Concussion Sub Rule

[Texan]

I didn't watch the match or follow live commentary, but just found out that Harshit Rana was concussion sub for Shivam Dube. How is that a like for like? Dube is more a batsman who bowls occasionally, hardly bowls in the IPL, while Rana is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit, but nowhere close to Dube's level in batting. I think this rule was exploited badly and the umpires should not have allowed it.

 

It's time to revisit this rule. If a concussion sub is allowed for one team, probably, they can offer the other team also a chance to replace one team member so that it is fair to both sides. Just putting out a thought on how to improve it. Yes, you don't want players playing through a concussion for the sake of their team, but right now, it just doesn't seem fair.

 

[vvvslaxman]

I don't think umpires have control over this. I think it is between two team management if i am right. Don't worry some other team might use it against us.  This is somewhat a difficult to rule to enforce. As long as someone can bowl and he has bowled he is a bowler.  

[Chalks]

Another “moral” victory for England…

[vvvslaxman]

This is why Rohit and Kohli have to bowl a lot of overs. If they had bowled regularly we could have easily replaced them with Sundar or other spinners after they sh** bricks with bat.

[Texan]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

I don't think umpires have control over this. I think it is between two team management if i am right. Don't worry some other team might use it against us.  This is somewhat a difficult to rule to enforce. As long as someone can bowl and he has bowled he is a bowler.  

 

Yes, difficult to enforce. But what I am saying is that when there is a concussion sub, the rule should allow the other team to also sub a player if they want to and let both teams agree on who are the subs. If this happens in a crucial World Cup level match, it is going to get a lot more scrutiny.

 

[cowboysfan]

10 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

This is why Rohit and Kohli have to bowl a lot of overs. If they had bowled regularly we could have easily replaced them with Sundar or other spinners after they sh** bricks with bat.

I vote for taking a bat to Rohits noggin.no law that says he only has to get hit by a ball to get a concussion.we can  find creative ways to concuss Rohit.

[bowl_out]

Apparently, it's the match referee who has the final say.

 

The law says that the team is required to nominate a replacement and the match referee should consider the likely role that the concussed player would have played for the rest of the game, and the normal role that would be played by the replacement player to approve the like-to-like concussion substitution.

 

Based on this, India are well within their rights to nominate Harshit, but the match referee botched up and should have asked India to bring a different replacement.

 

Javagal Srinath to blame?

 

@vvvslaxman @Lord

 

 

 

Edited January 31, 2025 by bowl_out

[Nikhil_cric]

28 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

I don't think umpires have control over this. I think it is between two team management if i am right. Don't worry some other team might use it against us.  This is somewhat a difficult to rule to enforce. As long as someone can bowl and he has bowled he is a bowler.  

No. Match referee has to approve

[nevada]

26 minutes ago, Chalks said:

Another “moral” victory for England…

First it was the smog, now it's the sub contributing to England's moral wins! 

[Chakdephatte]

There is no like to like replacement. No two players can be exactly same. 

[bowl_out]

3 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

There is no like to like replacement. No two players can be exactly same. 

Obviously but you need to go with the closest equivalent.

 

Refer rule above and tell me if Harshit or Ramandeep should have been the correct replacement allowed 

[lemsip]

What makes it appear even worse is that after the innings break, India took the field with Ramandeep as a normal substitute. After 2 overs apparently GG realized they needed a bowler, he pulled Ramandeep out and put in Harshit designating him as a concussion sub. 

Left a bad taste in my mouth. No need for these underhand tactics to win an inconsequential bilateral. On another day this will go against India and in a more crucial matches.

Edited January 31, 2025 by lemsip

[Bigg Brother]

AR should be replaced by AR. There isn't rocket science. Spinner for spinner. Pacer of pacer. 

 

4 years ago, we did same by bringing in Chahal for Jaddu after Jaddu contributed with bat and Chahal took 3 wickets against Aussie. Actually it should be pre-decided who can for whom out of 4 unpicked players. It will happen eventually once team starts exploiting the rule.

[vvvslaxman]

14 minutes ago, Bigg Brother said:

AR should be replaced by AR. There isn't rocket science. Spinner for spinner. Pacer of pacer. 

 

4 years ago, we did same by bringing in Chahal for Jaddu after Jaddu contributed with bat and Chahal took 3 wickets against Aussie. Actually it should be pre-decided who can for whom out of 4 unpicked players. It will happen eventually once team starts exploiting the rule.

May be they should remove the rule of substituting like they do for other injuries.

[bowl_out]

13 minutes ago, Bigg Brother said:

AR should be replaced by AR. There isn't rocket science. Spinner for spinner. Pacer of pacer. 

 

4 years ago, we did same by bringing in Chahal for Jaddu after Jaddu contributed with bat and Chahal took 3 wickets against Aussie. Actually it should be pre-decided who can for whom out of 4 unpicked players. It will happen eventually once team starts exploiting the rule.

