New Delhi: The Indian men’s team clinching the T20I series following the 15-run win against England in the fourth T20 International against England was overshadowed by the concussion substitute controversy. Both England players and pundits were left baffled with India’s choice of substitutions.
Indian all-rounder Shivam Dube scored a crucial 53 runs off 34 balls to help the hosts post a respectable 181 for 9 in the first innings. However, the left-handed batter was struck on his helmet during the Indian innings and didn’t took the field in the second innings. As a result, India brought in fast bowler Harshit Rana as a concussion replacement for Dube.
Harshit, in what was his T20I debut, produced a solid show with the ball, though he conceded a few runs. He claimed the wickets of Liam Livingstone, Jacob Bethell, and Jamie Overton to finish with figures of 3 for 33. The Delhi youngster’s bowling show somehow determined the result of the game, leading many from the opposition camp to question the legitimacy of the concussion substitute rule.
England skipper Jos Buttler slammed the approval of Harshit coming for Dube, saying that it wasn’t a suitable replacement in any case.
“It is not a like-for-like replacement. We don’t agree with that,” Buttler said in the post-match press conference. “Either Shivam Dube has put on about 25mph with the ball or Harshit’s 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.”
Buttler further said that the England team wasn’t consulted on the replacement and they couldn’t challenge the decision after the match referee approved it.
“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,” the England skipper added.
Even former England player Kevin Pietersen couldn’t believe the substitution by India and didn’t hold from calling out on-air in the second innings.
“He (Harshit Rana) is not the like-to-like replacement for Shivam Dube. You ask anyone in the world, and they will say the same thing. Dube is not a genuine pacer, but Rana is. This would be discussed a lot after the match,” Pietersen said.
Former England captains Alastair Cook and Michael Vaughan also showed their disapproval with the substitute decision.
“Replacing a big-hitting batting all-rounder, who has bowled one over in the IPL [in 2024], with a guy who can’t bat and bowls heavy seam makes no sense to me whatsoever,” Cook said on TNT Sports.
“It seems absolute madness that you are allowed to do it, but credit to the lad on debut, but he shouldn’t be allowed to play there. It gave the captain another brilliant option,” he added.
“How can an out & out bowler replace a batter who bowls part time,” Vaughan wrote on his X handle.
The concussion substitute rule was brought in 2019 by the International Cricket Council after numerous cases of head injuries were reported during that period. The rule allows the team to make a like-a-like replacement in the team for the remaining match.
This isn’t the first time India is being questioned for not fielding the right substitution. Leg-spinner Yuzvendra Chahal was named replacement for all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja in the first T20I match in Canberra against Australia. Chahal picked 3 for 25 in that match as India went on to muster 11-run win in that match while Jadeja had scored 44 with the bat in the first innings.
What does the ICC concussion rule says?
“The ICC Match Referee should ordinarily approve a Concussion Replacement Request if the replacement is a like-for-like player whose inclusion will not excessively advantage his/her team for the remainder of the match.”
Sub-sections, 1.2.7.4 and 1.2.7.5, add, “in assessing whether the nominated Concussion Replacement should be considered a like-for-like player, the ICC Match Referee should consider the likely role the concussed player would have played during the remainder of the match, and the normal role that would be performed by the nominated Concussion Replacement.”
“If the ICC Match Referee believes that the inclusion of the nominated Concussion Replacement, when performing their normal role, would excessively advantage their team, the ICC Match Referee may impose such conditions upon the identity and involvement of the Concussion Replacement as he/she sees fit, in line with the overriding objective of facilitating a like-for-like replacement for the concussed player.”
India’s victory in the T20I series against England was overshadowed by a controversial concussion substitution. The replacement of injured all-rounder Shivam Dube with bowler Harshit Rana sparked outrage from England players and pundits, who argued it wasn’t a “like-for-like” replacement as per ICC rules. Cricket Sports News: Latest Cricket News, Cricket Live Score, Sports Breaking News from Sports Today
