There's a strong argument against more subs from the point of view of constant disruption, but also from the opinion that it further increases the advantage of stronger squads over weaker ones. In the principle of protecting against injury I'd back it, but as a tactical tool I think it's too much. I'm not entirely settled on my opinion, tbh but I'm leaning towards being against it. I know JK is all for it, but this might be one of the rare occasions I disagree with him.
We have to remember that we should be having "free" concussion subs as well... however that actually means independent 10minute min assessment and forcing clubs to take player off for said assessment you could see a burnely starts a game will 11 mean and a few subs and have one off concussion and have to cope while man city can take 6 or 7 top class players off the bench and just not hardly notice. A team could in theory only have 4 or 5 players from the starting 11 finish a game on a regular basis (if concussion rules were actually properly applied) For me if a side is playing 38 league games plus say 3 or 4 gup games really has zero need for 5 subs however a super league team with 70-80 games for their stars might be quite happy to have even more subs.
dear god. July 12: Liverpool FC v Manchester United (Rajamangala Stadium, Bangkok). General sale: available to purchase on Saturday April 2, 10am local time. preseason tour already being organised for july. headed for the far east again. covid really is "over"
There's no argument. The decision has been made and we have zero influence to change the global rule thats already in place.
I mean, we have as much influence on the substitution rule as we do whether Jota deserves a penalty during a game, whether next year's away kit looks crap, or whether we should sign Mbappe. Doesn't stop discussion on those.
Everything that I've read has said it's likely but no final decision has been made. But that's irrelevant - I can still argue a case against it whether it's been decided or not.
