Should batsmen that retire hurt with cramps be allowed to resume their innings in Test cricket?

[Last Monetarist]

Embarrassing to watch him on his knees and panting as if he has been batting for 9 sessions and broke Lara’s record.

Our players are not athletes. It is comical.

Considering his embarrassing fitness, maybe he would have retired already if he had played all these years.

He is clearly no Younis and Misbah as far as mileage is concerned.

Batsmen going off the field for cramp should be retired out, and not allowed to bat again in that innings. It's a bit of a mockery of the rule, one would understand if it was a physical impact injury that required expert assessment or an x-ray.

 

[Mamoon]

Batsmen going off the field for cramp should be retired out, and not allowed to bat again in that innings. It's a bit of a mockery of the rule, one would understand if it was a physical impact injury that required expert assessment or an x-ray.

You are 100% correct as usual.

You just can’t take a “break” and then resume your innings later just because you were tired.

 

[OmarKhan99]

Batsmen going off the field for cramp should be retired out, and not allowed to bat again in that innings. It's a bit of a mockery of the rule, one would understand if it was a physical impact injury that required expert assessment or an x-ray.

Aren't cramp-like pain a symptom of a multitude of possible diagnoses? It could be a simple temporary leg cramp from over exhaustion of the muscles, or from dehydration through heat or it could be something potentially dangerous in a pinched nerve? I remember Hardik Pandya collapsing after bowling in the Asia Cup. Some inferred that it was just dehydration from the extensive heat, but it turned out to be a herniated disc in the back. Another example is Dustin Brown from the world of Tennis. Sometimes the pain from pinched nerves can't actually be localized to where it is actually being pinched. A pinched nerve in the lower back may feel like a harmless leg cramp to those who aren't aware of what to look for. You can only be sure through scans.

This may not be the case with Fawad, since the Physio probably helped him self-diagnose the kind of pain he is feeling (radiating, etc.) to eliminate a few potential diagnoses. However, like concussions, you have to conduct a series of assessments and let the initial pain subside/set in somewhat, before you can determine if that player is fit to play (was just some leg cramp) or needs to head for a CT Scan (actual injury).

Don't think the blanket rule you're suggesting would actually be feasible or even fair.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Aren't cramp-like pain a symptom of a multitude of possible diagnoses? It could be a simple temporary leg cramp from over exhaustion of the muscles, or from dehydration through heat or it could be something potentially dangerous in a pinched nerve? I remember Hardik Pandya collapsing after bowling in the Asia Cup. Some inferred that it was just dehydration from the extensive heat, but it turned out to be a herniated disc in the back. Another example is Dustin Brown from the world of Tennis. Sometimes the pain from pinched nerves can't actually be localized to where it is actually being pinched. A pinched nerve in the lower back may feel like a harmless leg cramp to those who aren't aware of what to look for. You can only be sure through scans.

This may not be the case with Fawad, since the Physio probably helped him self-diagnose the kind of pain he is feeling (radiating, etc.) to eliminate a few potential diagnoses. However, like concussions, you have to conduct a series of assessments and let the initial pain subside/set in somewhat, before you can determine if that player is fit to play (was just some leg cramp) or needs to head for a CT Scan (actual injury).

Don't think the blanket rule you're suggesting would actually be feasible or even fair.

To eliminate the risk of (unfit) players gaming the system, if it's not a physical impact injury, batsmen should be retired out from the innings.

In each of the instances that you are referring, returning to the field of play should be the least concern for the affected player in the short-term.

 

[OmarKhan99]

To eliminate the risk of (unfit) players gaming the system, if it's not a physical impact injury, batsmen should be retired out from the innings.

In each of the instances that you are referring, returning to the field of play should be the least concern for the affected player in the short-term.

That right there is the problem. Muscle cramps in the leg are a symptom of potential 'physical impact injury' (i.e. a back injury, etc.). And much like a ball cannoning into the arm or a knock on the head, it also requires an 'expert assessment or [scans].'

Not sure how you're differentiating the two.

 

[Last Monetarist]

That right there is the problem. Muscle cramps in the leg are a symptom of potential 'physical impact injury' (i.e. a back injury, etc.). And much like a ball cannoning into the arm or a knock on the head, it also requires an 'expert assessment or [scans].'

Not sure how you're differentiating the two.

