What's new

[VIDEO] Gamesmanship? Ravindra Jadeja and his concussion replacement Yuzvendra Chahal

Get over it. Like Aussies have never cheated. Sandpaper, sledging, biased umpires, ball tampering.
 
lol ended up being MoM too . This rule was always going to be hard to implement, just like the runner for batsman rule this rule will comeback to bite ICC and will be changed later.

Why was the 12 player thing changed in 2006? Does anyone remember , remember we utilized Raina very well then
 
silentkiller187 said:
of course a test is done immediately on the field, the docs dont come out for fun, jadeja was checked out and cleared to carry on , one cannot be sure if he suffered symptoms after, but i think it seems more plausible india realized he couldnt bowl and they spotted a loophole.
Click to expand...

Noone came out to check on him.
 
silentkiller187 said:
spot on, very big grey area, and at the time i thought it was only a matter of time before someone would try and exploit. Look we cant be for certain Jadeja was not concussed, but it all does look very suspect the way it played out.
Click to expand...

India now will have to sit Jadeja out at least for the next game if not for the rest of the T20 matches to give some credibility to this and prove this is a genuine case.
 
The Viper said:
Why was Jadeja not given an immediate concussion test on the field? Yes, there can be a delayed concussion, but after a blow surely a test should be done as a precaution? Poor from Indian doctors.
Click to expand...

Delayed concussion means you may pass the test. Have no symptoms.
 
OldWarHorse said:
Noone came out to check on him.
Click to expand...

that's most likely because 4 balls were left in the innings and neither the batsman nor the umpires who are also supposed to call on the physio did their part, people complaining about it are making it sound like he was hit in the head in the 10th over and then played until 20th over or something .
 
Last edited:
This was a very shameful situation. India went for the win so they did what they could to win. Which personally I do not agree with but that is not the main problem here. The main problem is how the referee allowed it to happen. That should not have happened.
Now what this has done is, that it has set a dangerous precedent that other teams may try to follow. All it needs is one simple blow to the helmet, which is by no means uncommon. The player can complete his innings and use delayed concussion as a tactic to get the 12th man involved.
 
KoyoAli said:
This was a very shameful situation. India went for the win so they did what they could to win. Which personally I do not agree with but that is not the main problem here. The main problem is how the referee allowed it to happen. That should not have happened.
Now what this has done is, that it has set a dangerous precedent that other teams may try to follow. All it needs is one simple blow to the helmet, which is by no means uncommon. The player can complete his innings and use delayed concussion as a tactic to get the 12th man involved.
Click to expand...

Unless the player is an all-rounder it really can't be used the way india used it and if the player is an a/r it can backfire as much as it can be a stroke of genius.

Like for like is not exact same its just someone who can do a similar job to what the concussed player was suppose to. We couldn't have picked bumrah to replace jadeja, chahal was the only spinner on the bench, everyone else was either a batsman or pacer.
 
aloo paratha said:
In what world is Chahal a like for like replacement?
Click to expand...

he was the only player on the bench who was a spinner and could bowl 4 overs. Everyone else was either pure batsman or pacer. Or is it your suggestion that we pick ashwin who isn't in the squad or fly in someone like axar or jayant yadav mid match to fulfill the exact like for like criteria.
 
jagatk said:
he was the only player on the bench who was a spinner and could bowl 4 overs. Everyone else was either pure batsman or pacer. Or is it your suggestion that we pick ashwin who isn't in the squad or fly in someone like axar or jayant yadav mid match to fulfill the exact like for like criteria.
Click to expand...

Nah you just had to play one bowler short. There was no concussion and you know it too. Do you think Chahal could play the same knock Jadeja played?
 
KoyoAli said:
This was a very shameful situation. India went for the win so they did what they could to win. Which personally I do not agree with but that is not the main problem here. The main problem is how the referee allowed it to happen. That should not have happened.
Now what this has done is, that it has set a dangerous precedent that other teams may try to follow. All it needs is one simple blow to the helmet, which is by no means uncommon. The player can complete his innings and use delayed concussion as a tactic to get the 12th man involved.
Click to expand...

