The ICC’s concussion substitute rule has sparked significant debate, particularly following its recent application in a match between India and England.
This rule was implemented to ensure player safety by allowing teams to replace players who suffer concussions with a like-for-like substitute, thus maintaining the integrity of the game without giving an unfair advantage.
Overview of the Concussion Substitute Rule
The concussion substitute rule was introduced by the International Cricket Council (ICC) on August 1, 2019, across all international formats of cricket.
It allows teams to replace a player who is suspected of having sustained a concussion during play. The process requires a formal diagnosis from the team’s medical representative, followed by a request for substitution submitted to the ICC Match Referee.
This request must detail the incident and the medical assessment, and it must be made promptly after the injury occurs.
Key Conditions of the Rule
- Injury Requirement: The injury must occur during play and within the playing area.
- Medical Diagnosis: A concussion or suspected concussion must be formally diagnosed.
- Replacement Approval: The ICC Match Referee must approve the replacement, ensuring it is a like-for-like player whose inclusion does not excessively advantage the team.
Definition of “Like-for-Like”
The term “like-for-like” refers to ensuring that the substitute player fulfills a similar role to that of the injured player.
The Match Referee assesses what role the concussed player would have played for the remainder of the match and compares it to that of the proposed replacement.
If deemed necessary, restrictions can be imposed on the substitute’s involvement to prevent any undue advantage.
Recent Controversy: India’s Use of the Rule
In a recent T20 match against England, India utilized this rule when Shivam Dube suffered a concussion. They replaced him with Harshit Rana, a specialist bowler.
This decision raised eyebrows because Rana is considered a significantly higher-quality bowler than Dube, who is primarily an all-rounder.
Critics argue that this substitution provided India with an unfair advantage due to Rana’s superior bowling skills compared to Dube’s part-time bowling capabilities.
The Loophole Explained
The controversy centers on how the Match Referee interpreted “like-for-like.” According to Clause 1.2.7.4 of the ICC’s T20I Playing Conditions, when assessing whether a nominated replacement qualifies as a like-for-like player, the referee should consider what role the concussed player would have played for the remainder of the match and how that compares to the normal role of the replacement.
In this case, since both Dube and Rana could bowl and field, Rana was allowed as a substitute despite concerns about quality disparity.
This interpretation has led some former players and commentators to criticize the rule as flawed or poorly designed.
Sunil Gavaskar referred to it as “one of the worst rules in the game,” arguing that it rewards teams for ineptitude when players cannot handle high-pressure situations like facing bouncers.