It's not really that complex though: give the match referee the authority to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis and decide after consultation with the physios and verification of the assessment. It already happens as part of the current concussion protocols.

Edit: The assessment of the probability of a leg-cramp being indicative of a serious underlying nerve problem should be left to the physio/sports doctor, which they are qualified to opine upon. If this wasn't the case, each time a player goes down with cramps in tennis or football, they would be rushed to the dressing room for a detailed examination.

 

[Rana]

You are 100% correct as usual.

You just can’t take a “break” and then resume your innings later just because you were tired.

Would you agree ‘100%’ if Virat Kohli or any other Indian batman did the same? We all know you wouldn’t. So why should anyone take what you think seriously?

 

[OmarKhan99]

It's not really that complex though: give the match referee the authority to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis and decide after consultation with the physios and verification of the assessment. It already happens as part of the current concussion protocols.

I agree, and that's why I said that the blanket rule that was suggested wouldn't be fair. Even if the player was ultimately diagnosed to be suffering from 'just' a leg cramp, to adjudge him 'retired out' and not grant him an option to take field again (like is the case for hit on the arm/head ,etc.) is harsh. The whole point is that player walking off is not aware of the extent of the injury, so it wouldn't make sense to penalize him with his wicket for going off field in the first place.

Matters like injuries/concussions should be mainly the responsibility of the medical team, and they'll come up with the apt assessment. That's what they're there for. This does require the assumption that the medical team is professional enough to be honest, but that is an assumption in all professions.

The match referee would have a role, but a minimal one. The reason they're involved in the concussion protocols is because they use the medical team's assessment to then allow for concussion substitutes, etc. In other forms of injuries, you can only get a fielding substitute. Only when they allow for full-fledged substitutes in non-concussion related injuries, does a bit more scrutiny/investigation from the match referee become warranted. Until then, the current 'time-off' ruling for not fielding for a significant period of time is sufficient.

 

[OmarKhan99]

Edit: The assessment of the probability of a leg-cramp being indicative of a serious underlying nerve problem should be left to the physio/sports doctor, which they are qualified to opine upon. If this wasn't the case, each time a player goes down with cramps in tennis or football, they would be rushed to the dressing room for a detailed examination.

In regards to your edit, obviously they're various degrees of pain/injuries. You don't see a player plastering their arm around the their neck and walking off at every instance of a ball hitting their arm either. Take a brief break to settle themselves on-field or off-field, and then play on.

If someone has felt the need to have to walk off with a cramp, it needs to be assessed. Just like a player who got hit on the arm and feels the arm go numb for quite some time, needs to be checked out as well. I agree that the physio and medical team should be the one doing assessing, but like I said before, that often requires the player going off-field and a bit of a 'break' in the first place.

 

[Last Monetarist]

In regards to your edit, obviously they're various degrees of pain/injuries. You don't see a player plastering their arm around the their neck and walking off at every instance of a ball hitting their arm either. Take a brief break to settle themselves on-field or off-field, and then play on.

If someone has felt the need to have to walk off with a cramp, it needs to be assessed. Just like a player who got hit on the arm and feels the arm go numb for quite some time, needs to be checked out as well. I agree that the physio and medical team should be the one doing assessing, but like I said before, that often requires the player going off-field and a bit of a 'break' in the first place.

My issue is that players going off the field for general cramps i.e. tiredness is unfair to the fielding team especially in test cricket where batsmen have the opportunity to rest overnight and be fresh to resume their innings the next day. It deprives the opposition of a valid opportunity to take a wicket given that a tired batsman is wont to make a mistake, therefore, they shouldn't be penalized for a batsman gaming the system and taking a rest just because there is a loophole in the rules.

If there are valid concerns of a serious underlying nerve injury, by all means the rules shouldn't be stringently applied, but there is always room for a qualified judgement.

 

[OmarKhan99]

My issue is that players going off the field for general cramps i.e. tiredness is unfair to the fielding team especially in test cricket where batsmen have the opportunity to rest overnight and be fresh to resume their innings the next day. It deprives the opposition of a valid opportunity to take a wicket given that a tired batsman is wont to make a mistake, therefore, they shouldn't be penalized for a batsman gaming the system and taking a rest just because there is a loophole in the rules.

If there are valid concerns of a serious underlying nerve injury, by all means the rules shouldn't be stringently applied, but there is always room for a qualified judgement.

