Should a replacement player be allowed when an opponent is injured by an illegal delivery?

[MenInG]

Question come up after Shamar Joseph was injured on his toe by a Starc delivery which was a noball.

He will not be bowling and WI are a bowler short.

So would the fairer thing be to allow a substitute for Shamar in this case when he has been injured by an illegal delivery?

 

[greatest]

I think you can let a substitute play but like a substitute fielder his runs and wickets should not be included in his career record.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Not sure what the ICC laws say regarding this, but in the spirit of the game, Australia should allow them a substitute bowler, as he has been injured by a no-ball delivery. West Indies have a chance to win, but this injury has diminished their chances of winning the game.

 

[greatest]

Not sure what the ICC laws say regarding this, but in the spirit of the game, Australia should allow them a substitute bowler, as he has been injured by a no-ball delivery. West Indies have a chance to win, but this injury has diminished their chances of winning the game.

The problem is some players can fake an injury during a match. There are always a few who are good at acting.
But anyways, a substitute should play.

 

[160KPH]

Very interesting question to be honest.

 

[Cricket Warrior]

Well to be very honest they must allow it because there is no other way that a batsman can get the benefit of that no ball even So in the spirit of the game a player must be given a substitute.