By Harshit Rana replaced Shivam Dube in India’s fourth T20 international against England in Pune yesterday due to a concussion. The rule states that the concussion substitute and the player being substituted must be “like-for-like” players (1.2.7.3). When deciding whether or not a player is a like-for-like player, the referee must examine “the likely role the concussed player would have played during the remainder of the match” (1.2.7.4). The rule instructs the referee to ensure that the substitute does not “excessively benefit his or her team.”
Only Shivam Dube’s bowling contribution was important because the batting innings had ended by the time the concussion substitution was requested. The concussion was induced by a strike delivered on the fifth ball of India’s 20th over.
Harshit Rana is a fast-medium new ball bowler. Shivam Dube is a medium pacer who has taken 53 first-class wickets (22 each) in 21 matches, the majority of which have come for Mumbai.
The question is whether swapping Rana for Dube gave Rana’s team an unfair advantage. It’s the type of fatal question in which the temptation to assume (or just state) that the Match Referee was either bent or inept is strong. This assumption has been liberally applied, albeit rarely directly and generally with a wink and a snigger. The subsequent spittle is all over social media.
I’m going to proceed by assuming that Javagal Srinath, who has been an ICC Match Referee since 2006 and has officiated 79 Tests, 271 ODIs, and 135 T20Is (for a total of 485 ICC run matches), not only has extensive experience working with the regulations as they are issued and updated, but also acts in good faith and with great competence.
The question is, why did Srinath agree India’s request to employ Harshit Rana as a concussion substitution for Shivam Dube?
At the start of this match, both Dube and Rana had conceded 8.9 runs per over in T20 matches.
Dube did not bowl at all during the 2024 IPL or T20 World Cup. However, starting July 2024, he has bowled frequently for both India and Mumbai in the domestic T20 event. He has bowled his entire quota in four of the five matches in the SMAT competition in December 2024.
Dube often bowls in T20 after the powerplay; 52 of his 59 T20 overs have come after the powerplay. Before this match, Harshit Rana has bowled 20 over 36 in the powerplay.
I haven’t seen any reports after the match, but I believe Srinath agreed to allow India to use Harshit Rana as a concussion substitute for Shivam Dube in the bowling innings as long as Rana did not bowl in the first half. This stipulation is appropriate because it corresponds to when Dube would have bowled if he had. Rana was introduced in the 12th over of England’s chase.
Did Rana offer an advantage over Dube? Probably. However, this is acceptable under the guidelines. The question is whether he gave an excessive advantage. The rule is intended to prohibit an excessive advantage. The inference is that in some instances, the substitute player will gain an advantage. Or, at the at least, it is doubtful that like-for-like replacements will be exactly the same as the player they are replacing.
Allowing Harshit Rana to replace Shivam Dube is, on the whole, not unreasonable. India definitely wanted the greatest replacement they could find. The criterion allows the replacement to provide some advantage, but not an undue advantage. Replacing a medium pacer with a medium-fast bowler on debut for a bowling innings is not unreasonable, especially because both have roughly identical T20 career economy rates thus far. It falls squarely under the rule. The rule is intended to safeguard a player who has received a blow to the head and is regarded to be at danger for concussion (notice that the rule states “a concussion or suspected concussion”) without converting the game into a 10 v 11 contest. This outcome is determined at the discretion of the referee.
