USA rules....sub rule

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

Allow one of them (should they decide quickly which of the two they want to actually use), and deny the other and issue an improper request.

In a perfect world, you're already telling the coaches they've used the 9th, 10th, and 11th, so when two people come up, you let them know they need to choose which one (quickly) and allow that sub. I wouldn't issue an improper request because the request for sub was legal (since they had a sub remaining), and we're not really denying anything, just making them choose (like if someone crosses the attack line and we blow the whistle).

Now, if they hem and haw over which sub they want, etc, you can deny both of them and issue a delay warning, but if you've done your due diligence ahead of time, you can just say "only one of you" and they'll get the hint without issues.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by FMadera

In a perfect world, you're already telling the coaches they've used the 9th, 10th, and 11th, so when two people come up, you let them know they need to choose which one (quickly) and allow that sub. I wouldn't issue an improper request because the request for sub was legal (since they had a sub remaining), and we're not really denying anything, just making them choose (like if someone crosses the attack line and we blow the whistle).

Now, if they hem and haw over which sub they want, etc, you can deny both of them and issue a delay warning, but if you've done your due diligence ahead of time, you can just say "only one of you" and they'll get the hint without issues.

In a perfect world, yes, but alas...

I think the casebook has a scenario like this with that being the correct response. You're denying the 13th sub since you're essentially recognizing both of them when you blow your whistle.

Suppose when you do give them the option of choosing, they want the other sub? There has to be some consequence for the team's actions, otherwise you're relaying that it's okay for them to do that without repercussion.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

Suppose when you do give them the option of choosing, they want the other sub? There has to be some consequence for the team's actions, otherwise you're relaying that it's okay for them to do that without repercussion.

They've made a legal sub request. If they make a legal sub after that request, and there's not a noticeable delay, administer it and move on. Don't look for trouble.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by FMadera

They've made a legal sub request. If they make a legal sub after that request, and there's not a noticeable delay, administer it and move on. Don't look for trouble.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. It's not about looking for trouble, but about following protocol. They've made a partially legal sub request as you're acknowledging the presence of both substitutions, but you're administering them one by one.

They're requesting two substitutions; one of which they can have, however, the other they cannot due to it being the maximum allowed number. With that in mind, you have to deny the request of the sub that would make the 13th.

So it's an improper request in addition to allowing the 12th sub.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

I'm going to disagree with you on this. It's not about looking for trouble, but about following protocol. They've made a partially legal sub request as you're acknowledging the presence of both substitutions, but you're administering them one by one.

They're requesting two substitutions; one of which they can have, however, the other they cannot due to it being the maximum allowed number. With that in mind, you have to deny the request of the sub that would make the 13th.

So it's an improper request in addition to allowing the 12th sub.

I'm going to disagree. You have one request. You can only make one request for substitution (in which you can make several at a time, all as part of the same request). This is one request. If you issue an improper request, you're saying there were multiple requests, which there were not.

[Antonio.King]

Originally Posted by FMadera

I'm going to disagree. You have one request. You can only make one request for substitution (in which you can make several at a time, all as part of the same request). This is one request. If you issue an improper request, you're saying there were multiple requests, which there were not.

Yes, you're right in the sense that only one request for substitution can be made, and that's by a player entering the sub zone. You're also correct in the sense that a team is allowed as many entries in the same dead ball request.

For a team to make multiple substitutions in the same dead ball, they need to be waiting outside the sub zone until the first pair is clear. In this instance, they are to be considered acknowledged under the same initial request.

15.10.14: "If a team intends to make simultaneously more than one substitution, all players being substituted must report to the substitution zone at the same time to be considered in the same request."

You're not inferring multiple requests in this instance considering their request is still being acknowledged. Just because the first sub has received authorization to enter doesn't mean their request is complete because they have another pair awaiting entry. Per 15.10.14, they're making a single request to allow multiple substitutions; when multiple pairs arrive, they are to be treated as one request. You allow their legal request (12th), but deny the 13th due to being over their maximum allowed number, thus making it an improper request.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by Antonio.King

You allow their legal request (12th), but deny the 13th due to being over their maximum allowed number, thus making it an improper request.

...if you want to officiate entirely by the book, and not by what is best practices. When they both come up, you remind them they can only have one, and the other one should then go back without you having to deny anything.

Let's say #5 comes into the sub zone, and the coach realizes that #6 should be subbing in instead. You sub in #6, #5 goes back to the bench, and we play on without further sanction unless there is a delay in the match.

Let's also say #5 steps into the sub zone for request 13, then realizes they are out of subs before you blow the whistle. No improper request here; they go back to the bench and we play on.

Same principle. We would treat that second player as if he is not part of the equation at all (if and ONLY if there isn't a delay caused by said action), administer the correct sub without delay, and we play on. Again...don't look for trouble, or you'll find it.

Antonio, your answer may be "correct" by the strictest interpretation of the rule, but if you handle it that way in a rating session, you're more likely to get dinged for it than if you handle it the way I describe. Trust me.