The thinly-veiled dig from Michael Vaughan was sort of expected. As the concussion substitute controversy erupted during the fourth T20I between India and England in Pune, the former England captain posted on X (formerly Twitter): “How can an out & out bowler replace a batter who bowls part time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
A day later, this correspondent bumped into Wasim Jaffer, Vaughan’s old friend and his X rival, at Eden Gardens. Jaffer is currently coaching the Punjab Ranji Trophy team and on the sidelines of an interview focusing on domestic cricket, when he was asked about Vaughan’s post, the former opener folded his hands and said: “Good day.”
On a serious note, a call to a former BCCI match referee, based out of Mumbai, ensued and he agreed to speak on condition of anonymity. Until then, mind was made up about Javagal Srinath, the match referee of the fourth T20I, making a mistake by allowing Harshit Rana as a concussion sub for Shivam Dube. The BCCI old hand offered a different perspective.
But before going to that, here’s what the 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.”
It adds: “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.”
Pundits have been putting a lot of emphasis on the “like-for-like” clause. But going by the letter of the law, unlike football, a like-for-like replacement is nigh impossible in cricket. In football, five substitutions are allowed, while seven to nine players can sit on the bench. So, for example, in the Portugal national team, when manager Roberto Martinez is bringing on Diogo Jota for Cristiano Ronaldo, he is replacing a centre-forward with another centre-forward. “In cricket, in a squad of 15, with just four players sitting in the dug-out, the scope is very limited,” said the BCCI match referee.
When leg-spinner Yuzvendra Chahal came in as a concussion sub for left-arm spinner Ravindra Jadeja in a T20I against Australia in Canberra in December 2020, it wasn’t a like-for-like replacement in the true sense of the word and Moises Henriques, the Aussie all-rounder, had questioned it.
It was the same when England had brought in leg-spinner Matt Parkinson for left-arm spinner Jack Leach in a Test against New Zealand in 2022.
Coming to Rana replacing Dube, the fast bowler’s batting ability — just two runs from 25 T20s before the Pune game — was mentioned several times. “India’s batting was over, so Rana’s batting ability was irrelevant,” said the ex-BCCI match referee. “As per the rule, Srinath had to focus on his role for the remainder of the game, whether he was giving his side any excessive advantage. And there was a catch, for Rana was making his T20I debut, while it was Dube’s first game in the series. So, Srinath didn’t have any sample size to work with. Also, he couldn’t have judged it beforehand.”
Yes, Rana is a fast bowler unlike Dube, who bowls dibbly-dobbly medium pace. Rana’s 3/33 in four overs handsomely contributed to India’s 15-run victory. But Srinath, despite being the sole arbitrator in this case, was in no position to pre-judge that. Also, he didn’t know if the Indian team would have used Dube for his full quota of four overs if he had stayed on the field. For the record, the Mumbai man’s career-best bowling figures in first-class cricket is 7/53.
Whether Srinath made an error of judgment was subject to interpretations. He might argue that he followed the letter of the law. “There are ambiguities in the rule and going ahead, we might see modifications,” said the former BCCI match referee.
The post Concussion sub controversy: Maybe, Srinath had a point appeared first on Sports News Portal | Latest Sports Articles | Revsports.
