i did a tournament as a soloCR and the hardest part wasn't keeping the 19-30 year olds from killing each other, it was keeping track of the damn subs. for games 2-5 that I did that day, I had a pre-match meeting with the coaches that if they wanted a sub, they should announce it during play, wait for a thumbs-up from me and then sub on the restart, rather than yelling "SUB! SUB! as someone's getting read y to take a quick FK.

I think in college, the rule is that a subbed out player cannot be subbed back in in the first half, and once subbed off in the 2nd half, he can only be subbed in once.

As much as I hate to say it, I love youth rules of having quarters where subbing takes place. That, and the coaches know to get-on-with it whenever a kit stubs his toe and goes to ground crying.

[boylanj64]

I am enamored of limited substitution both as a player and referee. As a player, I feel getting jerked in and out disrupts any flow you are trying to achieve. As a referee, I am better able to keep track of the emotions of everyone on the field if I don't have them flying on and off the pitch. While I like the FIFA 3 sub rule, this is impractical in practice at the youth level. I much prefer the Super Y once in per half rule, which I feel lets players play, delivers high quality soccer and gives coaches some flexibility. One note at the academy level is that the USSF rules for that league require all players to play at least 50% of the time, so it is not like those teams have subs who never see the pitch, as a Premiership team might. Of course, it would be impossible to adminster such a rule at any lower level.

[Gary V]

from a ref pov it makes things easier.I don't get it. With unlimited subs, all you have to see is matching jersey colors and you know they can come in. With limited, you have to check numbers (to be sure they aren't reentering) and count how many substitutions have already taken place.

Please note that even with unlimited subs, the proper substitution procedure should be followed. That doesn't mean the coach yelling, "Sub, ref" just before a restart. Subs should report to the center line before the stoppage.

[boylanj64]

With limited, you have to check numbers (to be sure they aren't reentering) and count how many substitutions have already taken place.

No you don't, the 4th or AR1 if you don't have a fourth takes the player pass of the starters, and then the pass of anyone entering. If you don't have your pass, no entry. If you are playing with both limited reentry and a limit on number of subs, each team is issued the proper number of substitution tickets before the match. No substitution ticket, no entry. It's not hard to keep track of at all.

[OldAndNew]

BoylanJ64: that, and the way Ref47 described his State Cup sub procedure is what we use in our State Cup at U-15 level and up. Those games always have a 4th official to take player passes to ensure proper procedure and 'number'.

Below that age, subs are handled as they are in the regular league season: unlimited number of subs (rosters, I believe, are limited by League rules to 21 - so 10 potential subs) and unlimited number of re-entries per sub. It certainly can resemble a Turkish bazaar atmosphere with such frequent comings-and-goings. At 'rec' level, I can find it tolerable, but at 'select' level - especially at U-15 and up, I find it perplexing that players are being subbed out only 2 minutes into the game! Coaches should put greater emphasis on conditioning.

[NHRef]

Locally here Super-Y and state cup at U15 and up get limited subs. Most youth has unlimited and I believe rightfully so, especially younger and lower level. For them its all about playing time, for everyone, not just the first 11.

When we do limited subs and a 4th, teh 4th just writes down the numbers of the players who come off the field. Those players cannot go back on. Pretty simple.

with unlimited the challenge is often times counting the players on/off since its not uncommon to have 10 subs (including both teams!)

[TheRefIsBlind]

maryland has moved to limited subs at U15 and older for state cup and it works well. i ran several centers this year and the game flowed well and it did not pose a problem for the AR1 handling the cards.
there's also this important change to consider ... unlike the rules governing unlimited subs when there are restrictions for when a new player can come on, we use FIFA rules for allowing subs when there is a limit. that means a new player can come on at any stoppage which makes it interesting from a tactical standpoint.
coaches quickly figured out they could save a big target player and insert him/her for a corner or a dangerous DFK.

[billf]

Super-Y used to do this. From a player development pov I think it's long overdue. Referees have to deal with whatever is required by the competition so how it's handled so, to me, whether it's easier or not to administer isn't important.