Yes, I've always agreed with this. There should be a nuanced judgement by taking in multiple different factors into account.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Yes. Test cricket is an incredibly tough and challenging format. And players do deserve a little leeway. I also don't see why they should have to end their innings because of something that is entirely out of their control i.e. the heat.

 

[MenInG]

So if a player is away from the field for x number of play hours (not counting overnight etc), he should not be allowed back until that time duration passed. For a batsman, if his team is bowled out too soon, then tough!

 

[OmarKhan99]

So if a player is away from the field for x number of play hours (not counting overnight etc), he should not be allowed back until that time duration passed. For a batsman, if his team is bowled out too soon, then tough!

I thought the ruling was that either you can't play until X amount of hours have passed or until Y amount of wickets have fallen. Whichever comes first.

 

[Rana]

Why not??

If you are using the current match as an example, West Indies had to replace their keeper because of cramps. It seems like the weather was extremely hot during the day yesterday, it took out two players not one.

 

[Ashmal]

Batsmen going off the field for cramp should be retired out, and not allowed to bat again in that innings. It's a bit of a mockery of the rule, one would understand if it was a physical impact injury that required expert assessment or an x-ray.

Bowlers are allowed to go and rest in the dressing room after finishing their spell and then come back resume.

The bowlers/fielders even have a drink while fielding at the boundary after every over.

Why to penalise the poor batsman only...

 

[UzmanBeast]

I would say that if they are to come back after that rest, they should be the last player (ie. the last wicket).

That means if a team wants their "good batsman" to come in, they'd have to wait or lose wickets to do that.

 

[gazza619]

You are 100% correct as usual.

You just can’t take a “break” and then resume your innings later just because you were tired.

There is a difference between being tired and being medically not fit.

What about when a bowler going to the dressing room to relax his legs and change and then returns back to the field? Should we ban players from taking a wee break as well, shall we?

I am a gazzilion percent sure you wouldnt have said this if it was an Indian player.

We must remember these are humans.

 

[Smbhayi]

IIRC Kaif once retired hurt vs Australia due to dehydration..

 

[Mamoon]

There is a difference between being tired and being medically not fit.

What about when a bowler going to the dressing room to relax his legs and change and then returns back to the field? Should we ban players from taking a wee break as well, shall we?

I am a gazzilion percent sure you wouldnt have said this if it was an Indian player.

We must remember these are humans.

There is a difference between a bowler going to the dressing room to take a breather and a batsman retiring hurt because of fatigue.

When a bowler is not bowling, he is not directly involved in play. His presence on the field does not directly impact the game.

However, a batsman batting in the middle is always directly involved in the play. He cannot simply walk in and out based on how he is feeling.

If a batsman is genuinely injured, that is different. However, if he fatigued, he should either deal with it or be declared out.

Indian batsmen are proper athletes. They are not malnourished like Fawad who cannot clear the inner circle and probably weighs 60 kg.

Indian batsmen are not going to run out of gas after batting for a few hours in heat, and if they do, they don’t deserve to resume their innings either.

 

[Mamoon]

Would you agree ‘100%’ if Virat Kohli or any other Indian batman did the same? We all know you wouldn’t. So why should anyone take what you think seriously?

Read above.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Yes of course they should be allowed to. Anyone that has played sport knows how random and debilitating a bout of cramp can be. As far as concerns about gaming the system go - how many times have you seen someone walk off the field for cramp?

It happens about once every 20 matches. Its a non-issue being over analysed because Fawad was involved.

 

[UzmanBeast]

This instance probably exposes yet another flaw in the rules of test cricket.

First we had the exploitation (not by intention) of the no-ball rule.

Now there could be a case where batsmen can "fake" (though it's quite clear Fawad didn't as he was dominating the West Indies) their injury to come into bat at a time where they are more comfortable.

Imagine if a batsman could "retire hurt" when a good spinner came on, just to bring out one of his teammates who was a great player of spin.

These discrepancies need to be looked into.

I already suggested that if a batsman retires hurt and is declared fit to play, he must be the last wicket to enter, so he comes in when the 9th wicket is gone.

 

[Ashmal]

There is a difference between a bowler going to the dressing room to take a breather and a batsman retiring hurt because of fatigue.

When a bowler is not bowling, he is not directly involved in play. His presence on the field does not directly impact the game.

