Arsenal in hot water over new substitution rules – Could be disqualified?

Arsenal’s 2-goal hero

Arsene Wenger used two players off the bench during the extra time period, whereas the new rule seems to be a little ambiguous. Carabao Cup Rule 10 states: “Each team is permitted up to seven substitutes of whom not more than three may take part in the match.

“Where any match goes to extra-time each club will be permitted to use an additional sub (in extra-time only).”

So the argument is to whether you can still use all four, even if only two are used during the original 90 minutes. Wenger is adamant that he has kept to the rules, but the Norwich boss Daniel Farke seems a little confused: “I think the rule has changed but it is complicated.” he said.

I certainly hope that it is not going to have to be replayed again. I don’t think I could handle all that stress again!

Admin

16 Comments

  1. Dom says:

    No problem for the Gunners. It’s happened in the previous round without any repercussions. Bring on the quarter finals.

    1. GB says:

      Absolutely correct Dom, I also explained the rule in a previous article here. Who do we want to play or want to avoid in the draw tonight though?

      1. Joey Mack says:

        As long as it’s home, I don’t really care but Bournemouth or Bristol are probably the “easiest” of a tough bunch, and I would really like to see West Ham beat Spurs just because. The further we get in all the cups, the better for the youngsters. But what I really would like would be for us to go up against Chelsea in both the Carabao Cup and FA Cup finals – and of course win!

      2. BigLad says:

        probably want to avoid barcelona or Bayern in the draw. they see to have our number most times we play!!!

  2. achaks says:

    Arsenal now in Q finals…. And how it happened? I don’t give a flying f*ck..

  3. jon fox says:

    The rules are clearly ambiguously written. IF and I say IF, Arsenal are fined or excluded, they clearly have a strong case in law to sue the relevant football authority. For that exact reason, I expect to hear no more about a fine or banning. At least not from those who actually make decisions, rather than just speculate about them.

    1. Sue says:

      It’s the same for man city

  4. Mobella says:

    Let just say for a moment Pep and Wenger forgot the substitution rules. What about the officials that are well trained for this. British media like sensationalism that is why they mentioned Man City and Arsenal. This is clearly the referee’s fault.

  5. FrankN says:

    As a recentlty retired lawyer, I think the rule is clear enough. “Additional sub” is clearly a reference to a fourth sub, but that sub can only be used in extra time, regardless of the number used in normal time.

    1. Lexynal says:

      Is there a rule that says you cannot use your third sub during extra Time? If the answer is no, then what is the problem? Using the 4th sub and during extra time only is what we did. So, where does ambiguity come in here ? Bring on the quarter final opponent please!

    2. GB says:

      Sorry my learned friend but you are wrong. Peruse the laws (not a newspaper article) and in my opinion it’s not ambiguous as you suggest.
      It’s happened in previous rounds also if, and it’s a big if, the rules have been broken then a precident has already been set and if ruled against, the whole competition would have to be started over again.

      1. GB says:

        Meant to finalise with, I rest my case ?

  6. Roachie says:

    I doubt the sponsers of the cup would like to see Arsenal and Man C thrown out of the competion.

  7. Lexynal says:

    Is there a rule that says you cannot use your third sub during extra Time? If the answer is no, then what is the problem? Using the 4th sub and during extra time only is what we did. So, where does ambiguity come in here ? Bring on the quarter final opponent please!

  8. kelleson says:

    Does the rule states that when u have not exhausted ur three sustitute before extra time such is forfeited?

  9. Turbo says:

    Wow, if that’s the exact wording it really is a poorly written and unclear rule. It would be exceptionally harsh to hold that against in. They should clarify it for future rounds and let prior results stand for such situations I think.

Comments are closed