[Rufusabc]

Limited subs would change the game at the youth level tactically. No more closing down every ball in the attacking third, attackers woudl need to conserve energy, and so would defenders and mid fielders. Maybe play would be less frenetic, and playmaking skills would be needed? I watched the college finals and thought the play to be too much hoof ball and not enough quality play on the ground. Forwards chase down and close down every loose possession and I wonder if they would play it in another manner altogether if they didnt have a TV timeout and a sub break.

But, for those parents paying thousands of dollars a year, I'm not sure if the limited subs thing makes economic sense.

[boylanj64]

Limited subs would change the game at the youth level tactically. No more closing down every ball in the attacking third, attackers woudl need to conserve energy, and so would defenders and mid fielders. Maybe play would be less frenetic, and playmaking skills would be needed?

I don't think this is true; it would just force coaches to better condition their players. Most youth teams don't even play 90 minutes; they are young enough, they should be able to run full out for however long they need to be out there for. Especially at the youth level, where warm ups all too frequently consist of taking shots from the 18 or such nonsense, it takes a few minutes to get in to the game and up to speed. From both a players, coaches, and fans standpoint, giving players the chance to play in to shape would greatly better the game.

But, for those parents paying thousands of dollars a year, I'm not sure if the limited subs thing makes economic sense.

This would be true if you pay thousands and your kid never sees the pitch, but that would not be an economically rational choice. If coaches don't get to switch in every five minutes, they no longer need a 22 man roster. If you go with an 18 man roster, assume 2 or 3 players get injured, you've got about a 5 man bench. 2 or 3 of those bench players probably rotate in as starters depending upon the coaches tactical needs or mood, and the remaining players are getting as many minutes as they would otherwise, and when they do get on they actually have a chance to show their skills rather than worry about how many minutes are left before their coach jerks them off.

[Rufusabc]

I think we are talking about two different levels of play. I'm talking about elite teams where rosters are limited to at most 18 and more likely 16 (not the 22 you are talking about). Also, at u16 and above , the games are 90 mins in length (u 13-14-15 they are 80 mins). I think it would be near impossible to go full out in the same style for 90 mins where the forwards close down everything, and the ball is hoofed up the field with the forward needing to go 65 yards every 30 secs. Limited subs....you would end up with 14 players getting time and what happens to the rest of your squad?

[boylanj64]

I think we are talking about two different levels of play. I'm talking about elite teams where rosters are limited to at most 18 and more likely 16 (not the 22 you are talking about). Also, at u16 and above , the games are 90 mins in length (u 13-14-15 they are 80 mins). I think it would be near impossible to go full out in the same style for 90 mins where the forwards close down everything, and the ball is hoofed up the field with the forward needing to go 65 yards every 30 secs. Limited subs....you would end up with 14 players getting time and what happens to the rest of your squad?

Well, I was addressing lower levels because many elite teams already play limited substitutions, and I've never heard complaints about it. The Super-Y or Academy compromises are what I like best; I agree that limiting substitutions to three a game would not let everyone play. I think that limiting reentry or the total number of subs goes a long ways to ensure everyone gets playing time, and at the academy level there are specific requirements for minimum minutes. The advantages of this are what I remarked upon above; how it allows confidence to develop by giving players continuous minutes.

You may be right that it would be impossible to play the demanding kick and chase style, but even with limited subs I imagine a coach committed to it could make it work. If not, I doubt anyone would shed a tear for its demise, and even if a players get slightly fewer minutes, they'll spend those minutes learning to play real soccer rather than learning to sprint just long enough for the coach to pull them out again.

[intechpc]

I'd be all for limited substitutions being used at the higher level youth matches (where they play 90 minutes). However, I wouldn't be in favor of limiting it to 3. Instead I'd rather see it done how they do it for Youth State, Regionals and Nationals where the game day roster is limited to 18 players, meaning you have 7 subs. And once a player leaves in each half they cannot return in that same half of play. Management of this isn't too bad, although it does require AR1 to work harder running up the line to get player passes. However, it makes it much easier to enforce the proper substitution procedures especially since you don't have to worry as much about how it is slowing down the game and it still allows all players to play in the match which I think is a very important aspect of youth soccer.

