A&H

Chelsea vs Wrexham - Return substitution

The Referee Store
Think the guidance is step 4 and above.

Had an issue in a friendly between step 2 and step 6 the.with step 6 side waning to do a repeat sub
 
I wonder why return substitutes are not allowed in professional football? The difference in laws appears to be unnecessary.
 
Mr Dean said:
I wonder why return substitutes are not allowed in professional football? The difference in laws appears to be unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Some of it is just history, I think. Originally, the Game had no subs at all.* (The US famously defeated England (in the 40s?) when England decided it wasn't worth playing their star GK against the US because there was no risk in the game, and once the game started couldn't make any changes.) When a player was injured, teams played short.

Initially, only 1 sub was allowed, and I don't recall if it was restricted to an injured player in Law, but that was really why they were introduced at all. Endurance was considered part of the game--being able to play well when tired was valued. Eventually subs at the top level grew to 3, meaning most players had to play the whole game. And only with COVID did we get to the idea that serious international competition could have more than 3 subs, where we now have 5 (+an extra in ET).

And at some point the exceptions for lower level competition to have return subs came in, with varying rules in place.

Whether those fresh legs is good or bad for the game is certainly debatable--it certainly rewards depth where teams have very good players who can come on late with fresh legs.

All that said, one could make the argument that with more subs, a team should be allowed to spend a sub to bring a player back. But I doubt we'll see that departure from tradition. And if we did, I doubt we would see it used very often at top levels after players have cooled down.

______________
*This is also why it wasn't (until relatively recently) explicit in the Laws that a sent off player could not be subbed--the language was initially written when there were not subs, so it was obvious the team played short. Once subs came into the Game, it had to be inferred from the fact that a sub replaced a player, and that a player sent off was no longer a player.
 
Return subs will never be allowed in the top levels of the game as it would slow it down too much, and would undoubtedly be used for tactical reasons. A team clinging onto a lead would just keep making changes to break up the tempo of the game, it happens at gras roots so would certainly happen at the top levels.
 
socal lurker said:
Some of it is just history, I think. Originally, the Game had no subs at all.* (The US famously defeated England (in the 40s?) when England decided it wasn't worth playing their star GK against the US because there was no risk in the game, and once the game started couldn't make any changes.) When a player was injured, teams played short.

Initially, only 1 sub was allowed, and I don't recall if it was restricted to an injured player in Law, but that was really why they were introduced at all. Endurance was considered part of the game--being able to play well when tired was valued. Eventually subs at the top level grew to 3, meaning most players had to play the whole game. And only with COVID did we get to the idea that serious international competition could have more than 3 subs, where we now have 5 (+an extra in ET).

And at some point the exceptions for lower level competition to have return subs came in, with varying rules in place.

Whether those fresh legs is good or bad for the game is certainly debatable--it certainly rewards depth where teams have very good players who can come on late with fresh legs.

All that said, one could make the argument that with more subs, a team should be allowed to spend a sub to bring a player back. But I doubt we'll see that departure from tradition. And if we did, I doubt we would see it used very often at top levels after players have cooled down.

______________
*This is also why it wasn't (until relatively recently) explicit in the Laws that a sent off player could not be subbed--the language was initially written when there were not subs, so it was obvious the team played short. Once subs came into the Game, it had to be inferred from the fact that a sub replaced a player, and that a player sent off was no longer a player.
Click to expand...
It's also been a tradition that the laws of the game were the same for all levels of football. It's a shame that this tradition wasn't maintained.
 
Mr Dean said:
It's also been a tradition that the laws of the game were the same for all levels of football. It's a shame that this tradition wasn't maintained.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been an absolute for subs for a very, very long time. My 70s LOTG has differences permitted right there in Law III.

RustyRef said:
Return subs will never be allowed in the top levels of the game as it would slow it down too much, and would undoubtedly be used for tactical reasons. A team clinging onto a lead would just keep making changes to break up the tempo of the game, it happens at gras roots so would certainly happen at the top levels.
Click to expand...

If it were ever adopted (and I agree with you that it is unlikely, as it would be a pretty radical change), I would imagine it would be that one of the 5 (6 with ET) subs could be the re-entry of a substituted player rather than the initial entry of a sub. So it would not have any greater delays from subs than we have now.
 
socal lurker said:
*This is also why it wasn't (until relatively recently) explicit in the Laws that a sent off player could not be subbed--the language was initially written when there were not subs, so it was obvious the team played short. Once subs came into the Game, it had to be inferred from the fact that a sub replaced a player, and that a player sent off was no longer a player.
Click to expand...
That doesn't quite track though, because up till 1996 (long after substitutes were allowed) the law said:

Screenshot_2023_0727_122516.png

It was one of the stranger (and rather inexplicable) amendments that this clause was omitted during the "great rewrite" of 1997. I suspect it may have been a simple oversight - although that doesn't explain why it was not put back in until 2016.
 
Returning subs are the norm here at grassroots - 7th level mens and below - to encourage participation. Football culture is different in other countries. Imagine countries where ice hockey is the #1 sport. Return subs unsupervised with no drama are absolutely normal. It's also normal in futsal. In the UK, football culture is different, and the idea of return subs seems crazy, but elsewhere, it really is er... normal... and fine.
 
Peter Grove said:
That doesn't quite track though, because up till 1996 (long after substitutes were allowed) the law said:

View attachment 6749

It was one of the stranger (and rather inexplicable) amendments that this clause was omitted during the "great rewrite" of 1997. I suspect it may have been a simple oversight - although that doesn't explain why it was not put back in until 2016.
Click to expand...
Huh. Right you are--and that language went back at least to the 70s. (Well, technically in the Decisions of the International Board, rather than the Laws themselves, but that isn't really important.) I returned to reffing after a long lay off (about 20 years) some time after the great rewrite. And what I recall was the debates about whether the Laws actually required there not to be a replacement for the sent off player. At the time the only way to get there was that indirect route--subs only replace players, and the sent off player ceased being a player when sent off, so there was no player to sub for. I totally lost that the language had been there in the past.
 
BTW does the FA language on return subs even have jurisdiction on a friendly played in outside of England?

And if so are there actually any penalties?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top