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

[JaDed]

These are jack stupid rules like the runner one which is corrected now but if this was the WC game I wouldn’t have any issues with India doing it but hardly matters for T20 bilateral why reveal the flaws in the rule?

I’m sure ratings are doing well now thanks to this lol.

 

[ahmedzee]

The thing why so much mayhem is here because India benefited from the concussion replacement.. It it was the other way around we are discussing here how Aussie well in their limit to use concussion substitute.

This is a lot similar to the run out rule by the bowler on follow through before delivering the ball. Maybe against the spirit of the game but definitely not illegal.

 

[globalcitizen]

The rules were made recently and Indian team benefitted from the rule. Next time it will be another team against india
Wonder why rules made by icc are debated more after implementation than before?!

 

[Romali_rotti]

Quite Pathetic by the Indians. No way he was concussed after such a blow.

What a silly thing to say, do you even know what a concussion is ? A slight movement in the skull can cause it, its side affects can be immediate or short time after.

I am not saying Jadeja definitely suffered a concussion, it could have been the hamstring however Indians used concussion to get a fit Chahal to bowl instead of an hamstring injured Jadeja. However it is very possible he did suffer a concussion.

 

[Aman]

So I'm seeing reports he's been ruled out due to the hamstring injury, not a concussion.

Really dodgy stuff from India.

Like for like replacement too was a joke. Replacing a batting A/R with bowler.

 

[tyron_woodley]

His replacement who would have been Axar is better than Chahal ROFL in T20.

Anyway get over it. Aussies are king's of cheating.

India can't win without cheating anyway against cheaters. So it's a fair outcome. Home track bullies are too good for mediocre Indian T20 side who are just missing 4 key players.

 

[redmaverik84]

To all you cynics who snigger at Chahal replacing Jadeja, what options did the Indians hve? There are 3 all rounders in the squad and all of them played in the 11, Pandya, Sundar and Jadeja. The best you can then do is replace a spinner with a spinner, or one who is a sure shot to bowl 4 overs with another. David Boon was happy with it. Matter closed.

As I mentioned earlier, India would do good to not play Jadeja for the rest of the series. If the team says that he was concussed in the dressing room and feeling uneasy, then thats how it is and needs to be respected. Lets not trivialize the issue, the only thing Indian team did wrong was not to call the physio immediately after the impact. That was rather silly from them but at the same time the umpires should have intervened as they were closest to play and asked the Indian side to call a physio in ( maybe they didn't think it was serious enough?)

 

[Mesozoic]

So I'm seeing reports he's been ruled out due to the hamstring injury, not a concussion.

Really dodgy stuff from India.

Like for like replacement too was a joke. Replacing a batting A/R with bowler.

So is it not possible to have a concussion when you pull a hammy? Or they mutually exclusive?

Jadeja's role in the game from there on was of a spinner. So what was a like for like replacement? Bumrah?

 

[cricketjoshila]

So I'm seeing reports he's been ruled out due to the hamstring injury, not a concussion.

Really dodgy stuff from India.

Like for like replacement too was a joke. Replacing a batting A/R with bowler.

What reports?

Read BCCI statement.

Who was the like for like replacement in the squad?

 

[BunnyRabbit]

It is not cheating because there was no other AR in the squad to replace Jadeja, hence he was replaced by a spinner.

Have you heard of delayed concussion?

It's post concussion syndrome and it classically happens 10-14 days after trauma. Graeme Smith developed it after getting hit on the helmet by M.Irfan in 2013, on the 12th day if i remember correctly.
It doesn't happen hours afterwards. It was merely a precaution I believe. Not saying it shouldn't have happened.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

The whole rule is extremely weird to implement without raising noise from those on the receiving end.
It's a bit like that supersub rule which got scrapped in it's first year.

The ones on the receiving end would always find it bitter regardless of which nation.
But it happening between India and Australia is the perfect scenario as both are known for taking shots at the opposition when possible.

In a t20 or ODI, the sub shouldn't be allowed to bowl or bat simply, only field. T20 lasts for 3 hours and ODI 9 hours. Although I wouldn't vouch for Tests either but it makes some sense for a sub to come into play as it goes on for 5 days. But the sub shouldn't come into play if the injury occurs in the 3rd or 4th innings.

 

[Gilly]

The whole rule is extremely weird to implement without raising noise from those on the receiving end.
It's a bit like that supersub rule which got scrapped in it's first year.

