DRS: Is it time for injury replacements in cricket?

India Today

2 days ago

It was truly a brave sight to behold when Rishabh Pant came out to bat on Day 2 of the Manchester Test. The Indian vice-captain was feeling the pain, but he fought through it as the crowd at Old Trafford, regardless of their allegiances, stood up and applauded him for his bravery. Pant came in struggling, but battled his way to 54 as India posted 358.advertisementWhile these moments are stirring and make you understand why these players put their bodies on the line for the nation's cause—was it necessary? Mind you, Pant is someone who made a long recovery from a car crash a few years ago and was already injured during the Lord's Test. His fearless batting prowess was greatly reduced as he was in pain and shouldn't have had to put his body on the line in this match and risk aggravating the injury. With a broken toe, Pant is expected to be out for some time, meaning India will be without one of their best batters for the remainder of the tour—having already scored 479 runs from seven innings.This raises the question: should cricket introduce a substitutes system like some of the other team sports? The best example is football, where each team is allowed to make at least five changes to their lineup during 90 minutes—either as part of strategy or to preserve player energy. Something similar happens in basketball, while hockey has flying substitutes who come in and leave throughout the game.
In cricket, we currently have the concussion substitute system, introduced by the ICC in April 2019. That rule comes with some conditions—only a like-for-like replacement for the injured player can be made. The ICC also introduced COVID substitutes during the pandemic era, which allowed a player showing signs of COVID-19 during the course of the game to be replaced with a like-for-like player.
Pant was carted off the field on Day one (Courtesy: Reuters)
Now, Pant's episode has certainly divided opinion on whether substitutes should be introduced more broadly in cricket. Shardul Thakur said that it would be unfair for other teams if the system were to come into play during the current cycle and should instead be considered for the next one."I think, I think there's some discussion going on if I'm not wrong. I was reading, reading it in the news, uh, whether that should come in play or not, right now I couldn't say much, but if it happens, I would say it should happen after this cycle of WTC. It shouldn't happen in the middle because already there are a few series that have been playing in world cricket. And it could be unfair when it comes to the points table and qualifying for the finals, looking at the whole WTC cycle," said Thakur.advertisementMichael Vaughan, on the other hand, batted for substitutes to come in for serious injuries like the one Pant suffered.'I don't like the fact that we've got four days left and we're heading into what is effectively a 10 vs 11 contest,' Michael Vaughan said. 'When concussion substitutes were introduced, I felt we should've gone a step further. If someone suffers a clear injury — like a broken foot or a ruptured muscle — they should be allowed to be replaced.'In the latest episode of Democratic Review System, an opinion-based column, sports reporters, producers and writers from the India Today Group share their thoughts.Leave your thoughts in the comment box below.1. Nikhil NazNo. Because how do you define an external injury— will a bruise and scratch be judged the same way as a dislocation or fracture? This leaves a lot of ambiguity and will allow teams to exploit this loophole to correct any selection mistakes they have made at the start of the match. Bottom line— fitness and injuries are an integral part of sport, you take it as 'bad-luck' and move on with the game.advertisement2. Sabyasachi ChowdhuryI believe the rule can be introduced, but only after thorough analysis and careful deliberation. The ICC must ensure the process is airtight, leaving no room for potential loopholes that could be exploited in the future. In Rishabh Pant's case, it's certainly unfortunate, but allowing a like-for-like replacement in such situations seems only fair and reasonable.3. Sidharth ViswanathanSimple answer for a complicated sport. NO. At a time when there has been a massive debate on what is a like-for-like replacement in a concussion substitute scenario, a substitute for external injuries will only complicate matters. If the MCC clearly defined what is an external injury, then a step can be taken. But, the backdrop of this is also debatable. In Manchester, Rishabh Pant suffered an injury primarily out of his own doing. If he has not played that shot, probably the injury would not have happened and the debate would not have arisen. Had India not exploited the grey areas in the concussion substitute situation, then this could have been seriously considered.advertisement4. Akshay RameshYes, cricket remains one of the few major sports that does not permit standard substitutions for injuries. After considerable deliberation, concussion substitutes were finally introduced, and Covid-19 replacements have been in place since the onset of the pandemic. However, it is unfortunate that a team must suffer the consequences of an injury, something that is an inherent part of the game.The ICC Cricket Committee should seriously consider allowing like-for-like replacements in the event of injuries.To maintain the spirit and integrity of the game, the ICC and the MCC could collaborate to formulate clear guidelines and implement a robust framework. This could involve mandatory assessments by independent medical professionals or team doctors to authorise substitutions, thereby preventing any potential misuse of the rule.Injury replacements, if properly regulated, would be a progressive step forward in modernising the sport and ensuring fairness, especially in a format like Test cricket.5. Harshit AhujaWhile injuries are a part of any sport, for a sport that is already grappling with complex rules, allowing subs for external injuries could invite more controversy. Unlike internal injuries, which can easily be faked, there is visual proof of external injuries but that still doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of teams misusing their substitute. A swelling or a cut makes for visible proof but it could be difficult to ascertain if the wound/injury is severe enough for a player to carry on or not. Also, while most team sports, like football, hockey, & basketball, to name a few, allow substitutes, there are others like Judo, Table Tennis & rowing that don't have that provision. Too bad that we can have a 10 vs 11 situation in a match, but it is what it is.advertisement6. Sidharth GulatiYes!Understandably, there's a grey area around 'external injury'. I feel that it should be left entirely to the discretion of the match referee, backed by clear medical proof. The implementation would need uncomplicated guidelines to prevent any misuse.7. Rishabh BeniwalInjury substitutes make even more logical sense for a sport like cricket, as every player's contribution is immensely important in the game. In a format like Test cricket, losing one player due to an injury, especially if they're your main strike bowler or premier batter, leaves a massive hole in any team. Hence, injury substitutes can be the way forward to provide an even contest between two teams if one player is forced to sit out. However, there should be rules to prevent its misuse by any team as the law has the potential to add more controversy to the game.8. Alan John This is something that the ICC should test out. The injury to Pant has essentially left India handicapped in two departments for two straight games as he will be missed as a batter and behind the stumps. Maybe, the substitute should be allowed only after proper tests from a neutral medical facility and only after seeing the reports. And yes, the system of only having like-for-like replacements should be implemented here as well.- EndsTune InMust Watch