However, a batsman batting in the middle is always directly involved in the play. He cannot simply walk in and out based on how he is feeling.

If a batsman is genuinely injured, that is different. However, if he fatigued, he should either deal with it or be declared out.

Indian batsmen are proper athletes. They are not malnourished like Fawad who cannot clear the inner circle and probably weighs 60 kg.

Indian batsmen are not going to run out of gas after batting for a few hours in heat, and if they do, they don’t deserve to resume their innings either.

How's the bowler not involved when he's not bowling......fielding is an equally important part of game.

It's unfair for the batting team....that they are not able to take advantage of the tired fielders

 

[prepare]

It seemed yesterday was extremely difficult conditions. Less than 75 overs were bowled. Should the bowlers be punished for slowing their over rate as it's "easier" to bowl overs less quickly!

Why should bowlers be allowed off the field to rest? If they had to field this would tire them out and directly make them less effective bowling. Also they are allowed sub fielders. And sub keepers.

A batsman set on 70 odd not out would not want to go off the field due to cramp. If anything this is an advantage to the bowling side as it gives them a new batsman to bowl at.

If you want to ban a batsman having to go off for cramp on the rare occasions it happens you need to stop bowlers and fielders having breaks off the field and being allowed sub fielders.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

This instance probably exposes yet another flaw in the rules of test cricket.

First we had the exploitation (not by intention) of the no-ball rule.

Now there could be a case where batsmen can "fake" (though it's quite clear Fawad didn't as he was dominating the West Indies) their injury to come into bat at a time where they are more comfortable.

Imagine if a batsman could "retire hurt" when a good spinner came on, just to bring out one of his teammates who was a great player of spin.

These discrepancies need to be looked into.

I already suggested that if a batsman retires hurt and is declared fit to play, he must be the last wicket to enter, so he comes in when the 9th wicket is gone.

has this ever happened?

I don't think anyone who is such a coward would ever make it to test cricket in the first place.

 

[UzmanBeast]

has this ever happened?

I don't think anyone who is such a coward would ever make it to test cricket in the first place.

Whether or not it happens intentionally, it could happen.

You wouldn't want to be in a WTC Final and have the oppositions best player (who is their worst player of spin) suddenly get a cramp and be replaced with a better player of spin.

Then, the opposition's best player could technically come in whenever the conditions suited him (ie. over 50 where the pitch is flat and the ball is doing nothing).

It's something which can be exploited. Coward-like behavior, yes, but teams will look for any advantage as we have seen. It is human nature to exploit whatever can be exploited.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Whether or not it happens intentionally, it could happen.

You wouldn't want to be in a WTC Final and have the oppositions best player (who is their worst player of spin) suddenly get a cramp and be replaced with a better player of spin.

Then, the opposition's best player could technically come in whenever the conditions suited him (ie. over 50 where the pitch is flat and the ball is doing nothing).

It's something which can be exploited. Coward-like behavior, yes, but teams will look for any advantage as we have seen. It is human nature to exploit whatever can be exploited.

It's like the ludicrous boundary count rule in the event of a tied super over in the World Cup, it doesn't matter till it happens.

 

[Major]

has this ever happened?

I don't think anyone who is such a coward would ever make it to test cricket in the first place.

It has happened. I dont remember which game it was, it happened in some recently concluded match against Pakistan. The opposition had faked an injury in the series earlier.

When an actual injury happened, the umpires did not allow a substitue fielder and the opposition was fielding one man less.

I think it was england or maybe Sa not sure

 

[Titan24]

It is worth remembering that in 2011 the rule of having runner was taken out of cricket so taking out retired hurt would mean that if a batsman gets a sort of injury where he cant play for sometime he will have to given out. Mind you cramps are physical and can make you physically impaired and anyone who thinks otherwise needs to bit more research.

Okay if you want to give a batsman out if he is unable to bat than fair enough but, how will you implement that?

Will the umpires be asked to note time and anyone who takes more than 10 mins lying down and being treated by team physician will be given out? As surely if Fawad would have been told you will be considered out if you leave the field he could have tried to hang in their (Like he even tried) and maybe lay down for a bit while physician treats him until he gets somewhat better. I don’t think it would be a great spectacle or would make any sense.

Wouldn’t it be better to leave it to umpire’s, match referee’s desecration as well as maybe involve the team physician of the other team as well to judge the situation?