Refree didn't allowed anything, lol, India and pak are corrupt countries so their residents think everybody is corrupt, refree took the medical report and report clearly said he was concussed so replacement was allowed.
You never saw the match, he only batted 3 balls after hit, unlike Smith who kept on batting for multiple session before his report came.
 
Another reason to not bowl a short ball anymore. If it brushes the head of a lower order batsman at the end of his innings, the team have a legit reason to play the concussion/delayed concussion card and have him replaced during the game
 
aloo paratha said:
In this case there shouldn't be a substitute.
Click to expand...

Well better case should be icc should ask everybody to select every category player in even numbers like 2 batsman allrounder or two bowlers allrounder or none of it.
The thing that benefited India was that Jadeja is specialist test match bowler or more of the bowling allrounder in short format if Ashwin was in the team he would have been selected over chahal
You cant say no substitute, it is rule like lbw if not clear evidence then umpires call, same no bowling allrounder go with closest bowler
 
If any thing, that rule is as stupid as it can come, worthy of ICC. A knee jerk reaction which will create more controversies in future.

OK, if concussions can earn a substitute, what about broken bone - wrist, elbow or ankle? In soccer, if you loose a player through injury after three substitutes- you play with 10 men, even nine. In 1982 WC SF, Schumacher broke couple of ribs of Batiston, France had to play with 10 men during extra time and then conceded a 3-1 lead to loose in tie-breaker ..... FIFA didn’t change the rule. I saw NBA player (Patrick Ewing???) shooting two free throws with one hand after dislocating shoulder for that foul.

This rule will be exploited by every team in future.
 
If looks could kill!

EoZNNcfUUAAT4aP
 
I am not in favour of concussion substitutes as a rule, feel it's utterly ludicrous. If someone gets incapacitated because of a head injury, tough luck. The opposing team shouldn't be penalized.

That being said, I don't see any problem with Chahal replacing Jadeja today.
 
Navdeep Srivastava said:
Well better case should be icc should ask everybody to select every category player in even numbers like 2 batsman allrounder or two bowlers allrounder or none of it.
The thing that benefited India was that Jadeja is specialist test match bowler or more of the bowling allrounder in short format if Ashwin was in the team he would have been selected over chahal
You cant say no substitute, it is rule like lbw if not clear evidence then umpires call, same no bowling allrounder go with closest bowler
Click to expand...

If a player can't play anymore you should play with one less player. Substitute fielder is fine but they shouldn't be able to bat or bowl.

Although I think the rule can stay, the match referees just need to not be idiots. He should never have approved it today.
 
End of game quotes:

Virat Kohli: There were no plans of having Yuzi in the game. Concussion replacements are a strange thing. Today, it worked for us. Yuzi showed character to squeeze the opponents. I thought they had a great start. They were cruising. The batters offered us a few wickets. That is T20 cricket for you. In Australia, you need to play hard and show intensity till the end. He batted beautifully in the last game. Natarajan looks like he can improve a lot. Chahar bowled well as well. Chahal got us back in the game. Hardik's catch was a game changer as well.


Aaron Finch: The injury got progressively worse as the game went on (about his injury to the hip). Their doctor had ruled Jadeja out due to concussion. You can't be challenging a medical expert's opinion. We probably leaked too may runs at the death. Then while chasing, we didn't hit too many boundaries in the 6-over period.
 
Was Chahal a "like-for-like" concussion substitute for Jadeja, questions Henriques

Canberra, Dec 4 (PTI) Australia all-rounder Moises Henriques on Friday questioned whether Yuzvendra Chahal can be called a "like for like" concussion substitute for Ravindra Jadeja after the leg-spinner spun his web to take India to aa 11-run victory in the first T20 international on Friday.

Jadeja was hit by a Mitchell Starc bouncer in the final over of the Indian innings and he was replaced by Chahal when India came out to defend their totel. To the frustration of the Australians, Chahal took 3/25 as the home side could score only 150 for 7 while chasing 162.

"There was no doubt that Jadeja was hit on the helmet and there could have been a concussion. A decision was taken that there was a concussion and a replacement was made. We are not doubting that," Henriques said at the post-match conference.

"But was it a like-for-like replacemen? That is the question. Jadeja was more of an all-rounder and he had done his batting. Chahal is a (pure) bowler," said the 33-year old who scored 30 and took three wickets for 22 during India innings.