The ones on the receiving end would always find it bitter regardless of which nation.
But it happening between India and Australia is the perfect scenario as both are known for taking shots at the opposition when possible.

In a t20 or ODI, the sub shouldn't be allowed to bowl or bat simply, only field. T20 lasts for 3 hours and ODI 9 hours. Although I wouldn't vouch for Tests either but it makes some sense for a sub to come into play as it goes on for 5 days. But the sub shouldn't come into play if the injury occurs in the 3rd or 4th innings.

From what I read the rue was introduced so that a doctor could rule a player out of the match as a precautionary step because the injury does not present symptoms at the time and this will take away the player having to make a choice.

India have taken advantage of the rule, they didn't cheat and every team would have done the same except NZ who would not have even thought of it until two days later.

 

[Madplayer]

Stupid rule. Make the team play with 10 players if this happens. Maybe give them a fielder at best.

 

[Madplayer]

I have a couple of questions:

1) How many like for like replacements are allowed in one match? What if more than 1 player suffer concussions?

2) Can a concussion be faked in front of the doctors?

 

[tyron_woodley]

i think we should bring back unlimited bouncer rule. Makes it harder to survive for the batsmen. more exciting. more blood for the fans. Players willing to bleed for their country. entertainment.

Need more hostile aggressive spells from bowlers.

 

[MenInG]

Fact is India took advantage of a rule which is there to be used for a good reason.

Kudos to them for knowing how to play the system but also full marks for Langer to have seen through that and raised the issue with the ICC officials.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Fact is India took advantage of a rule which is there to be used for a good reason.

Kudos to them for knowing how to play the system but also full marks for Langer to have seen through that and raised the issue with the ICC officials.

but what exactly is the issue though? i dont see any reason why chahal couldnt replace jadeja? jadeja is the better player anyway. if anything we were at a disadvantage.

 

[BunnyRabbit]

From what I read the rue was introduced so that a doctor could rule a player out of the match as a precautionary step because the injury does not present symptoms at the time and this will take away the player having to make a choice.

India have taken advantage of the rule, they didn't cheat and every team would have done the same except NZ who would not have even thought of it until two days later.

I haven't read the rule but so far have only seen happening twice so my apologies if my two cents contradicts anything but just saying that the rule isn't very cricketish. 11 players mean 11 players, if a guys falls then the team should be prepared to play with 10 guys. Adding a guy in between doesn't add up well and the choice of like for like is pretty much impossible. And what constitutes a like for like player? Can Stoinis or short come in for finch as they open as well and can bowl as well.

 

[Gilly]

I haven't read the rule but so far have only seen happening twice so my apologies if my two cents contradicts anything but just saying that the rule isn't very cricketish. 11 players mean 11 players, if a guys falls then the team should be prepared to play with 10 guys. Adding a guy in between doesn't add up well and the choice of like for like is pretty much impossible. And what constitutes a like for like player? Can Stoinis or short come in for finch as they open as well and can bowl as well.

Like for like will always be subjective so I cant see any easy answer there, the rule itself is to prevent a batsman from continuing to play when it is detrimental to his health.

By allowing the player to be replaced takes the pressure off the player from making a decision to play on when the extent of his injury is unknown.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Fact is India took advantage of a rule which is there to be used for a good reason.

Kudos to them for knowing how to play the system but also full marks for Langer to have seen through that and raised the issue with the ICC officials.

What issue has been raised? In the press conference aussies said that they cant raise question on the medical opinion.

That only leaves the like for like replacement issue. There was no spin bowling AR in the squad, hence the referee approved a spin bowler. Langer seems to have questioned this.

 

[MenInG]

What issue has been raised? In the press conference aussies said that they cant raise question on the medical opinion.

That only leaves the like for like replacement issue. There was no spin bowling AR in the squad, hence the referee approved a spin bowler. Langer seems to have questioned this.

Then I guess Langer was worried about the price of sugar when he went running to Boon?

 

[MenInG]

The Indian cricket team defeated Australia by 11 runs in the first T20 of the three-match series at the Manuka Oval in Canberra. It was a come from behind victory for Virat Kohli and Co as they looked to out of the game when Aaron Finch and D’Arcy Short were batting. But the turn in tide was inflicted by concussion substitute player Yuzvendra Chahal.

The 31-year-old spinner removed Finch and then went on to take 2 more wickets to restrict the Aussies to 150/7 in 20 overs. But Chahal came on as a substitute for Ravindra Jadeja, who had earlier provided the late impetus to the Indian innings with a 23-ball 44.

