The fourth T20I between India and England in Pune was not nearly cricketing motion but in addition a couple of main controversy relating to the concussion substitute rule. India’s alternative to usher in Harshit Rana as a substitute for Shivam Dube drew criticism, with England’s skipper Jos Buttler questioning whether or not the choice aligned with ICC rules.
Controversial choice raises questions
In the course of the last over of India’s innings, Dube was struck on the helmet by a supply from Jamie Overton. After medical examination, India introduced that pacer Rana would take his place below the concussion substitute rule. Rana went on to make a major impression with the ball, claiming three wickets for 33 runs and taking part in a pivotal position in India’s 15-run triumph.
Nonetheless, England expressed considerations over the legitimacy of the substitution. Buttler argued that Rana, primarily a tempo bowler, was not an appropriate like-for-like substitute for Dube, who is understood for his batting and occasional medium-pace bowling.
Additionally READ: Triple-wicket maiden: England pacer Saqib Mahmood achieves a novel feat within the 4th T20I towards India
Was Harshit Rana a real ‘like-for-like’ substitute?
A number of specialists imagine that changing an all-rounder like Dube with a specialist bowler reminiscent of Rana offered India with a bonus. Former gamers like Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook dinner additionally weighed in, suggesting that the choice contradicted the spirit of the rule.
The ICC’s concussion substitute guidelines goal to keep up equity within the recreation by making certain {that a} substitute doesn’t give a workforce an undue benefit. Clause 1.2.7.3 states that the substitute should be a like-for-like participant, which means their inclusion mustn’t considerably strengthen the workforce past what the concussed participant supplied. This prevents groups from utilizing the rule strategically to realize an higher hand.
In the meantime, Clause 1.2.7.7 grants the match referee the ultimate authority in approving or rejecting a concussion substitution, with no choice for groups to problem the choice, making certain that disputes don’t disrupt the match.
Clause 1.2.7.3: “A concussion substitute ought to be a comparable participant whose inclusion doesn’t present a major benefit to the workforce for the rest of the match.” This rule ensures that groups don’t exploit the concussion substitution course of.
Clause 1.2.7.7: “The match referee’s choice relating to a concussion substitute is last, and groups can not attraction towards it.”