Otherwise if the rule being suggested is to he applied than it should be a blanket rule that if a batsman leaves the field he is out irrespective of the nature of physical troubles. As there is no way to know on the field if someone is having cramps, hamstring pull or a fracture so a standard rule would need to be applied.

Because if he knew hw would have been given out just because he has cramps and thus unable to bat than he could have said he had a pulled hamstring or something else as supposedly that would mean he is not out? There is no way to judge the nature of injury, so not really sure about the practicality of the things being talked about, its easier to point out issues than to provide solutions.

 

[Titan24]

It has happened. I dont remember which game it was, it happened in some recently concluded match against Pakistan. The opposition had faked an injury in the series earlier.

When an actual injury happened, the umpires did not allow a substitue fielder and the opposition was fielding one man less.

I think it was england or maybe Sa not sure

It recently happened in PSL as well I think. Irfan bowled his quota of overs for PZ and then left the field. Umpires questioned that what happened suddenly after completing his quota and as Irfan is a poor fielder they noted the trend I guess in previous matches as well so that was some sort of issue where they asked him to field or play with a fielder less.

 

[sweep_shot]

No.

Retired batsman should arrive after the next wicket falls.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

My issue is that players going off the field for general cramps i.e. tiredness is unfair to the fielding team especially in test cricket where batsmen have the opportunity to rest overnight and be fresh to resume their innings the next day. It deprives the opposition of a valid opportunity to take a wicket given that a tired batsman is wont to make a mistake, therefore, they shouldn't be penalized for a batsman gaming the system and taking a rest just because there is a loophole in the rules.

If there are valid concerns of a serious underlying nerve injury, by all means the rules shouldn't be stringently applied, but there is always room for a qualified judgement.

How do?
In the same game, Da Saliva got cramps and a replacement wicket keeper took over to give him rest.

 

[Mamoon]

How's the bowler not involved when he's not bowling......fielding is an equally important part of game.

It's unfair for the batting team....that they are not able to take advantage of the tired fielders

Fielding is equally important but at not very important at an individual level unless we are talking about someone extraordinary.

For example, if Bumrah is done with his spell and goes to the pavilion, it doesn’t make a difference to the batting side.

 

[PakLFC]

Good question. I think it depends how they got injured on the field of play. If the opposition is partly responsible for the injury then later they should be allowed to continue. If they have gotten injured themselves then no they should not be allowed unless the other side is happy. This would be similar to how the opposition reserves the right to refuse a runner for an injured batsman.

 

[UzmanBeast]

It's like the ludicrous boundary count rule in the event of a tied super over in the World Cup, it doesn't matter till it happens.

Yes, that is a good example.

We don't want to be at the back end of any sort of exploitation with a rule.

Even the most inconsequential rule can cost you a deserving World Cup.

 

[Ashmal]

Fielding is equally important but at not very important at an individual level unless we are talking about someone extraordinary.

For example, if Bumrah is done with his spell and goes to the pavilion, it doesn’t make a difference to the batting side.

Quoting your example, if Bumrah stays on field after his spell.
He will be further exhausted by having to field which might make him less effective in his next spell....so isn't him taking a breather unfair to the batting side

Or even the fact that bowlers get to enjoy a drinks break after every over at the boundary

 

[Forum363]

Fielding is equally important but at not very important at an individual level unless we are talking about someone extraordinary.

For example, if Bumrah is done with his spell and goes to the pavilion, it doesn’t make a difference to the batting side.

It does if jadeja is the 12th man and replaces him. What ludicrous logic…

 

[zn426]

I'm tired of the complaints that "if you are cramping you must be unfit". I will not make false accusations, but have any of you ever been to this part of the world? I live in Florida: the entire region is humid and hot, especially this time of year. I see American football players, who are, ALWAYS at peak physical fitness, cramp up. Let's cut the utter nonsense about fitness. The weather has a clear impact here and anyone pretending otherwise is either wilfully ignorant or is choosing to ignore what they know.

 

[Concerned]

People need to remember this is not a UFC match that the players need to carry on playing until they drop.

If a player is genuinely struggling they are within their right to leave the field.

 

[hitthestump]

Whether or not it happens intentionally, it could happen.

You wouldn't want to be in a WTC Final and have the oppositions best player (who is their worst player of spin) suddenly get a cramp and be replaced with a better player of spin.