He, however, made it clear that he was neither questioning ICC''s concussion replacement rule nor India''s right to seek a replacement.

"ICC''s rule is fine, sure there should be (concussion) replacement. We are not talking about the decision to make the replacement.

"Only thing we are saying is there should be a like-for-like replacement. That is the way to do going ahead, I think."

Henriques however chose to steer clear of debate surrounding how one reaches the conclusion about replacement.

"I don''t know how the decision (to make replacement) was arrived, I am not involved in those things. There are doctors to do that and it''s not our job to take those decisions," he said when asked whether there should be more clarity in the replacement rule.

Henriques, who made an impressive comeback in international arena with the ongoing series, said that his job is to play to best of his abilities while selection is not in his hands.

"Selected or not, I can''t do anything, that is not in my hands. What I can do is to be positive in attitude, keep performing in domestic and international cricket and make use of the opportunities that come to your best ability.

"In the Australian team, 8-9 players will get picked first and then a couple of players will get there. So whenever I get a chance, I try to make the most of that opportunity."

Asked about the plan of the team going ahead after losing the first T20I, he said,"We have to adjust our plan. Everybody has a different plan and we have to adjust. I am sure we will see what is the best one and learn from the last few games."
 
A rule such as this will be exploited by any team wishing to gain an advantage over the other. Quite frankly, this rule should only apply to the 12th man in my opinion. That way, teams can never be certain of who they will have concussed, and so, more importance is given to the 12th man. Being able to select another player not part of the squad was entirely bogus, and frankly, that's the only part of the lacking sportsmanship I saw today. Had Chahal been the 12th man, I think that there would not have been such a problem.
 
Jadeja had an hamstring issue as well during his innings.
Very questionable implementation this
 
if people are able to misuse the rule this easily you might see some ducking into the ball in the last over :inti
 
MMHS said:
If any thing, that rule is as stupid as it can come, worthy of ICC. A knee jerk reaction which will create more controversies in future.

OK, if concussions can earn a substitute, what about broken bone - wrist, elbow or ankle? In soccer, if you loose a player through injury after three substitutes- you play with 10 men, even nine. In 1982 WC SF, Schumacher broke couple of ribs of Batiston, France had to play with 10 men during extra time and then conceded a 3-1 lead to loose in tie-breaker ..... FIFA didn’t change the rule. I saw NBA player (Patrick Ewing???) shooting two free throws with one hand after dislocating shoulder for that foul.

This rule will be exploited by every team in future.
Click to expand...
Agree with you there should be substitute for every sanctioned injury apart from cramps related , not for single one, go with no replacement, I am ok with it..
Rule can only be exploited in special case,
Let say Jadeja was injured at start of his batting or you can say first ball, you know replacement would there be still chahal, India would have been screwed as Jadeja is bowling allrounder so Iyyer would not have been allowed.
So how many people think Chahal may have played same inning, goes both ways.
 
KoyoAli said:
Nah you just had to play one bowler short. There was no concussion and you know it too. Do you think Chahal could play the same knock Jadeja played?
Click to expand...

Are you a dr. or physio who administered a concussion test on jadeja, because otherwise you are just making stuff up and clearly don't know whether he had a concussion or not.
 
Can't be sure obviously, but it was a glancing blow, doubt it even hurt for more than the initial 20 seconds of shock. Doubt anybody can get concussed from that.
 
Only Axar Patel could have been a like for like replacement.
Btw my post got deleted but this looks very similar to the Anwar 194 innings. Doesn’t look good in terms of sportsmanship but under the rules.
 
Untrustworthy, cheating BCCI at its best.

Make sure you count the fingers on your hand after shaking hands with this lot
 
cricketjoshila said:
Icc rules say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest if Jadeja wasn't concussed he was unlikely to take further part in the match as a bowler due to his hamstring injury which would mean the ICC rules indicate a concussion substitute shouldn't have been allowed.
 
aloo paratha said:
If a player can't play anymore you should play with one less player. Substitute fielder is fine but they shouldn't be able to bat or bowl.

