Incident Overview
The usage of a concussion substitute by India sparked a lot of discussion during the fourth T20I between England and India. The bouncer from Jamie Overton hit Shivam Dube in the helmet on the fifth delivery of the last over of India’s innings. India came out to bowl and Harshit Rana was named as his concussion substitute, thus the all-rounder did not play.
Concussion substitute rules and England’s objection
Concussion substitute rules state that a player who takes the place of another player must be similar to the original player. As a batting all-rounder, Dube should have been replaced by another cricket player who plays the similar function, preferably Ramndeep Singh.
After Harshit’s contribution proved to be the decisive element as India won the match by 15 runs thanks to his 3/33, England players and former players protested.
What ICC’s Clause 1.2.7.3 states:
According to clause 1.2.7.3, “The ICC Match Referee should ordinarily approve a Concussion Replacement Request if the replacement is a like-for-like player whose inclusion will not excessively advantage his/her team for the remainder of the match.”
India’s strategic use of Clause 1.2.7.4:
However, the Indian team chose to take advantage of ICC Clause 1.2.7.4, which was one of the clause’s weaknesses.
What ICC’s Clause 1.2.7.4 states:
The ICC’s T20I Playing Conditions, clause 1.2.7 “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.”
What it boils down to?
In the second half, Dube was a possibility for pace bowling for India, but he did not play the part that was assigned to him. Harshit Rana, who served as India’s backup pace bowling option when Dube was not available, took his spot as a result.
India
