So now clubs can get an emergency loan when they get a player suspended for being sent off.

What's the point in having players suspended if they can just bring in a replacement outside the window? Where's the punishment? They've got a reserve keeper, they should have had to use him.

How is it fair that Cambridge are allowed to bring in an experienced replacement for their suspended player despite already having an alternative, while we have to do without our top scorer for three games?

I agree, that’s bloody shocking.

Where's the punishment? He handled the ball like a goof, and tried to claim that it wasn't.

Allowing Cambridge to bring in a keeper because they decided to have someone untested as their secondary choice, and despite their number 1 being sent off is absolutely clueless. I wouldn't be complaining if it was due to injury, but he got suspended for trying to prevent a goal scoring opportunity. If the ball would have gone into the net, that's not the point. What is, is the fact that he handled the ball and has been given a suspension.

It's not just unfair, it's borderline cheating, and it shouldn't have been approved. Notts and other clubs should put in a complaint, but I don't really think we have the guts to make reasonable statements about this sort of thing anymore. Perhaps it's for the best, but it's still unfair.

It's an extension of the overprotection of keepers I think.

They definitely should be treated as just another player when it comes to suspensions. You might have to put an outfield player in goal at sometime? That's fun. Everyone likes watching that. The rules should change, there shouldn't be an exception just because the player is a goalkeeper.

I can only think that it is a loophole that the EFL have not addressed. It's not that it seems very unfair, this development could also decide who gets the third promotion place if this guy has a blinder against Bromley. Other clubs will be looking at this situation very carefully.

I googled for more info and this is what I got in reply.

"EFL clubs are allowed to bring in emergency loans—specifically for goalkeepers—to ensure the integrity of the competition when all professional goalkeepers are unavailable due to injury, suspension, or international duty. These rules, managed by the EFL, prevent a club from being forced to play an outfield player in goal". 

So now it seems goalkeepers are treated differently to outfield players.

Clubs don’t get to use it freely. Typically they must prove:

They have no fit professional goalkeeper available

The situation is temporary

The loan is short-term (often 7 days at a time)

Absolute Rubbish, not been thought through at all.

26 minutes ago, Michael D Pie. said:

Clubs don’t get to use it freely. Typically they must prove:

They have no fit professional goalkeeper available

The situation is temporary

The loan is short-term (often 7 days at a time)

Absolute Rubbish, not been thought through at all.

I'm sorry but if the absence is due to a suspension for serious foul play, the club should forfeit the use of a professional goalkeeper. Injuries yes, suspensions no.

12 hours ago, theAnticlough said:

It's an extension of the overprotection of keepers I think.

Mark Stallard made comments about the keeper that came on for them, and that's probably their excuse, but it's not good when the offending player was sent off. It's no punishment to allow them to bring in a replacement; they should have addressed this in the extension window.

It's not an injury, or a reasonable alloweance.

Effectively they might have well had undone the suspension, because bringing in a replacement effectively does this.

This is an overreach and a clear instance of Cambridge United abusing the loan system to rectify a behavioral decision. As their keeper didn't have to hand the ball, it was an incredibly stupid action which should be correctly punished. Unfortunately, this is a get out of jail free card for them. The fact they have been allowed to unfairly bring in a keeper to replace a suspended player is an absolute joke.