Although I think the rule can stay, the match referees just need to not be idiots. He should never have approved it today.
Click to expand...
I am ok with no replacement ,but there is a rule and as I said Chahal was going to be replacement even if Jadeja was injured first ball so it kind of goes both ways, if Pandya gets concussed when he is playing as all-rounder then another all-rounder or batsmen will be allowed.
Calling match referee idiots is easy but I have still have to see somebody giving right subs.
 
aloo paratha said:
if people are able to misuse the rule this easily you might see some ducking into the ball in the last over :inti
Click to expand...

Can it really be misused though? Say you deliberately got yourself hit on the head in the last over. You also have to be all-rounder, otherwise the sub's useless as he can't bowl since you cant bowl and you also can't have anyone with a similar skillset in the squad.

That leaves a very niche group, like say a maxwell if labuscane is in playing 11 or a stokes if woakes is also in playing 11. Would that type of high profile player really risk an actually serious injury just to gain an advantage that might not even accrue.

Because while chahal is a good bowler, he was comfortably outbowled by jadeja in odi's and jadeja's stats show he is a far more economical bowler in t20i's than chahal who has a history of going the distance from time to time.
 
Last edited:
cricketjoshila said:
India in one match has hurt fans of two different teams.
Click to expand...

It’s sad that they didn’t hurt their own fans. Just goes to show the quality of the fans who support it. Then again they hype Natarajan to be the next Mitchel Johnson so who can blame them?
 
the concussion regulations emphasise on a ‘like-for-like’ replacement for the concussed player and that part still remains to be under dark clouds.Match referees will have a huge say if a team decides to bring a substitute during a match.

Considering India T20 squad only had three ARs in Pandya Sundar & Jadeja who were all in playing xi which makes it a scenario for India to exploit and they did and asked for a spinner who remains the only one close to "like for like" replacement in the Indian squad and the lone spinner in the T20 squad happened to be Chahal

IMO the match referee David boom had no other option but to agree with chahal as "like for like" replacement,
 
Guys, Please get over it. David Boon the Match Referee allowed Chahal as a Substitute why are you all crying over it. We did not put a gun on David Boon's head.
 
As simple as one can understand, India went by rules just like England got the advantage of rules in World Cup 2019 even though that rule was bizzare.

Ofcourse, a WC final is a much bigger stake than this.
 
Rana said:
It’s sad that they didn’t hurt their own fans. Just goes to show the quality of the fans who support it. Then again they hype Natarajan to be the next Mitchel Johnson so who can blame them?
Click to expand...

Natrajan isn't better than Musa Khan let alone Johnson
 
jagatk said:
Can it really be misused though? Say you deliberately got yourself hit on the head in the last over. You also have to be all-rounder, otherwise the sub's useless as he can't bowl since you cant bowl and you also can't have anyone with a similar skillset in the squad.

That leaves a very niche group, like say a maxwell if labuscane is in playing 11 or a stokes if woakes is also in playing 11. Would that type of high profile player really risk an actually serious injury just to gain an advantage that might not even accrue.

Because while chahal is a good bowler, he was comfortably outbowled by jadeja in odi's and jadeja's stats show he is a far more economical bowler in t20i's than chahal who has a history of going the distance from time to time.
Click to expand...

Think of this. We play Aamer Yamin as our 5th bowler because we don't wanna weaken the batting too much. He's scored a quick 25 off 10 , and now in the last over of the innings he gets brushed by the ball. Now we replace him with Shaheen Afridi. Technically they're both fast bowlers so under the rules it's fine, but is it really fair?
 
Just to take an extreme case, would it be fair if after Abdul Razzaq was done batting, Pakistan brought Shoaib Akhtar (sitting on the bench as punishment for hitting himself with a bat) in to bowl?
 
aloo paratha said:
Think of this. We play Aamer Yamin as our 5th bowler because we don't wanna weaken the batting too much. He's scored a quick 25 off 10 , and now in the last over of the innings he gets brushed by the ball. Now we replace him with Shaheen Afridi. Technically they're both fast bowlers so under the rules it's fine, but is it really fair?
Click to expand...

Great minds :genius
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Just to take an extreme case, would it be fair if after Abdul Razzaq was done batting, Pakistan brought Shoaib Akhtar (sitting on the bench as punishment for hitting himself with a bat) in to bowl?
Click to expand...

If it is under rules, it is fair. The problem is not with the team but it is with the rules. Change it FGS.
 
