'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
In such a short time, the entire saga of Harshit Rana coming on as a concussion replacement for Shivam Dube has been well-documented. The immediate raw reaction from the England camp were sour, perhaps rightly, perhaps not.
Team India, however, have maintained that they have not flouted any rules. Here is what the rule book says:
"The ICC Match Referee should ordinarily approve a Concussion Replacement Request if the replacement is a like-for-like player whose inclusion will not excessively advantage his/her team for the remainder of the match,” Rule 1.2.7 of ICC’s Men’s T20I playing guidelines states.
Trending
"Sub-sections, 1.2.7.4 and 1.2.7.5, add, “in assessing whether the nominated Concussion Replacement should be considered a like-for-like player, the ICC Match Referee should consider the likely role the concussed player would have played during the remainder of the match, and the normal role that would be performed by the nominated Concussion Replacement."
On that note, let us take a deep look at Team India's concussion substitution gambit that has tested cricket's limits.
#1 India took advantage of a loophole to gain an unfair advantage
The ICC has mentioned clearly that the replacement has to be 'like-to-like', but there is no metric to assess the same as far as all-rounders are concerned. There is no clear ratio as to how much the all-rounder is proficient in batting or bowling.
To resolve the concussion conundrum, India painted both Shivam Dube and Harshit Rana as all-rounders. There is no law suggesting there should be a combined batting and bowling average to be considered as an all-rounder, so that tag is more of potential-based rather than a clear-cut one.
Harshit Rana has a hundred and a couple of fifties along with an average of 34 in first-class cricket, but that foundation falls apart after assessing his T20 batting record. He only has two runs in total in 26 matches (three innings).
It was a brave shot in the dark to nominate Harshit Rana and convince the match referee that it is a like-to-like replacement. To India's credit, they got away with, and won't mind tags of 'unfair advantage', because it was not their call to make it in the final place.
The match referee was well within the rights to dismiss India's request to name Harshit Rana as replacement, when there was already another all-rounder in the squad.
#2 India got a frontline seamer in the name of an all-rounder on a red-soil wicket
The Men in Blue have been adamant about playing only one frontline seamer the entire series. After some early success with the formula, they were backed into a corner in the fourth T20I when Hardik Pandya did not look the part with the new ball.
India resorted to spin from both ends as early as the England batters preferred the ball coming onto the bat well. The spinners then helped India claw their way back into the game. While India had overs of Arshdeep left, they needed a fifth bowler, preferably a pacer.
Since Dube does not bowl in the IPL due to the impact player rule, India have tried to incorporate him into the bowling attack whenever possible. He bowled in the home series against Afghanistan last year, and in the tour of Zimbabwe, which translates to whenever the stakes are low.
As a result, in all honesty, given England's power-packed batting line-up, and how delicately the match and the series were both placed, there was no chance that Dube would have been given even a couple of overs. The Men in Blue would have certainly preferred Pandya for the fifth bowler role in that case.
However, with the concussion substitute loophole, India had the services of a frontline seamer to take over from the spinners, while saving Arshdeep for the back end of the innings. Rana, with his extra pace and tall frame, was tailormade for such a wicket, where he could hit the deck hard, and also use his variation. With all these traits, he was an upgrade over Pandya.
#3 Is the concussion substitute rule inherently flawed when all-rounders are involved in the equation?
There was a similar uproar when India used a concussion substitute for the first time. Back then, during the tour of Australia in 2020-21, all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja had sustained a concussion, leading to specialist leg-spinner Yuzvendra Chahal coming in his place.
The concussion substitute put on a player-of-the-match display with a spell of 3-25, leading to then-coach Justin Langer questioning the rule.
In another instance, Bangladesh had to use two concussion substitutes during their Test series against India in 2019. Nayeem Hasan was replaced by Taijul Islam, which ended up being a straight swap. However, due to a lack of options on the bench, wicketkeeper-batter Liton Das was replaced by specialist Mehidy Hasan.
Hasan was not allowed to bowl, since he was not on the pitch as a player, but as a concussion substitute for a wicketkeeper, who would not have bowled had he been on the pitch.
Dube also might not have bowled had he not sustained the concussion, but 'might' is the key word here since the 'all-rounder' protects him in this case. Liton Das did not have the same luxury in the above-mentioned scenario. Had Dube been a batter, any member could have come on as a substitute fielder, and it would not have made any difference in the second innings.
#4 Would the uproar been the same had Rana flopped as a concussion substitute? How much of it is just an excuse?
A strong reason for the backlash is how big of a say Harshit Rana ended up having in the game. Had the pacer returned ordinary figures, the move would have only been frowned upon rather than chastised, which is the case now.
It is safe to assume had Rana not been on the field, his overs would have gone to Pandya given his experience and role as second seamer in the side. While Rana did have a decisive say in the proceedings, it would be unfair on the Indian bowlers to suggest that India would not have won without the substitute.
On the other hand, to a large degree, England's loss was more self-inflicted than external influence. They were in control of the run chase, and their downfall after a strong start cannot be pinned on Rana. From their perspective, the outrage is more concerning how has a rule been breached so blatantly.
The issue is likely to die down, if not already, but one has to admit that if the shoe was on the other foot, there would have been mayhem.
Follow IPL Auction 2025 Live Updates, News & Biddings at Sportskeeda. Get the fastest updates on Mega-Auction and cricket news
