Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020, the International Football Association Board (IFAB) introduced a temporary rule amendment of two additional substitutions in regular time. In this study, we assess the impact of this rule change with regard to player relief, tactical influence by the coaches and the development of young players. Data were collected from 3652 matches from the top 5 leagues in the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) rankings and 659 UEFA club competition matches (Champions League and Europa League) in 2 different seasons (pre-rule amendment: 2018/2019 vs. post-rule amendment: 2020/2021), comparing leagues that introduced two additional substitutions with those that did not. The results show that with two additional substitutions, the reduction in player load was increased by 46%. Despite being used infrequently, the rule change resulted in 45% more substitutions and, therefore, greater tactical influence by the coaches. Furthermore, two additional substitutions benefit young players’ development with an 81% increase in playing time. While the aim of the temporary amendment to the laws of the game was achieved with the additional substitutions by compensating for the increased load on the players, coaches’ substitution behaviour shows potential for improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".