Then, the opposition's best player could technically come in whenever the conditions suited him (ie. over 50 where the pitch is flat and the ball is doing nothing).

I think we're clutching at straws here to find an analogy that works in this circumstance. He faces that spinner at some point regardless, as does the batsman who plays spin better so i don't see how an advantage is gained at any point.

I do see it working the other way though. If retired batsmen don't get to come back, incentives are there to throw in an 'accidental' beamer to take out a thumb or exploit the no-ball rule to bounce someone's head off. Easy advantage right there if you want to play dirty.

 

[wrongun]

Quoting your example, if Bumrah stays on field after his spell.
He will be further exhausted by having to field which might make him less effective in his next spell....so isn't him taking a breather unfair to the batting side

Or even the fact that bowlers get to enjoy a drinks break after every over at the boundary

There has been controversy over this very thing at times in Ashes series- players bowling a spell then immediately going off for 15 mins for a shower & quick rub down with the physio. It is against the spirit of the rules and usually the match referee has a quiet word about it if it becomes a pattern.

 

[Buffet]

There has been controversy over this very thing at times in Ashes series- players bowling a spell then immediately going off for 15 mins for a shower & quick rub down with the physio. It is against the spirit of the rules and usually the match referee has a quiet word about it if it becomes a pattern.

We don't have to go even that far back. Just in the last test between Eng-Ind, one bowler was resting and came to bowl bouncers to Indian tail and then went back to rest.

 

[Smbhayi]

Fielding is equally important but at not very important at an individual level unless we are talking about someone extraordinary.

For example, if Bumrah is done with his spell and goes to the pavilion, it doesn’t make a difference to the batting side.

Wrong.. Once England team complains India taking unfair advantage by fielding Kaif as a 12th man often in a match...

 

[Mamoon]

It does if jadeja is the 12th man and replaces him. What ludicrous logic…

Wrong.. Once England team complains India taking unfair advantage by fielding Kaif as a 12th man often in a match...

Fielding is equally important but at not very important at an individual level unless we are talking about someone extraordinary.

For example, if Bumrah is done with his spell and goes to the pavilion, it doesn’t make a difference to the batting side.

Jadeja and Kaif are (were) extraordinary fielders, and if they were to be subbed in for a weak field, that would prove to be a disadvantage to the batsmen.

However, even then, their involvement in the game is indirect relative to the involvement of the batsmen.

You can have the best fielder in the world in your team, but if the ball does not go in his direction, he is not involved in the play.

However, a batsman batting in the middle is always directly involved in the play, and he cannot walk in and out based on how fatigued he is.

If he does not have the fitness to continue, he cannot make a mockery of the game by suspending his innings and resuming later - if he is retiring hurt, that is the end of his innings.

ICC needs to do something about this. Thankfully they addressed the equally ludicrous runner rule that allowed Saeed Anwar to cheat his way to the highest ODI score.

Thankfully, justice was served and he fell short of a 200 by 6 runs.

 

[Mamoon]

Quoting your example, if Bumrah stays on field after his spell.
He will be further exhausted by having to field which might make him less effective in his next spell....so isn't him taking a breather unfair to the batting side

Or even the fact that bowlers get to enjoy a drinks break after every over at the boundary

That is how the game is. The rules of cricket favor bowlers by default.

A bowler can rest in-between spells because he is not part of play anymore, but a batsman cannot.

Just like how one mistake ends the game for the batsman but a bowler can always bowl a fixed number of deliveries no matter how bad he is bowling.

Batting is and always will be a tougher job than bowling because there is zero margin of error - one momentarily lapse in concentration and it is all over, even if the wicket is super flat and the bowling is mediocre.

 

[Mamoon]

Retiring hurt and resuming your innings later is a loophole that can be easily exploited, just like the runner rule was.

To safeguard the game, ICC must revise its rules and ensure that any batsman who is retired hurt - for whatever reason - must not be allowed to resume his innings later. No exceptions should be made.

“Retired hurt” should be renamed as “individual declaration”.

Fawad Alam’s innings should be considered as individually declared on 76. He was not dismissed, but he was no longer capable of batting, and once you walk out of the pitch and another batsman replaces you, that is the end of your innings.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Why was the fielding team allowed to replace the wicket keeper when Da Saliva got cramps in the same game?