Jadeja was hit on the head but didn’t seek immediate medical attention but when Australia batted, it was Yuzvendra Chahal, who came out as concussion substitute and took 3 for 25 to play a big part in India’s 11-run win against Australia in the first T20 international. There has been a lot of controversy regarding the decision with some calling it unfair.

The Indian team was absolutely right in getting a concussion substitute for Ravindra Jadeja as symptoms related to head injuries can show up as late as 24 hours after the hit, said former great Virender Sehwag.

“From our side, it was a right decision as Ravindra Jadeja was not fit to play and could not bowl as well,” Sehwag, who is an expert on ‘Sony Six’, said.

“It was an opportunity which the Indian team got because he was hit on the head and when you are hit on the head, nobody can say that concussion will happen at that time. It takes time. You might get symptoms within 24 hours. So Indian team took the right advantage of the rule.” Sehwag feels that Australians shouldn’t be complaining as they were the first beneficiaries of concussion substitute rule.

“When Steve Smith was hit on the head, Labuschagne came out to bat in place of him and made runs. So, Australia also got that advantage. So I think Australia shouldn’t complain.”

‘”They might have just one contention that Jadeja continued to bat and made runs but when you open your helmet inside the dressing room then you might witness some swelling, you might fell dizziness. There is a possibility.”

“I was hit on the helmet many times so I know how it feels but during our times there were no such rules.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...ubstitution/story-HA3DBkfg2U523mOC83Ls1L.html

 

[Indiafan]

Then I guess Langer was worried about the price of sugar when he went running to Boon?

He was confirming whether a medical expert had certified the concussion. He was told they did

 

[Indiafan]

I have a couple of questions:

1) How many like for like replacements are allowed in one match? What if more than 1 player suffer concussions?

2) Can a concussion be faked in front of the doctors?

in india bangaldesh test last year, we hd two concysdion substitutes in the same innings

 

[MenInG]

https://icc-static-files.s3.amazona...C-Concussion-Management-Guidelines-Apr-18.pdf

Above link has the ICC guidelines on concussion management.

 

[Saj]

Maybe the ICC should tighten this up. Perhaps say a team nominates 3 subs and they're allowed to use any one of those subs as per football.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Maybe the ICC should tighten this up. Perhaps say a team nominates 3 subs and they're allowed to use any one of those subs as per football.

Good idea.

 

[sharmaji]

Yes, that'd be right. And those 3 subs could be : a batsman, a bowler and a wicket keeper to be specific, so that there is a like-for-like replacement.

Maybe the ICC should tighten this up. Perhaps say a team nominates 3 subs and they're allowed to use any one of those subs as per football.

 

[Saj]

Yes, that'd be right. And those 3 subs could be : a batsman, a bowler and a wicket keeper to be specific, so that there is a like-for-like replacement.

Exactly.

The team has a choice of whichever of the 3 subs they use.

 

[UzmanBeast]

Exactly.

The team has a choice of whichever of the 3 subs they use.

Ideally, you'd have to have 4 substitutes. A bowler, a wicketkeeper, a batsman, and an all-rounder. Say that player X gets a concussion. He's an all-rounder who bowls around 5 overs a game. Replacing him with a front-line bowler would be unfair, hence, an all-rounder replacement slot is required.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

Ideally, you'd have to have 4 substitutes. A bowler, a wicketkeeper, a batsman, and an all-rounder. Say that player X gets a concussion. He's an all-rounder who bowls around 5 overs a game. Replacing him with a front-line bowler would be unfair, hence, an all-rounder replacement slot is required.

Bad idea. Most squads have 15 players. If we have 4 subs then that means all 15 players will be part of a match. You need at least 1 guy for carrying the drinks also.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Then I guess Langer was worried about the price of sugar when he went running to Boon?

Langer raised the issue of like for like replacement. Or may be he was confirming it was a concussion?

 

[globalcitizen]

Jadeja being in form batsman has been ruled out of series due to concussion, yet people say it’s dodgy. Show some empathy towards a sports person who will do anything to play for his country. This was beyond his control

 

[Rana]

Jadeja being in form batsman has been ruled out of series due to concussion, yet people say it’s dodgy. Show some empathy towards a sports person who will do anything to play for his country. This was beyond his control

He is out of the series with a hamstring.

