The concern is still what happens if the "old" player does something stupid on the way off the field. Say that player starts a fight with an opponent as he leaves the field. You end up with two reds but only the other team plays short. Is that fair?
I agree that you are technically correct about the proper procedure and that consistency is a good thing. But on the flip side, for the vast majority of youth games that substitute 30+ times a game, you will create a significant amount of non-playing time that won't get made up. Given that 99.9% of the time, the whole thing is uneventful, I prefer to give the kids as much playing time and get the game restarted as quickly as possible. On occasion, there is the danger of losing track of a large number of subs and having the wrong amount of players on the field. But that is something I cover in my pre-game with AR1 to make sure before we restart. I have 1 ref in my crew who is an up and coming level 7 and he insists on strict substitute procedure. And it annoys the crap out of just about everybody and adds minutes of down time to every game. I just don't see the value for the lower level games. Save it for the games where subs are permanently removed from the game.
Just to play devil's advocate, it annoys the crap out of just about everybody because the majority of the referees in your area must not be following the correct procedure. If the standard was for players to completely leave the field, everyone would be used to it and there would be no complaining. On the other hand... In a well mannered high school game I will allow substitutes to enter the field when the departing player is clear of the opponents as he/she is leaving the field. It's true that the player could turn around and go after an opponent, but it's also true that a player could come off the bench to instigate a fight and you'd have the same unfair result. If tensions are high, I wait for the departing player to be completely off the field. NFHS rules tend to skew toward maximizing player participation. The more relaxed substitution procedure may just be an attempt to get a little more actual playing time into the 80 minutes.
Whether it's fair or not is not up to me but the NFHS rules committee. And that's the rule for those competitions. Maybe if they didn't substitute every 2 to 3 minutes it wouldn't be such a big deal to do it properly. And you likely won't see the value until you get into a situation you can't get out of because you didn't follow the Laws in the first place.
But they do substitute every 2 to 3 minutes, and insisting on Strict substitution procedure designed for only three substitutions per game, when there are many more, just creates a negative environment for player development and the game itself suffers. Context is important.
Or perhaps they will start to realize that it's not good for the game or the players to substitute every 2 to 3 minutes. Game administration aside, if a coach is subbing that often, someone should be taking him aside and explain to him that his players can't learn the game if they don't play with any kind of continuity. Anyways, it's not our job to fix a negative environment created by a coach. It's our job to administer the game properly.
Watching my sons play in the USA cup this week I am seeing that some ref's are stricter about the subbing procedure and some are still a bit lax. Tuesdays games were a learning curve with a lot of teams while Yesterdays matches kids were staying put at midfield before the players left the field. For the coach that subs every 2-3 minutes, you could always WAIT to make the substitution right? Unless you see a kid hurt or gassed. Hang on for about 5-6 minutes until 3 or 4 subs are waiting. Now, like it was said above it is not your job to try and fix a negative environment.
You know what annoys me? A coach who subs five minutes into the game! As Eastshire says, this is simply bad coaching. No team is going to play well if, for example, the forward who wants the ball into space is replaced by the one who wants it at their feet, only for that change to be repeated again in five minutes. Cf. the US v El Salvador game where the guys who haven't played in the earlier rounds come in and, surprise, don't have any rhythm with the rest of the team. And those guys are professionals who have a whole game to adapt. So what chance does a bunch of 13 year olds have with new people coming in every few minutes? It's a team game, not 'get the ball to Mr. hot shot and then stay out of his way.' The Laws are designed around substitutions being infrequent because of the nature of the game. Referees making subs easier than the Laws provide are simply encouraging poor coaching behavior. I also have to challenge the notion that requiring the entering player to wait for the exiting player to leave has any material impact on actual playing time. The substitution itself is what eats up playing time, not the few extra seconds absorbed by actually following the Laws. Youth players in other countries seem to be able to follow the sub procedure in the Laws. By the second and third generation after the explosion in soccer in this country, the "they just don't know any better" excuse is wearing thin. Oh, and Law 7.3 "Allowance is made by the referee in each half for all time lost in that half through: substitutions...." So who's taking playing time away? IMHO, the coach who subs too much and the referee who doesn't add time. Look, I'm not a fanatic about this. I get that mass subs are going to take place at the low level, youth rec games. (And don't forget to take a few extra seconds to count how many players you have on the field!) But I have always believed that referees should try to raise the standards a bit, regardless of the level of game we're doing today. Try to leave the game a little better than it was when you walked onto the field before the game.
There is nothing in the rules that say you need to beckon a player on before the other player has left. As Kayakhorn says a minimum of making sure the departing player has cleared the opponents on the way off is a way to minimize problems while still speeding up play a little.
