India's use of pacer Harshit Rana as a concussion substitute for Shivam Dube in the fourth T20I of the ongoing five-match series in Pune has triggered a major controversy with the England camp claiming that this was not a 'like-for-like' substitution allowed in the ICC rules.
Dube, who scored 53 and along with Hardik Pandya, who contributed a similar score, helped India recover from a precarious 12/3 and 79/5 to post 181/9 in 20 overs, was hit on his helmet during his knock and had to be substituted as per the concussion protocols as he could not take the field during England's innings.
The decision to substitute Dube by Rana left the England camp fuming as they argued that this was not a like-for-like substitution allowed by the ICC rules. While both players officially qualify as all-rounders, Dube has bowled just nine overs for India in the shortest format while Rana has scored two runs with the bat in his T20 career.
It’s not a like-for-like replacement, we don’t agree with that. Either Shivam Dube has put on about 25mph with the ball or Harshit has really improved his batting. It’s part of the game. I still think we should have gone on to win the match. But we disagree with the decision. We’ll ask Javagal [Srinath, the match referee] some questions just to get some clarity around it..
Former England captains Kevin Pietersen and Michael Vaughan too waded into the controversy, claiming the substitution did not conform to the rules.
How can an out & out bowler replace a batter who bowls part-time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #INDvsENG.
Pietersen, who is one of the commentators, took up the issue during the live broadcast of the match and blamed this as the cause for Jos Buttler's dismissal.
Jos Buttler got out in frustration because he was not happy with the substitution. Ask anybody in the world if Harshit Rana is a like-for-like replacement. I am not so sure that anybody would say that he is. I think that there is going to be a very big discussion if Harshit Rana picks up four for nothing. It is a different matter if he is like-for-like or not, but an entirely different discussion if they can turn this into their strength.
The ICC rules are quite clear on this. While allowing a like-for-like substitution, the rules also want to ensure that one side does not take undue advantage by the substitition. The ICC Rules on concussion replacement covered under Rule 1.2.7 of ICC’s Men’s T20I playing guidelines says: 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. In assessing whether the nominated Concussion Replacement should be considered a like-for-likeplayer, 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.
Further, sub-sections 1.2.7.4 and 1.2.7.5 of the abovementioned guidelines say: If the ICC Match Referee believes that the inclusion of the nominated Concussion Replacement when performing their normal role, would excessively advantage their team, the ICC Match Referee may impose such conditions upon the identity and involvement of the Concussion Replacement as he/she sees fit, in line with the overriding objective of facilitating a like-for-like replacement for the concussed player.
The major point of contention here is this portion of the rules which states: 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.
With Dube being a part-time bowler, there was no possibility of him getting to bowl a full quota of four overs. Rana, on the other hand, is a regular bowler and therefore bowled four overs, which gave India a substantial advantage.
It is now for the ICC to rule whether the rule was implemented properly or they have left a loophole in the sub-sections that could be exploited in this manner with players being grouped in a broader sense of the word 'all-rounder' and not specify a bowling allrounder or a batting allrounder.
