Was Labuschagne a fair concussion sub? Is the rule fair?

[sage]

How was he a like-for-like replacement for Green? Green bowled what 5 overs? They had Hardie as an option as well. Who decides if it's like-for-like?

Honestly feel SA were robbed here. Green wasn't even hit in the head.

This rule can be exploited. Imagine if it happened in an important World Cup match.

[Nikhil_cric]

We got Chahal in for Jaddu while we were bowling after Jaddu scored with the bat and that too against Australia. Can't complain now that they have taken advantage of it.

[vvvslaxman]

This has been around for a while.  Like for like replacement is not possible.  If Green was not an all rounder i don't think Labu would have been allowed to bat.

[Lord]

Exact replacement not possible. Green had already bowled so they replaced a batter with one.

 

Wouldn't have been done if Green got injured batting in first innings say. Then a bowler or bowling AR would come in.

[sage]

2 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

This has been around for a while.  Like for like replacement is not possible.  If Green was not an all rounder i don't think Labu would have been allowed to bat.

Of course exact is not possible but shouldn't a neutral umpire make the decision.

 

The law is like-for-like replacement and Aaron Hardie is a like-for-like replacement for Green, more so than Labuschagne 

[Majestic]

For the first time, Labuschagne got runs with bat in white ball cricket. He was mostly a failure till now.

[saneindian]

Green batted at number 4 when he got hit and had to retire hurt. Labuschagne, as a sub, was as close to like to like replacement as you can get.

[nevada]

1 hour ago, saneindian said:

Green batted at number 4 when he got hit and had to retire hurt. Labuschagne, as a sub, was as close to like to like replacement as you can get.

Perfect explanation! Labu is the right replacement in the context of the game. 

[Norman]

Context matters a lot in these situations. Green's role in the second innings was that of a top order or a top 5 batter so Labu is an apt replacement. 

 

Just like chahal was a ln apt replacement for Jadeja back when the latter got concussed in our batting innings in a T20 in Australia.

[putrevus]

IMO this is very unfair rule. Just as an example :A batsmen scores 150 chasing 400 plus in test match is subbed out by another batsman who then goes on and scores another 150 to win the match with one wicket in hand. 

 

Other than WK who should be only allowed to keep.There should not be any sub allowed to bat or bowl.

 

Green was not good enough to avoid the bouncer, why should SA be penalized by it.

 

If batsman , bowler or WK get concussed , bad luck for the team.They should only get subsistute fielders.

 

Aussies were right in crying about Chahal that day also.

[Lord]

3 hours ago, putrevus said:

IMO this is very unfair rule. Just as an example :A batsmen scores 150 chasing 400 plus in test match is subbed out by another batsman who then goes on and scores another 150 to win the match with one wicket in hand. 

 

Other than WK who should be only allowed to keep.There should not be any sub allowed to bat or bowl.

 

Green was not good enough to avoid the bouncer, why should SA be penalized by it.

 

If batsman , bowler or WK get concussed , bad luck for the team.They should only get subsistute fielders.

 

Aussies were right in crying about Chahal that day also.

To discourage bowlers trying to hit batsmen rather than get them out.

 

Why should a team field with only 10 players in case of injury? Infact this rule can be extended to all injuries provided a neutral doctor is there to assess if the injury is genuine.

[putrevus]

24 minutes ago, Lord said:

To discourage bowlers trying to hit batsmen rather than get them out.

 

Why should a team field with only 10 players in case of injury? Infact this rule can be extended to all injuries provided a neutral doctor is there to assess if the injury is genuine.

Why would bowlers hit batsmen on purpose.? What are batsmen doing , they have bat in hand.Getting hit on head due to a bouncer is fault of the batsman. I don't think I have not seen any bowler aim to hit any batsman on the head with full toss.

 

Guess what you only get to play substitute if it is a concussion. Other injuries you still are not allowed to get replacement.

 

Injury is part of the game, concussion or hamstring. It should be the same.

Edited September 8, 2023 by putrevus

[Lord]

8 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Why would bowlers hit batsmen on purpose.? What are batsmen doing , they have bat in hand.Getting hit on hand due to a bouncer is fault of the batsman. I don't think I have not seen any bowler aim to hit any batsman on the head with full toss.

 

Guess what you only get to play substitute if it is a concussion. Other injuries you still are not allowed to get replacement.

 

Injury is part of the game, concussion or hamstring. It should be the same.

So why should one team play with 10 vs 11 for no fault of theirs?

 

As for bowlers not trying to hit batsmen, do you really think Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni 2006 was a mistake? That's just one example. Bowlers do it many times if they get frustrated.

 

 

[putrevus]

8 minutes ago, Lord said:

So why should one team play with 10 vs 11 for no fault of theirs?

 

As for bowlers not trying to hit batsmen, do you really think Akhtar's beamer to Dhoni 2006 was a mistake? That's just one example. Bowlers do it many times if they get frustrated.

 

 

What do you mean by no fault of theirs. Green in this case was hit on head, it is his fault  he was not good enough to avoid getting hit a by a bouncer,so Australia has to play with 10 players for selecting a batsman who was not skilled enough to avoid getting hit.

 

Kick bowlers out for year if they bowl beamers. Playing a guy like Labuschagne who starts fresh is making Australia play with 12 players.How is it fair for SA.

Edited September 8, 2023 by putrevus

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

What do you mean by no fault of theirs. Green in this case was hit on head, it is his fault  he was not good enough to avoid getting hit a by a bouncer,so Australia has to play with 10 players for selecting a batsman who was not skilled enough to avoid getting hit.

 

Kick bowlers out for year if they bowl beamers. Playing a guy like Labuschagne who starts fresh is making Australia play with 12 players.How is it fair for SA.

Green didn't get out though. If not injured he'd carried on like any other bat who plays a bouncer badly but isn't injured.He was good enough to protect his wicket and that's all that matters.

 

Labushagne replaced a guy who hadn't got out, was in low score too. Its not like Green got out and Labu came in.

[putrevus]

51 minutes ago, Lord said:

Green didn't get out though. If not injured he'd carried on like any other bat who plays a bouncer badly but isn't injured.He was good enough to protect his wicket and that's all that matters.

 

Labushagne replaced a guy who hadn't got out, was in low score too. Its not like Green got out and Labu came in.

Green did not get out but if he is unable to bat then it is Australia's problem.SA did not stop Green from coming back to bat.

 

It does not matter if Green scored 0 or 50. If Green had a broken hand instead of concussion then would he get sub to bat for him??Why special case for concussion.

Edited September 8, 2023 by putrevus

[putrevus]

How is it fair for Pakistan in this match.Rauf if he was concussed would have allowed to get a bowler but since it is bodily injury he cannot get a subsitute bowler to finish his over.

 

How is okay for Labu to bat but not okay for bowler to bowl Rauf's overs.

[Lord]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

How is it fair for Pakistan in this match.Rauf if he was concussed would have allowed to get a bowler but since it is bodily injury he cannot get a subsitute bowler to finish his over.

 

How is okay for Labu to bat but not okay for bowler to bowl Rauf's overs.

yes every injury should be included.

[putrevus]

17 minutes ago, Lord said:

yes every injury should be included.

But they won't and that is unfair.

 

Either do it for every injury or not do it for any injury.