I don’t think this rule have been abused in cricket.
It has been played with honesty n trust, and should be left alone.
Don’t fix it, if ain’t broke.

 

[UzmanBeast]

I think we're clutching at straws here to find an analogy that works in this circumstance. He faces that spinner at some point regardless, as does the batsman who plays spin better so i don't see how an advantage is gained at any point.

I do see it working the other way though. If retired batsmen don't get to come back, incentives are there to throw in an 'accidental' beamer to take out a thumb or exploit the no-ball rule to bounce someone's head off. Easy advantage right there if you want to play dirty.

There are faults with both rules, which I'm glad you realize as well.

These need to be looked into.

 

[sam_ahm]

Lol, Retired Out is not a mode of dismissal in cricket, so why shouldn't a player return?

Lot of fielding sides shamelessly substitute a slow fielder for a good fielder which severely impacts the outcome of the game, no one has a problem with that but batsman coming back when he is genuinely not out is a problem?

Moreover no batsmen would do this intensionally, as it breaks the momentum and batting team risks losing quick wickets as new batsmen walking in is always vulnerable early on.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Lol, Retired Out is not a mode of dismissal in cricket, so why shouldn't a player return?

Lot of fielding sides shamelessly substitute a slow fielder for a good fielder which severely impacts the outcome of the game, no one has a problem with that but batsman coming back when he is genuinely not out is a problem?

Moreover no batsmen would do this intensionally, as it breaks the momentum and batting team risks losing quick wickets as new batsmen walking in is always vulnerable early on.

Makes sense and crushes the counter logic posted.

But only those will understand who have a good cricket acumen.

/thread

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Of course they should. Retired hurt is not a dismissal, it's bateman's inability to continue due to injury. As soon as the batsman is fit to play, he should be allowed to return to bat anytime his team wants/needs.

 

[Technics 1210]

Kohli was taking a break during innings during the 2nd Test (while fielding). Lets not pretend the absence of a captain on the field doesn’t have an effect on the game.

 

[Last Monetarist]

Moreover no batsmen would do this intensionally, as it breaks the momentum and batting team risks losing quick wickets as new batsmen walking in is always vulnerable early on.

Not quite, a batsman that has been struggling with fitness and has batted for most of the day's play is prone to a lapse in concentration near the end of a day's play.

I was only specifically questioning the scenario that allows a Fawad Alam to go off for cramps because he is dehydrated and then allowed to resume his innings the next morning. I know people disagree but I find that objectionable if my team was out there in the field toiling for a wicket all afternoon.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Kohli was taking a break during innings during the 2nd Test (while fielding). Lets not pretend the absence of a captain on the field doesn’t have an effect on the game.

Yeah but Kohli taking abrupt break can only harm India. Retired hurt is never a good thing for team, as it messes with their team plan. Also no team has been able to abuse it for their benefit, as cricket is all about momentum.

 

[QalandarFan]

Yeah they should specifically tweak Law 25 after this game, "if you are retiring due to cramps however, you shall not be allowed to return because of the second hand embarrassment some fans may feel." Smh some people really be doing the most to degrade our players. Lmao at these arm-chair experts saying our players aren't athletes because they are cramping up, as if no athlete in any other part of the world has cramped up.

 

[QalandarFan]

To put into perspective how far some of you guys are reaching to discredit and shame our players, NBA Players who we can all agree are some of the most well conditioned athletes in the world even get cramps and leave games. For example Lebron James got the cramps in the 2014 finals and had to leave the game. Lebron James is 10x the athlete any cricket player is and that includes Virat Kohli, so if you're going call someone a fake athlete for getting cramps then please define what an athlete looks like for me lmao. NBA players themselves have stated that cramps are one thing you cannot play through. But I guess those guys aren't true athletes either. Leave it to [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] to define what a true athlete looks like. I'm assuming only one guy in the world qualifies and his name is Virat Kohli.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player getting cramps it happens especially in the heat.

 

[globalcitizen]

icc should only consider retired hurt in these circumstances.
Should have been an external injury
Should have not carried the injury into the game
very humid conditions like in this game. So Fawad can be given benefit of doubt here.

But I still don't want batsman to start immediately after a wicket. He should wait for same time in minutes, that they were out and resting. If the innings is going to end by that time, they can play last man only to complete innings.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

Before people start bashing Fawad and Da Silva for their "poor fitness", one needs to know the causes and pathophysiology of the cramps.