Rana said:
It’s sad that they didn’t hurt their own fans. Just goes to show the quality of the fans who support it. Then again they hype Natarajan to be the next Mitchel Johnson so who can blame them?
Click to expand...

Quality of fans supporting India is far better than those who welcome back fixers with open arms.

Nobody said Natarajan was next Johnson. Unless ofcourse someone is delusional to think that domestic bowlers of pakistan are all as good as Mitchell Johnson.
 
Navdeep Srivastava said:
Agree with you there should be substitute for every sanctioned injury apart from cramps related , not for single one, go with no replacement, I am ok with it..
Rule can only be exploited in special case,
Let say Jadeja was injured at start of his batting or you can say first ball, you know replacement would there be still chahal, India would have been screwed as Jadeja is bowling allrounder so Iyyer would not have been allowed.
So how many people think Chahal may have played same inning, goes both ways.
Click to expand...

If a player gets injured and can’t continue further - you play with 10 men. If two down, you play with 9 .... a soccer game can continue as long as 7 men are standing for one side, and it’s a physical game where 11 plays against 11 every minute of it. Injury is part of the game - I even wasn’t aware of that “like to like” stuff, which is even more funny.
 
Ab Fan said:
If it is under rules, it is fair. The problem is not with the team but it is with the rules. Change it FGS.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree completely. India hasn’t done anything wrong (though maybe they could have respected the spirit better), I just think the victory itself was unfair in principle (not in rules)
 
aloo paratha said:
Think of this. We play Aamer Yamin as our 5th bowler because we don't wanna weaken the batting too much. He's scored a quick 25 off 10 , and now in the last over of the innings he gets brushed by the ball. Now we replace him with Shaheen Afridi. Technically they're both fast bowlers so under the rules it's fine, but is it really fair?
Click to expand...

I think one point we all are missing here is it depends on who are the remaining players in the squad who can be termed as ‘like-for-like’ replacement for the concussed player, India had everything going for them as they first didn't had any AR in the squad and also didn't had a left arm spinner in the squad so the only possible ‘like-for-like’ replacement India could ask for was spinner and that lone spinner in the squad happened to be chahal
 
Geil said:
I think one point we all are missing here is it depends on who are the remaining players in the squad who can be termed as ‘like-for-like’ replacement for the concussed player, India had everything going for them as they first didn't had any AR in the squad and also didn't had a left arm spinner in the squad so the only possible ‘like-for-like’ replacement India could ask for was spinner and that lone spinner in the squad happened to be chahal
Click to expand...

Well teams usually only carry one pace all rounder with them who'd be the one in the game currently, so my scenario would work 9 times out of 10.
 
aloo paratha said:
Think of this. We play Aamer Yamin as our 5th bowler because we don't wanna weaken the batting too much. He's scored a quick 25 off 10 , and now in the last over of the innings he gets brushed by the ball. Now we replace him with Shaheen Afridi. Technically they're both fast bowlers so under the rules it's fine, but is it really fair?
Click to expand...

Except you are assuming afridi would be on the bench not in the 11. And if yami the only a/r you have, asking this as I haven't followed Pakistan recently, say he is then too how many times will you have your Frontline bowler/batsman sitting out because of balance in a game that might matter, what we had here was a very specific scenario not likely to be repeated even for india outside of this series, as most other times it would be chahal who would play in place of sundar and it would be sundar having to replace jadeja, which can go either way.
 
jagatk said:
Except you are assuming afridi would be on the bench not in the 11. And if yami the only a/r you have, asking this as I haven't followed Pakistan recently, say he is then too how many times will you have your Frontline bowler/batsman sitting out because of balance in a game that might matter, what we had here was a very specific scenario not likely to be repeated even for india outside of this series, as most other times it would be chahal who would play in place of sundar and it would be sundar having to replace jadeja, which can go either way.
Click to expand...

