Should teams be allowed to replace players injured in-game?

[Bahnz]

Thinking back to the daynight test at Adelaide, I'm still struck by how utterly unfair it was that Australia had to play through the majority of that match with only 2 specialist quicks after Mitchell Starc broke down on day 1. Things were nearly as bad for them in the 2nd test when they were forced to save the game with just 10 fit batsmen after Uz pulled a hammy on day 2. And New Zealand suffered there own misfortune in that series when Southee broke down with a back problem on day 1 of the Gabba test.

I never really thought much about it before, but I don't understand why teams aren't allowed to properly replace a player when an injury occurs. It has the potential to ruin fair and entertaining contests, and strikes me as being a rule without sensible purpose.

What do you think, should the rules be changed to allow injury replacements, or are there compelling reasons for requiring a team to soldier on in the event of medical misfortune?

 

[honestbharani]

I wont min trialling this in the domestic T20 games first.

 

[hendrix]

nope.

Practicably it would likely be abused.

But more importantly, part the appeal of test cricket is the physical and mental endurance test. The preparation, the fitness, and the selection process is all tempered by the fact that a player has to last 5 days.

To some degree you have to select the workhorse over the racehorse. There's a compromise. And I like that.

 

[Dan]

Would be hilarious if they drafted in Patto to replace Starc, and he broke down, so they draft in NCN, who in turn breaks down, so in comes Bird, who breaks down, resulting in a fifth-day call-up for SoK once the pitch starts turning.

 

[kiwiviktor81]

There's a reason why they're called Test matches.

I agree that the proposal appeals to an intuitive fairness, but what would stop a team, say, stacking their batting in the first innings with a guy like Colin Munro batting 9, then just swap him out for a specialist bowler for the second innings?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah as the others have said, it's too open to abuse. Should never happen.

 

[Bahnz]

nope.

Practicably it would likely be abused.

But more importantly, part the appeal of test cricket is the physical and mental endurance test. The preparation, the fitness, and the selection process is all tempered by the fact that a player has to last 5 days.

To some degree you have to select the workhorse over the racehorse. There's a compromise. And I like that.

I seriously doubt this. It'd be too easy to debunk and players could be appropriately disincentivised by putting in place automatic match bans for the player and captain involved.

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to your second point, ultimately I feel that injury is always going to be largely out of the team's control, and so shouldn't count so heavily against them as it currently does. I can't think of any other major team sports that doesn't allow injury substitutions like cricket does.

 

[Bahnz]

There's a reason why they're called Test matches.

I agree that the proposal appeals to an intuitive fairness, but what would stop a team, say, stacking their batting in the first innings with a guy like Colin Munro batting 9, then just swap him out for a specialist bowler for the second innings?

It doesn't strike me as something that would be terribly difficult to police. Requiring teams to submit doctors report outlining the severity of injury really wouldn't be that hard. As for the issue of replacing bowlers with batsmen to suit the state of the match that is a bit of an issue. But lets be honest, it's not hard to characterise player types in cricket (batsmen, fast bowlers, keepers, spinners, etc) it doesn't strike that it would be overly difficult to write it into the laws that substitutions be like for like.

 

[Prince EWS]

The chance of teams actually profiting from this just makes it a no-go for me.

 

[Spikey]

In domestic competitions they should be, particularly for head injures

 

[Spikey]

Oh and ever saying "its called test cricket for a reason", or the like, is the single worst thing you can ever say while discussing cricket

 

[Howe_zat]

The amount of sub fielder bull**** teams get away with is a big indicator of where this would go, I think.

And right now players try to keep injury prevention as a big part of their training partly because it's so beneficial to the team to keep the players fit. Removing that incentive might be an issue for player welfare.

 

[Dan]

Yeah I'd be happy enough to see it for things like head injuries -- serious **** like that should never count against a team, especially when the inability to replace incentivises the player to carry on and put themselves in more danger -- but if its soft tissue there shouldn't be scope for this IMO.

Head injuries it'd have to be a doctor's report, minimum stand-down period and ensuring that players are legitimately medically cleared by independent doctors before returning. Can't risk anything there.

 

[Howe_zat]

Concussion might be a different kettle of fish, yeah. Not like you can have anti-get-hit-in-the-face training

 

[Prince EWS]

Ultimately I think I'm more okay with teams losing because their players got injured than winning because their players got injured.

Even if you took the ultimate example of everything being on the up and up -- Haze collides with someone in the field, gets a concussion and is replaced by Pattinson with the opposition nine down in the third innings, I'm really uncomfortable with Pattinson going out at nine in the fourth innings and hitting 50* to win the game as that'd be something Haze would be incredibly unlikely to pull off, even though the sub was relatively like for like.

 

[Burgey]

Of all the formats, this lends itself best to test matches. You have an ICC appointed panel doctor from a neutral country who assesses the injury. Tests allow time for another player to be drafted in. I think it's a goer provided there's a neutral doctor there to make the call.

 

[StephenZA]

Of all the formats, this lends itself best to test matches. You have an ICC appointed panel doctor from a neutral country who assesses the injury. Tests allow time for another player to be drafted in. I think it's a goer provided there's a neutral doctor there to make the call.

Who is going to pay for an additional neutral Dr to be on call... what counts as neutral? From another country? I don`t think this is practical.

No I don`t think injury replacements are necessary, yes there is some potential benefit. But it`s potential to be open to abuse is greater, which creates additional complications in the game; for a solution to a problem that is not really a problem.....

 

[honestbharani]

Lol @ an ICC bears the cost suggestion. Wait till BCCI refuse to accept it and it becomes another DRS.

 

[GIMH]

I'd allow a substitution between the second and third innings for tactical reasons. Supersub was a resounding success in ODIs and we should continue with it in Tests.

But in seriousness. If something like what Bahnz suggested ever was to happen, that would be the only point I'd allow it - between 2nd and 3rd dig. Can't be having a fresh seamer come on with eight overs left on day five and two wickets remaining.

 

[91Jmay]

I'd allow a substitution between the second and third innings for tactical reasons. Supersub was a resounding success in ODIs and we should continue with it in Tests.

But in seriousness. If something like what Bahnz suggested ever was to happen, that would be the only point I'd allow it - between 2nd and 3rd dig. Can't be having a fresh seamer come on with eight overs left on day five and two wickets remaining.

Or a batsmen coming in at 7 down to block out a draw/hit the winning runs.

Just not a thing that is going to work for me.