 

[cricketjoshila]

He is out of the series with a hamstring.

According to whom?

 

[Rana]

According to whom?

Not according to your flimsy medical staff who botched the whole concussion protocol.

 

[Rana]

Indians cheating and fans being proud of their team's dishonesty still going on.

 

[Mobashir]

Indians trying to defend there team cheating in every way possible.
I mean it wasn't that big a thing, just accept that your team was not honest yesterday and end of the discussion.

 

[MenInG]

And now lets wait for abuse directed at Manjrekar:


==


India’s decision to bring on leg-spinner Yuzvendra Chahal as a ‘concussion substitute’ for Ravindra Jadeja has left the cricketing world divided. Jadeja was hit on the helmet by a Mitchell Starc delivery, and even though India captain Virat Kohli did mention that it was after the end of the innings that the batsman complained of dizziness, which forced India to go for a concussion substitute, many former cricketers have called it unfair since no physio came on to check on Jadeja the moment he copped a blow to the head.

In fact, after the hit to the helmet, Jadeja’s batting really took off and he produced a game-changing knock of 44 not out of 23 balls. Jadeja was also seen to be in a bit of trouble with his hamstring, which added fuel to the entire episode. In between the innings, Australia coach Justin Langer, in conversation with match referee David Boon, looked unimpressed with India’s decision to bring on a concussion substitute because perhaps he thought it was the hamstring injury that was preventing Jadeja from taking the field.

The move worked wonders for India as Chahal returned figures of 3/25 from his four overs and dented Australia with the wickets on in-form Aaron Finch and Steve Smith, an effort for which he was named ‘Player of the Match’. After the match, former India batsman Sanjay Manjrekar mentioned how the incident promises to make the ICC more active towards the ‘concussion sub’ rule, believing that the board might make some changes or alterations to it.

“Really happy that he got that opportunity and I think Virat also was very honest to accept that as fate turned out, they had a better bowled than somebody who might have not been able to bowl his four overs. Chahal was a huge bonus and thank god India went to 160 that it all became possible,” Manjrekar said on the ‘Extraaa Innings’ Show on Sony Sports Network.

“But now, after this, there’s going to be a lot of thought given to the concussion substitute, the whole concept purely because we as players – all of us – there are rules made with good intention but we are masters at trying to find a loophole in the rule for our own advantage. Whether India took an advantage, we don’t know, but there’s something the ICC needs to start looking at, so that one team doesn’t get such a massive advantage.”

Former England captain Michael Vaughan was not impressed with the decision, saying the physio needed to be out there to check on Jadeja when he took the blow to his helmet. Highlighting the same, Manjrekar felt it was a ‘breach of protocol’ not to have someone go through the process which convinces that there indeed is a concussion.

“What ICC or the referee will have a problem with is, like Glenn said, there was no visit from the physio. Nobody came, no time was taken to see whether he was ok. He just carried on playing,” he added.

“It’s a breach of protocol that has happened, and I’m sure that is something the match referee will raise with India, because they opted for a concussion substitute but one of the main things with the protocol is that the moment you get hit on the head, they have to spend some time out there, asking the batsman how he feels.

“The physio has to come in, there are certain sets of questions that have to be asked and then the player continues batting, With Jadeja, it just happened and there was hardly any delay.”

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cric...chahal-move/story-7coJc2nMf0y0oOYOGKPmmL.html

 

[Ucdkee]

https://icc-static-files.s3.amazona...C-Concussion-Management-Guidelines-Apr-18.pdf

Above link has the ICC guidelines on concussion management.

Now where are the posters who wanted a reference from the rule book?

 

[UzmanBeast]

Bad idea. Most squads have 15 players. If we have 4 subs then that means all 15 players will be part of a match. You need at least 1 guy for carrying the drinks also.

Like-for-like replacements are the central issue of debate here, in my opinion. It is impossible to have a like-for-like replacement, so ideally, they could just keep two concussion substitues. One would be a wicket-keeper and the other, an all-rounder. Less players in the squad, and if you lose a batsman, you get half a batsman for your loss.

 

[Cric_lover4487]

Like-for-like replacements are the central issue of debate here, in my opinion. It is impossible to have a like-for-like replacement, so ideally, they could just keep two concussion substitues. One would be a wicket-keeper and the other, an all-rounder. Less players in the squad, and if you lose a batsman, you get half a batsman for your loss.

How about naming 12th man before the toss. Same player would be allowed as concussion replacement under all such cases.