Pretty much Any pacer that would replace Yamin would be better. Be it Rauf, Hasnain, Amir, etc.
 
aloo paratha said:
Think of this. We play Aamer Yamin as our 5th bowler because we don't wanna weaken the batting too much. He's scored a quick 25 off 10 , and now in the last over of the innings he gets brushed by the ball. Now we replace him with Shaheen Afridi. Technically they're both fast bowlers so under the rules it's fine, but is it really fair?
Click to expand...
I dont follow Pak team new players, so how you have defined Aamer yamin role will dictate the term when substitution is made,incase of Pandya if no allrounder is their then batsman will be substituted as Pandya is more of a batting allrounder and so is Ben stoke also.
If Aamer gets concussed then either bowling all-rounder ( assuming from your post he is more of a bowling all-rounder) , if there is no bowling all-rounder in team then closest bowler like if he is fast bowler then fast one will be allowed and if there is no fast bowler is in team, then you will get spinner .
But remember same thing happen let say Aamer has done bowling of quota 4 over 30 runs and get concussions while fielding then you will not going to get batsman, you will still get bowler.
Problem with many people is there are looking rule from positive point only what if that happens opposite.
Or what if Shakib get injured from Bangladesh, there will be no worthwhile replacement.
I liked old rule play with 10 players,only fielding substitute were allowed
People getting too much confused over simple rule.
 
aloo paratha said:
Well teams usually only carry one pace all rounder with them who'd be the one in the game currently, so my scenario would work 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

I dont know about 9 times out of 10 only an AR getting concussed, Your scenario would only work if the player concussed is an AR and the only possible ‘like-for-like’ replacement for the concussed player happened to be a full time genuine bowler in the squad
 
MMHS said:
If a player gets injured and can’t continue further - you play with 10 men. If two down, you play with 9 .... a soccer game can continue as long as 7 men are standing for one side, and it’s a physical game where 11 plays against 11 every minute of it. Injury is part of the game - I even wasn’t aware of that “like to like” stuff, which is even more funny.
Click to expand...
Agree with you ,I liked the old rules, no substitutions apart from fielding
 
Navdeep Srivastava said:
I dont follow Pak team new players, so how you have defined Aamer yamin role will dictate the term when substitution is made,incase of Pandya if no allrounder is their then batsman will be substituted as Pandya is more of a batting allrounder and so is Ben stoke also.
If Aamer gets concussed then either bowling all-rounder ( assuming from your post he is more of a bowling all-rounder) , if there is no bowling all-rounder in team then closest bowler like if he is fast bowler then fast one will be allowed and if there is no fast bowler is in team, then you will get spinner .
But remember same thing happen let say Aamer has done bowling of quota 4 over 30 runs and get concussions while fielding then you will not going to get batsman, you will still get bowler.
Problem with many people is there are looking rule from positive point only what if that happens opposite.
Or what if Shakib get injured from Bangladesh, there will be no worthwhile replacement.
I liked old rule play with 10 players,only fielding substitute were allowed
People getting too much confused over simple rule.
Click to expand...

Skill doesn't matter for the replacement. Yamin is more of a batting all rounder but we could say he was gonna be our 5th bowler and now we should be able to replace him with a proper bowler after he's already scored a game changing innings?

This rule must be changed.
 
Geil said:
I dont know about 9 times out of 10 only an AR getting concussed, Your scenario would only work if the player concussed is an AR and the only possible ‘like-for-like’ replacement for the concussed player happened to be a full time genuine bowler in the squad
Click to expand...

Well teams usually carry around at least 1-2 extra pacers in their squad.
 
Navdeep Srivastava said:
Agree with you ,I liked the old rules, no substitutions apart from fielding
Click to expand...

You see, where it can go. What about food poisoning or stomach upset - a Test match runs for five days and a bowler sufferers stomach upset on day 4, though he started perfectly ok four days back ....
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Just to take an extreme case, would it be fair if after Abdul Razzaq was done batting, Pakistan brought Shoaib Akhtar (sitting on the bench as punishment for hitting himself with a bat) in to bowl?
Click to expand...

It is more to do with who is the closest possible to ‘like-for-like’ replacement in the squad for the concussed player, if you try to look for a ‘like-for-like’ replacement in the current Indian T20 squad for Jadeja then it happened to be only one which was chahal as india didn't had no AR nor a left arm spinner but had a spinner which was closest possible replacement to jadeja

No wonder the match referee had to agree.
 
aloo paratha said:
Skill doesn't matter for the replacement. Yamin is more of a batting all rounder but we could say he was gonna be our 5th bowler and now we should be able to replace him with a proper bowler after he's already scored a game changing innings?

