Concussion Substitution in Cricket - My take

What’s my take on the Concussion Substitution controversy?

England Vs Australia – Second test at Lords - 2019

In the first innings, Steve Smith was batting on 80 and was well placed for a longer one. One of Jofra Archer’s deliveries bowled at 148 kph rose menacingly to hit the batsman on the neck. A dazed Smith languidly walked off with uncertainty looming over his further participation in the match. He later returned to add 12 more runs to his tally before he was trapped leg before on 92.

Cricket Australia announced that Smith will not able to participate in the match any further.

The Australians took advantage of the new rule of ‘Concussion Substitution’ allowing them to make a like-for-like replacement of the injured player. Steve Smith was thus replaced by another batsman Marnus Labuschagne.

In the second innings, needing 264 to win, the Australians were in a precarious position when Labuschagne walked in the middle. He scored a patient 59 to help his team draw the match.

Steve Smith incidentally was the first Concussion Substitute ever.

What is a Concussion injury?

The Hindu quotes a statement made in 2012 by the 4^th International Conference on ‘Concussion in Sport’ which defines the Concussion injury as – A brain injury that may be caused either by a direct blow to the head, face, neck or elsewhere in the body with an ‘impulsive’ force transmitted to the head.

Is this serious? Yes, it is.

 

Australia Vs India – T20 match

Ravindra Jadeja batted brilliantly with a hamstring injury to score a 23 ball 44. He was stuck on the head by a Mitchelle Starc bouncer. The delivery bowled at a fierce pace had taken a piece of his bat before ricocheting it towards backward point.

Jadeja did not ask for medical help and played on to score 9 more runs for his team. India replaced him under the Concussion Substitution rule with Yuzvendra Chahal who helped India win the game.

What was ‘cagey’ in this case?

Jadeja not being given a concussion test on the spot and a doubt that he was being replaced due to hamstring injury created a controversy.

Why did the player not seek medical help when hit? The answer to that question possibly is that whether to ask for a doctor or not is his decision.

That brings another question to the fore –

Did match referee have any other option?

There could be arguments but I believe the options with the match referee are limited.

The rule says that the injured player needs to be medically examined and has to be declared unfit. The onus would lay on the match referee who can take the final call to allow a replacement for a like-for-like player after considering the role the injured player could perform in the reminder of the match.

Jadeja in this case was medically assessed later on and was declared unfit. The symptoms in such injuries can develop later.

At best, the match referee could assess the situation the teams are placed in before taking a decision on which player they want to bring in. He may not have allowed a spinner to be replaced by a fast bowler for instance.

Moreover, in this match, the first innings had concluded and Jadeja was an important bowler whose absence could have gone in Australia’s favor.

It’s a fair call considering a grey area the match referee is looking at and the injured player should get a benefit of doubt.

What if the referee didn’t allow a substitution?

Let’s just imagine this - the match referee doesn’t allow substitution and a player wanting to prove his grittiness continues to participate in the match.

I am sure the match referee would be exceedingly disappointed if the situation leads to serious implications as brain injury symptoms can develop later on.

I am not assuming anything but Concussions are Concussions.

We may argue the in such a case it was a voluntary decision of the player to continue playing but could the match referee wash off their hands off it if things go awry in Concussion injuries?

Smith was hit on the neck and fell on the pitch. The English players had swarmed around him bringing back memories of Phillip Hughes who too was hit on the neck by a Sean Abbott bouncer in a Sheffield Shield match. We know what happened later.

Whether India took an unfair advantage should not be the discussion here because the inclusion of Chahal could have gone either way since the Australians had played Chahal well in the ODI series. The match wasn’t a decider either. Australians are playing at home and can still bounce back in the tournament.

The makers of the rule have given ample thought to it taking into account the loopholes and have decided that a Concussion could be a serious injury later. We should amply trust the injured player.

There will be rules and there will be loopholes leading to breaches but the we have to adhere to the process to ensure there are no further incidents like Phil Hughes.

After all it was only a game and lives of the sportsmen should matter.