 

[Forum363]

Just to clarify, if a batsman is batting and gets hit on the head and is concussed. He is then replaced by another batsman, does that batter need to come in and start batting immediately? Like does he continue the innings? Or does the next batsman come in and the sub can come in after?

Or is the batter out and the concussion sub can only field?

 

[UzmanBeast]

How about naming 12th man before the toss. Same player would be allowed as concussion replacement under all such cases.

I thought of that as well, but then there are a lot of objections by teams as to a 12th man being a concussion substitute, as the 12th man usually brings around the drinks and can field as well.

 

[IMMY69]

It's cheating.

Doesn't surprise me at all

 

[BreadPakoda]

The rules need to be changed just like the runner rule was changed after the Anwar cheating saga.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Not according to your flimsy medical staff who botched the whole concussion protocol.

Who is the decision maker,?

 

[Rana]

Who is the decision maker,?

Corrupt doctors of a cheating Indian cricket management

 

[cricketjoshila]

Corrupt doctors of a cheating Indian cricket management

Since you are not the decision maker how does it matter what you think?

 

[Rana]

Since you are not the decision maker how does it matter what you think?

It doesn’t matter if you think they did the right thing.


They still cheated.

 

[UzmanBeast]

It doesn’t matter if you think they did the right thing.


They still cheated.

I wouldn't call it cheating. If Labuschagne went on to hit a double hundred versus England, nobody would have complained. If Chahal returned with figures of 4 overs, 48 runs, 1 wicket, nobody would complain. It's the fact that he performed which is giving people a reason to call it "cheating". England are right now exploiting the review system, and we're worried about concussion subs.

England are the cheaters here, in my opinion. Why is your analyst sending messages to review or not review? Is he a member of the playing XI that his voice needs to be heard? These are the true exploits of the game, and any common person could see the signals and have to use no cricketing sense to review a decision.

 

[Rana]

I wouldn't call it cheating. If Labuschagne went on to hit a double hundred versus England, nobody would have complained. If Chahal returned with figures of 4 overs, 48 runs, 1 wicket, nobody would complain. It's the fact that he performed which is giving people a reason to call it "cheating". England are right now exploiting the review system, and we're worried about concussion subs.

England are the cheaters here, in my opinion. Why is your analyst sending messages to review or not review? Is he a member of the playing XI that his voice needs to be heard? These are the true exploits of the game, and any common person could see the signals and have to use no cricketing sense to review a decision.

This has nothing to do with England. You can’t wait to exploit the rules just because you saw Australia do it in the past.

On the day, India cheated. Jadeja was injured with a hamstring. He coincidentally was hit in the head and the paramedics botched their job. But the politicians such as Shastri and Kohli didn’t. Pathetic cheats! You are more than capable of winning the game in the right way, why cheat like this?!

 

[yadunoe]

i havent commented on this website for a while but i heard the news and have to say though i support the rule but this is hundred percent cheating if the physio isnt the one to makw the decision right away then you shouldnt be allowed to do a sub

 

[Rana]

Let me make it very clear oh dear Indians.

I predicted India will win 3-0. I hate BCCI and Modi but I don’t hate cricket and cricketers. I can call a spade a spade. And in this case I will call this cheating because it is. You have cheated the game, you have cheated your fans and you have cheated your ability to stay strong and win games on ability and circumstances presented to you.

 

[tyron_woodley]

I don't care even if we cheat if that means it's against Australia. Besides this shouldn't even be considered cheating.

Sand paper and having biased umpires is more like proper cheating.

 

[tyron_woodley]

Let me make it very clear oh dear Indians.

I predicted India will win 3-0. I hate BCCI and Modi but I don’t hate cricket and cricketers. I can call a spade a spade. And in this case I will call this cheating because it is. You have cheated the game, you have cheated your fans and you have cheated your ability to stay strong and win games on ability and circumstances presented to you.

We really haven't. Fans don't care either. We just swapped a player lol. You are acting like we plotted it on purpose to bring Chahal into the game.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Nothing wrong with a bit of occasional cheating. Atta boy, India

 

[shamaan]

Smith played a day before he was taken off. If you show no symptoms, you are unlikely to go off.

So is it not possible to have a concussion when you pull a hammy? Or they mutually exclusive?

Jadeja's role in the game from there on was of a spinner. So what was a like for like replacement? Bumrah?