This rule must be changed.
Click to expand...

But that is where referee role will come,team management can say many things but referee decided Aamer as batting allrounder, I dont think you will going to get proper fast bowler( only time you will get fast bowler if only fast bowlers are left in the bench), same with England if Stokes is injured they will get allrounder or batsman no proper batsman atleast that is what my understanding is from rules I have read.
The thing is you will get the likely replacement from the remaining 4 players left in the team.
A true allrounder will always gives you many option.
And I agree rule is stupid and need to go
 
aloo paratha said:
Well teams usually only carry one pace all rounder with them who'd be the one in the game currently, so my scenario would work 9 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

Nope, most have a like for like replacement, just look at squads for series currently going on or just finished. Australia have henriques, green and stoines. England play with stokes and Curran brothers, sa have phelwekweyu, pretorious, nz have mitchell and neesham, wi have pollard and paul.

Then there's the big issue of would a player actually risk it. What player would risk their head so that they can then be replaced by a better bowler/batsman, would any player who has even slightest bit of self respect think "i am going to fake an injury so the team can replace me with someone who can do my job better than me."
 
Last edited:
aloo paratha said:
Well teams usually carry around at least 1-2 extra pacers in their squad.
Click to expand...

But in India case Jadeja is a spinner not a fast bowler that is why Saini and Bumrah couldn't have been the ‘like-for-like’ replacement

India had everything going for them as they had only one spinner left out of playing xi in their squad which was chahal

I agree that India did exploit the concussion regulation but they had everything going for them within the rules set-up by ICC for concussion
 
Bhaag Viru Bhaag said:
It reminded me of Super Sub rule. :inti
Click to expand...
Actually from what I remember super sub rule depended on toss big times as you have to name the super sub before the toss, let say India selected Chahal super sub and ended up bowling first they will not apply for super sub.
Super sub rules may end up working if you are winning toss every time
 
Navdeep Srivastava said:
Refree didn't allowed anything, lol, India and pak are corrupt countries so their residents think everybody is corrupt, refree took the medical report and report clearly said he was concussed so replacement was allowed.
You never saw the match, he only batted 3 balls after hit, unlike Smith who kept on batting for multiple session before his report came.
Click to expand...

I saw the whole match. I didn't call the referee corrupt. I called him incompetent. You may not have any self-esteem to say only "sub-continent teams cheat" but I do. However, this is about a lapse in judgment. Jadeja was injured but not because of the ball hitting his helmet. Let's not pretend otherwise.
 
Well correct me if I am wrong but in case a like to like sub is not available you play one bowler short and complete the four over quota with your part timers. If you don't have a proper sub available it's your fault. Plain and simple.

Q. What would have happened if Chahal or any other spinner/ spinner - all-rounder wouldn't have been part of the bench. Who would have replaced Jadeja?
 
1) It was doctors who ruled that Jadeja had concussion .Even Finch agreed to it

On Chahal: "They were let using know their doctor had ruled Jadeja out with concussion and you aren't challenging a medical expert in that regard.
Click to expand...

2) People are going by hindsight. If not for injury,Jadeja would have bowled and in the ODIs he clearly outbowled Chahal. So it could easily have hurt India

3) Like for like isnt always available,but you do with what you have.Jadeja is a batsman and spinner.He already batted so was replaced by spinner

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.
Click to expand...

It's all on the internet,please research before crying :))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cricket Warrior
[VIDEO] Did Ben Stokes actually refuse to shake hands with Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja or is this just negative propaganda from Team India?
2
Replies
101
Views
3K
cricketmania22
C
BouncerGuy
  • Poll Poll
Concussion substitute controversy: Did India Exploit the rules with Harshit Rana's debut in the 4th T20I against England?
2
Replies
98
Views
3K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Ball Blazer
Will India bowl out England to win the 2nd Test?
Replies
35
Views
1K
Ball Blazer
Ball Blazer
FearlessRoar
If Noman Ali had a Test career as long as Ravindra Jadeja's, would his stats be better than Jadeja's?
Replies
51
Views
2K
saimayubera
saimayubera
BouncerGuy
Australia media in a tizzy after Ravindra Jadeja refuses to answer questions in English
Replies
57
Views
2K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Back
Top