I don't like the 3 sub limit in youth because now you will most certainly end up with players on a roster who will never see the pitch.

[USSF REF]

In other countries, like England or Brazil, there is no such thing as unlimited reentry. Even at U8. You are done when you're done.

Kids learn right away that they need to adopt certain tactics and energy conservation. That is how the world's game is played.

In order to develop players to compete on the world stage, they need to play the game properly from the ground up. There is no doubt in my mind about this.

If we started teaching our players right from the very start, perhaps the USA would stand a chance at competing on the World Cup level. Until we figure that out, we can't.

Lucky for us, Development Academy knows this now... only we need to get it to the younger age groups.

[Rufusabc]

I'm with USSF Ref on this one wholeheartedly. I don't know if OUR style of play will ever be enough to win the WC. It's almost as if we would rather play smashmouth instead of stylistically.

As I said I was very disappointed with the play in the NCAA Cup. Not enough flowing football for me, and not once did I see a right or left back make a run. Too much one on one with a forward trying to get through three defenders.

We defend fairly well, but we certainly don't create. Sorry I am straying off topic here.

[boylanj64]

As I said I was very disappointed with the play in the NCAA Cup. Not enough flowing football for me, and not once did I see a right or left back make a run. Too much one on one with a forward trying to get through three defenders.

That is, unfortunately, what most of our college play consists of, and thus the useless habits our top players fall in to (ie, MLS). While 18 year olds in Europe are running 90+ in champions league play, ours are expected to pretend they are (American) football players, only responsible for one play before someone else comes in. The result? A national team that can't advance from the group stage. There is no doubt the talents exists, but wasting the first 22 years of top player's development in pursuit of mediocre trophies is a tragedy. Thus, the other changes that Development has pushed through, such as the prohibition against competing in non-Academy tournaments.

As little as 7v7, aren't parents capable of doing the math and seeing the average playing time is greater if you have 10 players with limited subs then with 18 players running on and off?

[ObliviousScout]

...coaches quickly figured out they could save a big target player and insert him/her for a corner or a dangerous DFK.

I don't think that's something to worry much about, mostly because I believe it would be a bad tactical decision. Why play most of your game without a big target player? More importantly, Law 4 provides that the referee is "informed before any proposed substitution is made." [emphasis mine] A coach can't just send in a player any time he wants; as a general rule, the player must be ready (and at mid-field) before the stoppage happens, otherwise play will continue. Even at the professional level, you don't see a referee hold up the game so a specialist can come in and take a free kick.

Limited subs....you would end up with 14 players getting time and what happens to the rest of your squad?

I disagree with those who say that limited subs will reduce playing time. There's only so many minutes in a game, and only so many games in a season. When you divide by X number of players, you end up with the same number. Math is hard like that.

As a commenter in another forum writes:
You can still have playing time doing limited subs. Lets say you have 17 players you can split your team into 3 different lineups for 3 different games. So at a minimum for 3 games you would play 1 full game, be a sub off the bench, then sit out a game. So it comes out to about a game and 1/2 of playing time in 3 games. If you would play each game but only be a sub you would get about the same amount of playing time. This way at least 1 out of 3 games you get a full game to develop and play instead of just playing the last 25 or 30 min of each game. This would help players and also develop our coaches on making tactical subs.

Instead of putting someone new in and pulling them out every 5 or 10 minutes, now we will be making fewer changes. Indeed I think players will end up with more playing time since there will be fewer interruptions. Coaches will need to think differently about how they manage the minutes their players have over the season.

We defend fairly well, but we certainly don't create. Sorry I am straying off topic here.

No worries. I generally agree with what you've said here, and I believe these are related topics. Players will play the way they are trained as they grow up. As others have noted, our sub rules impact the tactics of the game.