Accroding to one of your commentators hes a batting all rounder

 

[Mobashir]

The problem is not about chahal winning the game for India. The problem is how dishonest Indian team was.
You will think that Kohli will take better decisions than cheating for a T20 match.

 

[shamaan]

I don't care even if we cheat if that means it's against Australia. Besides this shouldn't even be considered cheating.

Sand paper and having biased umpires is more like proper cheating.

You can also have biase match refferees

 

[shamaan]

If thats not cheating the system then i dont no what isnt

 

[usmanraheel]

Read through most of the comments on this one , as I wanted to know what people thought.

First of all, this rule needs to be revised in order to be specific in regards to "like for like' replacement. How do you replace an all-rounder who was injured and possibly couldn't bowl ?

But besides the point, people not realizing that this rule does not make sense are being delusional. I won't trigger fans by saying this was cheating, but I would definitely like to say that this was not a proper replacement GIVEN the fact Jadeja would have not bowled due to his injury. If the injury was not there then i dont have any issues with this replacement.

Another thing that irks me a little are fan/s that are quick to pick on their teams when they are at fault , but are hypocritical when it comes to other teams. Don't be fake about supporting a particular team, and stop being so negative and/or hateful.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It doesn’t matter if you think they did the right thing.


They still cheated.

What matters is that the decision makers think there was no deviation from the rules.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I wouldn't call it cheating. If Labuschagne went on to hit a double hundred versus England, nobody would have complained. If Chahal returned with figures of 4 overs, 48 runs, 1 wicket, nobody would complain. It's the fact that he performed which is giving people a reason to call it "cheating". England are right now exploiting the review system, and we're worried about concussion subs.

England are the cheaters here, in my opinion. Why is your analyst sending messages to review or not review? Is he a member of the playing XI that his voice needs to be heard? These are the true exploits of the game, and any common person could see the signals and have to use no cricketing sense to review a decision.

Thats not allowed. Smith tried this in India and was stopped by the officials.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Accroding to one of your commentators hes a batting all rounder

According to the same commie, he is a bit and pieces cricketer. There is a reason that that commie doesn't get gigs in India.

 

[UzmanBeast]

This has nothing to do with England. You can’t wait to exploit the rules just because you saw Australia do it in the past.

On the day, India cheated. Jadeja was injured with a hamstring. He coincidentally was hit in the head and the paramedics botched their job. But the politicians such as Shastri and Kohli didn’t. Pathetic cheats! You are more than capable of winning the game in the right way, why cheat like this?!

True, but is there even any way to hold India on account for this?

 

[shamaan]

According to the same commie, he is a bit and pieces cricketer. There is a reason that that commie doesn't get gigs in India.

What becouse he talks the truth ?

 

[shamaan]

The answer is that its the opinion of few pakistanis. Not the people who actually are involved and are the stakeholders and decision makers.

This is a classic case of Begani shaadi mein Abdullah Diwana.

Few thats understatement.

 

[Rana]

True, but is there even any way to hold India on account for this?

Is there any way to hold India to account to anything these days?

 

[UzmanBeast]

Is there any way to hold India to account to anything these days?

That was my question.

 

[MenInG]

Former Australia batsman Mark Waugh believes the game's governing body ICC should consider appointing a neutral doctor to assess players hit on the head and make a concussion decision.

All-rounder Ravindra Jadeja was replaced by spinner Yuzvendra Chahal as a "concussion substitute" after he was hit on the head in the first T20 International in Canberra on Friday. Chahal went on to play a major role in India's 11-run win with figures of 3/25.

"I think something the ICC has to look at is whether you need a neutral appointed doctor to make the concussion decision," Waugh said on Fox Cricket.

"Obviously the team doctor of the Indian team made that ruling. I'm not saying he did anything wrong, but I think the ICC need to look at employing a medical officer or doctor who is neutral to make the decision."

The decision has stirred a controversy with former Australia captain Mark Taylor cautioning against abusing the concussion substitute rule, saying it is for the protection of players and needs to be used fairly and responsibly.

Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar, however, didn't find anything wrong in Chahal coming on as a "concussion substitute" for Jadeja.

After the decision, Australia head coach Justin Langer was seen having an animated conversation with match referee David Boon on the sidelines but it was not known whether it had anything to with Chahal being allowed as a concussion substitute.

Australia all-rounder Moises Henriques, however, did wonder if it was a like-for-like replacement.

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/cric...-mark-waugh-chahal-jadeja/article33263479.ece