The concussion substitute rule in cricket has been a topic of discussion after the fourth T20 match between India and England. The rule, introduced by the International Cricket Council (ICC), allows a team to replace a player who has suffered a head or neck injury with another player. However, the replacement player must be a like-for-like substitute, meaning they must have similar skills and abilities to the injured player.
How the Concussion Substitute Rule Works
According to the ICC’s playing conditions, the match referee must approve the concussion substitute request. The referee must consider whether the replacement player is a similar player to the injured one and whether the team will gain an unfair advantage by making the substitution. The rule states that the replacement player should be a batsman if the injured player is a batsman, and a bowler if the injured player is a bowler.
Was Harshit Rana a Suitable Replacement for Shivam Dubey?
The controversy surrounding the India vs England match centered on whether Harshit Rana was a suitable replacement for Shivam Dubey. While Dubey has played 34 T20 matches for India, he has only bowled in 23 innings and completed his 4-over quota only twice. In contrast, Rana bowled 4 overs against England and took three important wickets. It is unclear whether Rana was a like-for-like substitute for Dubey, and the English team’s opposition to the substitution is understandable.
Timeline of Events
Here is a timeline of the events surrounding the concussion substitute controversy:
- Shivam Dubey was included in the playing 11 for India.
- Dubey batted in the first innings and scored 53 runs off 34 balls.
- Dubey suffered a head injury in the last over of the innings.
- Dubey did not take the field in the second innings.
- After two overs of the second innings, Harshit Rana was told he would join the playing 11 as a concussion substitute.
- Rana bowled in the 12th over of the innings and took 3 wickets for 33 runs in 4 overs.
- English captain Jose Butler expressed disappointment with the substitution and protested.
The controversy surrounding the concussion substitute rule highlights the need for clearer guidelines on what constitutes a like-for-like substitute. The ICC must ensure that the rule is applied consistently and fairly to avoid disputes and controversies in the future.