Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
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?
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?