• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Should cricket allow subs for injured players?

Grumpy Old Man

Grumpy Old Man

Striker
It's arguable that England lost that game because a bowler was injured and could take no further part in the game? Is it about time the a sub is allowed where a player is conclusively ruled out?
 

chunkyshanhawk53 said:
No.

What happens if you have a bowler who has bowled 30 overs in an innings? Replace him with a fresh one?

Just doesn’t work
Click to expand...

Sub only allowed for a injury which means no further participation. I agree that there should be no sub in the situation you describe. Batsman with a broken arm, bowler with a muscle tear, etc. In other words, no tactical subs
 
chunkyshanhawk53 said:
Becomes open to interpretation then. I’d prefer not to bother.
Click to expand...

All teams have doctors. Sub allowed if both agree the player can't continue. Player subbed can't return to the game. The fact that Woakes couldn't bowl at all and had to come out to bat one and wrong-handed (both farcical and endangering the player) probably swayed the result. To me that's completely wrong.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
All teams have doctors. Sub allowed if both agree the player can't continue. Player subbed can't return to the game. The fact that Woakes couldn't bowl at all and had to come out to bat one and wrong-handed (both farcical and endangering the player) probably swayed the result. To me that's completely wrong.
Click to expand...
Both teams agreeing creates even further nuance

It’s unfortunate, but it’s rare.
 
It’s quite similar to concussion subs, and they’re controversial as it is, so no doubt injury subs would be even more controversial.
 
I think a sub should be allowed once the situation has been established like Woakes and in the past Simon Jones that the injury is game ending and should be instigated and agreed on by both team doctors or an independent hospital!
 
I'm not a fan of substitutions in cricket, especially in T20. I don't like the impact rule that the IPL has as reading the conditions prior to the toss and selecting a balanced lineup is a big part of the tactical element of cricket. Allowing to sub out a bowler after they have completed their bowling allocations for an extra batsmen in the 2nd innings is going too far.
 
Was a decent conversation on TMS about it the other day. I think we’re probably at the point where for specific circumstances where there is an unquestionable injury that permits a player from continuing a substitution should be allowed.

A broken foot (Pant) or a dislocated shoulder (Woakes) seem fair enough reasons for a sub, but I get what Stokes was saying regarding muscle injuries and MRI scans because it could be taken advantage of.

As was alluded to on TMS though, all substitutions should have to be named prior to the game and an independent doctor or medical team would have to be the adjudicator on any injury.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
All teams have doctors. Sub allowed if both agree the player can't continue. Player subbed can't return to the game. The fact that Woakes couldn't bowl at all and had to come out to bat one and wrong-handed (both farcical and endangering the player) probably swayed the result. To me that's completely wrong.
Click to expand...
You make a valid point re Woakes. Would he really have been allowed to take guard had the need arisen ?
 
chunkyshanhawk53 said:
No.

What happens if you have a bowler who has bowled 30 overs in an innings? Replace him with a fresh one?

Just doesn’t work
Click to expand...
Agree totally. It would be exploited. As Stokes said they could do an MRI on him on any day and he could have justification for an injury sub.
 
Last edited:
Injury substitutions would lead to all sorts of fakery from the win at any cost mob, e.g subbing a bowler for a phony injury if the ball isn't turning or swinging. You'd have to allow substitutes for any reason which would end up fundamentally altering the nature of the game.
 
smoker said:
Injury substitutions would lead to all sorts of fakery from the win at any cost mob, e.g subbing a bowler for a phony injury if the ball isn't turning or swinging. You'd have to allow substitutes for any reason which would end up fundamentally altering the nature of the game.
Click to expand...

You could bring in fairly strict rules that would only allow like-for-like substitutes. You wouldn’t be able to sub a spinner in for a quick bowler for example.
 
Raymondo said:
You could bring in fairly strict rules that would only allow like-for-like substitutes. You wouldn’t be able to sub a spinner in for a quick bowler for example.
Click to expand...
Could you have a quick bowler that specialises with the old ball replacing an ‘injury’ that a new ball specialist bowler has received? Or if a bowler is ‘injured’ who is a hopeless batsman be replaced by a similar bowler who is much better at batting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top