Can't complain about the Chahal - Jadeja replacement though because: 

(1) Jadeja was expected to bowl 4 overs similar to Chahal. 

(2) there were no other meaningful, comparable replacements in the squad - Shreyas, Saini, Mayank Agarwal were the other options.

 

But today's game was an absolute sham.  As Michael Vaughan said, did the referee really think Dube would have bowled 4 overs? If he did, then England would have surely won the game.

[tapandrun]

1 hour ago, bowl_out said:

Apparently, it's the match referee who has the final say.

 

The law says that the team is required to nominate a replacement and the match referee should consider the likely role that the concussed player would have played for the rest of the game, and the normal role that would be played by the replacement player to approve the like-to-like concussion substitution.

 

Based on this, India are well within their rights to nominate Harshit, but the match referee botched up and should have asked India to bring a different replacement.

 

Javagal Srinath to blame?

 

@vvvslaxman @Lord

 

 

 

 

V.hard to do a like for-like replacement in a running game, no team has 2 similar kind of players, doctor checks the player if he think thats the case where concussion can happen he tell it to the team and then team has to find like for like replacement and get it approved by match referee.

 

Now its up-to match referee to say no this not who he thinks like like for like, give me another name ...... this hardly happens.

 

if some1 can bat he can be replaced by a batter  and if some1 bowls seam can be replaced by another seamer, a RA spin can be replace by another RA spin.

But say if LA pace is injured and team does not have another LA pace then what can they do they have to send a spinner or RA fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[New guy]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

May be they should remove the rule of substituting like they do for other injuries.

If substitutes are not allowed players will keep playing with concussion, which can be very dangerous. It's to avoid this that this rule was brought. 

[New guy]

3 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

I don't think umpires have control over this. I think it is between two team management if i am right. Don't worry some other team might use it against us.  This is somewhat a difficult to rule to enforce. As long as someone can bowl and he has bowled he is a bowler.  

"It is not a like-for-like replacement. We don't agree with that," Buttler said after India completed a 15-run win. "Either Shivam Dube has put on about 25mph with the ball or Harshit has really improved his batting. It's part of the game and we really should have gone on to win the match, but we disagree with the decision.

 

"There was no consultation [with us]. That's something I was thinking as I came out to bat - who is Harshit on for? They said he is a concussion replacement, which I obviously disagreed with. It is not a like-for-like replacement. They said that the match referee had made the decision. We had no say in it or any part of it. But we'll ask Javagal [Srinath] some questions just to get some clarity around it."

[bowl_out]

1 hour ago, tapandrun said:

 

V.hard to do a like for-like replacement in a running game, no team has 2 similar kind of players, doctor checks the player if he think thats the case where concussion can happen he tell it to the team and then team has to find like for like replacement and get it approved by match referee.

 

Now its up-to match referee to say no this not who he thinks like like for like, give me another name ...... this hardly happens.

 

if some1 can bat he can be replaced by a batter  and if some1 bowls seam can be replaced by another seamer, a RA spin can be replace by another RA spin.

But say if LA pace is injured and team does not have another LA pace then what can they do they have to send a spinner or RA fast.

 

 

RA, LA and all doesn't matter. Beggars can't be choosers.. Ideally, no replacement should be allowed. It is not England's fault that Dube didn't know how to protect his head from a bouncer. So, no replacement should have been allowed. That is how cricket has been played for decades.

 

After the Phil Hughes incident, replacements are allowed only for concussions. The rules are doing the team with an injury a favor. But, if teams misuse it like this, it will be short-lived.

 

India nominated Rana. But, Srinath should have struck it down and asked them to pick between Ramandeep and Sundar.  Or the rules should state that the match referee himself will decide the substitute based on who he thinks is the closest like-to-like player.. Obviously, it won't be the exact fit in every aspect, but at least a supposed neutral person decides on who is the closest match.

[tapandrun]

20 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

 

RA, LA and all doesn't matter. Beggars can't be choosers.. Ideally, no replacement should be allowed. It is not England's fault that Dube didn't know how to protect his head from a bouncer. So, no replacement should have been allowed. That is how cricket has been played for decades.

 

After the Phil Hughes incident, replacements are allowed only for concussions. The rules are doing the team with an injury a favor. But, if teams misuse it like this, it will be short-lived.

 

India nominated Rana. But, Srinath should have struck it down and asked them to pick between Ramandeep and Sundar.  Or the rules should state that the match referee himself will decide the substitute based on who he thinks is the closest like-to-like player.. Obviously, it won't be the exact fit in every aspect, but at least a supposed neutral person decides on who is the closest match.

 

Yes agreed Raman would have been more of a like-to-like, was talking about the rule in general. the rule does not stop replacing a better player who is filling the same role. 

 

yes teams may misuse it but what is the better way of dealing with this ???