Sure as mentioned by others, in the NFHS rules, it states, "a substitute becomes a player when he/she is beckoned onto the field of play, at which time the replaced individual is no longer a player." Because of this in many games under the NFHS soccer rules, players enter the games as soon as they are beckoned on by the referee without waiting for someone to come off the field. However, when they then go and play a game under IFAB laws, they still try to enter the field without waiting for the player to come off. Most people don't realize that there are differences between NFHS rules and IFAB laws and assume that everything is the same with all forms of soccer in the United States.
While that's true, it is, in my experience, rare to see HS referees separate acknowledging subs and beckoning subs into different events.
It is a key point mostly when dealing with cautioned players and shenanigans after they are carded. If you are smart you don't beckon the sub until the carded player is off. If you do and something happens the team still plays with 11.
In the case of a cautioned player in NFHS, there is absolutely no reason to speed up the substitution process because the clock is (or should be) already stopped. I hedge that because I've seen more than a few HS referees fail to stop the clock on cautions.
If the referee fails to stop the clock before producing the caution, the timer should at least stop the clock when the card is shown. (Although, admittedly, a knowledgeable timer is a rarity.)
Oh I agree there is no rush, and many refs think I'm a stickler for sending the "sub" back until after I have see the cautioned player leave. Those are usually the people that call and say "hey I had this happen in a game..."
I make guess in tournament play, the white team leading or even-steven, not behind score, yes? A few second here a few there add up much time, standard practice. Also many tournament not permit add time. Did referee make haste process? I see not many referee make haste. Referee practice haste in league play, player know substitution process, then haste process become standard for referee to do. Each stoppage for throw, substitution, etc even 2 second save equal about 40 to 60 second play time. Referee prepare for this, team happy for more play time, and life is good.
While that's all true, how many players start in NFHS and then move to USSF/USYSA play? They didn't learn their bad habits in HS, they brought them along with them to HS. That said, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. I was shocked in my original cert class to hear that outgoing players were supposed to exit the field before the incoming players entered. Because in 3 years of watching and assistant coaching my son's games, that had never happened. And it wasn't going to be a newly released Grade 8 with no experience (me) who was going to change that!
This happened in the 52nd minute with the white (subbing) team down 2-0, which was the final score. The exiting player was 25 yards from the halfway-touchline intersection. By this time, It was pretty clear that white was not going to win.
I was AR 1 for an adult game last night. One player slid to get the ball but in the process also tripped his opponent. Referee blows his whistle and awards a free kicks. The player who committed the foul says, "But I got the ball." The referee says, "You also tripped him so it's a foul." The player continues, "But I got the ball while I made contact with the player." The referee says, "For it not to be a foul, you have to get 100% ball and 0% player. You got 50% ball and 50% player so it's a foul."
Annoying or not, it is referee who in charge of the match. And how many times has this referee (I assume Law5 responded as referee and not as coach), left the game little better. The coach rotating players is not the referee's problem to solve. Many leagues have unlimited substitutions, even at adult amateur levels. It looks like a regional situation that the referees have brought upon themselves. Substitutions are permitted at natural stoppages. And my records of matches at adult amateur levels have ball in play time-range similar to those in the premier league, between 52 and 67 minutes. In one youth match, I have 17 minutes (of 70) in a G13 clash; this was a very windy day on an artificial field. In adult league matches with provision of unlimited substitutions, there will be about 4-6 substitutions per team each half, or about 10 opportunities. Saving even a couple of seconds at each substitution as a result of proactivity equals 40 seconds of potential ball-in-play times. Ditto for goal-kicks, free-kicks, post-goal festivities, and so forth.
This is true in that the LOTG do not take into account proper procedures NOT being followed - however - it does state that but as you say this is after the the player being replaced has left so if that criteria is not met then technically the substitution is not complete and they should not be on the field. Again the LOTG do not tell us what to do when we do not follow the LOTG so we all should follow the LOTG!
Coin toss u10.... Me: which way would you like to attack. Little Guy: we would like to go left. Of course, my definition of left was way different than his.
Adult rec co-ed league last night, with some sloppy play. I whistle for PIADM (high boot). I say "come on guys, lets keep our feet down." The perp says, "come on ref, my foot was right here!!" while holding his hand right about even with his armpit. Me, "exaaaaactly....." Later in the same game, another guy clips the heels of a guy dribbling away. I whistle that foule and he yells, "come on, I got all leg!!"
Twice in two different small sided games, U9 and U10, solo. Slide tackle from behind got all leg. Studs were down both times, thankfully. Both perps said "But I was going for the ball." Both times, me: "Did you get any of the ball?" "No." "Then it is a foul." The U10 boy said "I gotta look that up." Good idea.
I hope you didn't reinforce the myth that if you get the ball, it's not a foul. Perhaps the better exchange would have been: "But I was going for the ball." "I know you were, but you got the player, right? That's a foul."