Not all cramps are due to poor fitness levels or inadequate work out routines.

A lot of that depends on the metabolic levels of the body which for everyone is different. For example, some people can have higher no. of sweat glands which could be genetic or multifactorial, some can have abnormally exaggerated fight or flight response. Some can also suffer from conditions like hyperhidrosis which leads to cramps. Some people may also be on antihypertensives like diuretics, which can in turn lead to calcium wasting by the body and hence causing cramps.

The runner rule was definitely something teams had started getting advantage of unfairly and needed to be scrapped.

Jadeja even after getting hit by a bouncer resumed batting scoring vital runs but was substituted by Chahal last year against Australia in a t20i. I didn't see some people complaining about India taking unfair advantage out of that rule. If he could bat, he certainly could have bowled.

People have a lot of double standards.

 

[Mamoon]

To put into perspective how far some of you guys are reaching to discredit and shame our players, NBA Players who we can all agree are some of the most well conditioned athletes in the world even get cramps and leave games. For example Lebron James got the cramps in the 2014 finals and had to leave the game. Lebron James is 10x the athlete any cricket player is and that includes Virat Kohli, so if you're going call someone a fake athlete for getting cramps then please define what an athlete looks like for me lmao. NBA players themselves have stated that cramps are one thing you cannot play through. But I guess those guys aren't true athletes either. Leave it to [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] to define what a true athlete looks like. I'm assuming only one guy in the world qualifies and his name is Virat Kohli.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player getting cramps it happens especially in the heat.

Getting cramps is one thing, but to get “retired hurt” because you are too tired to continue and then resume your innings later is a different issue.

I know who Lebron is but I don’t follow NBA so I am not very clear on the rules, but imagine a footballer running out of juice at half-time, gets subbed and then gets subbed back in after 20 odd mins after getting a breather. How ridiculous would that be.

A batsman should not be allowed to “retire hurt” simply because he is fatigued and can no longer continue. You cannot take a break just because you are tired. It is not a valid excuse.

If you cannot continue because you are too tired then too bad. That is the end of your innings. A batsman should not be allowed to walk in and out based on how he is feeling.

ICC needs to revamp this dumb rule. It is as ridiculous as the runner rule that allowed the likes of Saeed Anwar to cheat his way to a world record ODI score after Afridi ran 150+ runs for him.

If you cannot run you should not be batting - what next, you cannot hold a bat and someone else should bat for you with the runs getting added to your tally?

A batsman should only be allowed to “retire hurt” when there is a genuine injury. There is a reason it is called “retired hurt” and not “retired tired” or “retired because I need a break”.

If ICC thinks it is okay for batsmen to take a breather and retire themselves out because they are too fatigued to continue, then they should rename it because such instances are making a mockery of genuine cases of retired hurt.

Now another argument that I have heard is that at that point, it is not possible to tell if the batsman is genuinely injured or just tired.

Of course that is true, however, once the medical team examines the batsman and tests are conducted and it is revealed that the batsmen is not carrying any injury and was simply gassed out, then in that case the batsmen should not be allowed to resume his innings.

Retired hurt should only be an option for batsmen who are carrying a legitimate injury.

But we all know that ICC is probably the most incompetent sporting organization when it comes rules and regulations so they will probably continue to turn a blind eye to this nonsense.

 

[Space Cat]

This won't happen as it is a player safety issue. Hydration is taken very seriously in modern sports medicine. You can't back a player into a corner who may have a legitmate health issue due to a couple of people taking advantage.

 

[Super Santi]

Tricky one.
I think they should be allowed to bat again but maybe have to come in down the order.
Test cricket is a physical test and mental test.
Having cramp, then going back for a rest, to hydrate and come back fresh gives a team an advantage
Having said that, it would be very hard to implement such a rule.

 

[James]

Theoretically I do actually agree that the rules around retired hurt can be exploited, but I can’t remember it ever happening in a match that I have watched or even hearing about it happening in the past. And if there was ever any suspicion of it having happened, said player would likely be banned by both his own board and the ICC as well if he was held to have brought the game into disrepute.

The spirit of cricket and the integrity of the game are respected and upheld by the vast majority of international cricketers. They have proven over a long period that they can be trusted with the current guidelines on retired hurt.