Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Further to Big Vern's trip to hospital in the ongoing England-South Africa game at the Oval, it strikes me yet again just how much of an odd beast cricket is for being a team sport that does not allow substitutions of batsmen, bowlers or wicketkeepers under even the most reasonable of circumstances. Every other team sport allows substitutions, some multiple per match (in basketball, I think they're unlimited), for tactical as well as injury replacement reasons. But in cricket, if a fast bowler pulls up in the first innings with a torn muscle and is carted off to hospital, the team has to play one bowler and batsman down for the entire game, and hence are at a strong disadvantage for no fault of their own.

Of course, cricket differs from the likes of football, rugby etc. in that the game is broken up into distinct phases where a team is doing different things, and most players are specialists in performing a job in one phase or the other. In football, if you tactically replace a defender with a striker, you run the risk of a weakened defence for the rest of the game. But in cricket, replacing, say, your bowler who bats at 11 with a specialist batsman when you're batting in the 4th innings has no downside. Therein I think lies the concern for cricket - replacing a specialist with a different kind of specialist for tactical reasons might gain an unfair advantage for all sorts of reasons (adding a batsman when you're looking to play out a draw, swapping a batsman for a spinner when you're trying to bowl a team out in the 4th innings), and isn't really in the spirit of the game.

The most comparable sport, baseball, has the pinch hitter rule, where a batter can be substituted with another. The player taken off can play no further part in the game. This is used tactically at times, but because baseball is played over 9 innings rather than 2, the impact is probably lower.

Nonetheless, cricket seems to have been going in the opposite direction, with the removal of runners. I think that the concerns that there are about tactical abuse should not be insurmountable, and in circumstances of genuine injury teams should be able to substitute an injured player, with the substitute taking a full role in the game.

A few suggestions about how this might be done, in order to curb abuse - perhaps some or all of the following:
1) A player who is substituted out may take no further role in the game. This includes if a substitute fielder comes on for a player. If a player goes off for assessment, they can't come back on even if they are deemed fit if they have been substituted in the meantime. A team might therefore have to risk having 10 men on the field if they want the injured player to come back on later.
2) A substitution can only take place at the innings break between the first and second match innings (obviously for 2 innings games only - the issue doesn't seem to be as significant in limited overs)
3) Teams may only make one substitution, and the player coming on must be the designated 12th man. This adds an element of interest to the 12th man selection - do you pick a player to replace the player most likely to break down (probably a quick bowler)? Or do you deliberately pick a 12th player as a tactical substitute?
4) A player may only substituted if the umpires are satisfied that the player being replaced has a genuine injury/ailment that prevents them from taking any further part in the game.

Number 4) ought to curb any potential abuses, as the umpires would be within their rights to refuse a substitution if they had any doubts that the player being taken off was genuinely injured. Of course, injuries can be faked or overstated, but with the level of international scrutiny, any team that habitually bends the rules this way would be picked up pretty quickly, and the umpires could respond by simply refusing to allow them to substitute players. And in international games, it shouldn't be beyond the resources of the game to have an independent medical professional available to assess an injured player. And surely any hospital admission should allow for an automatic substitution?

Thoughts?

Tricky one , BFL , for the reasons you outlined.

I'm not inclined to allow substitutes - other than for fielding. Though I don't mind runners (always worth a laugh when they messed up their calls or forgot who was running : ever seen three batsmen at the one end together

Your thoughts brought on by the Philander case , I suppose ? In this situation I have practically no sympathy for SA as they apparently knew very well he was ill before the game and decided to chance it. In fact cases like this are why I fear any substitute rule would be abused...

Don't want subs because once in place they will be used tactically and that undermines the strategic delicacy of the choices made at the toss and in team selection. (One change I like though is that the sub fielder can't come on until the end of the over after the one s/he departs in. Regarding subs.) Teams have to wear their misfortune and try to overcome it, which makes the game feel more like life (also suggested by the extreme length of a Test, whereby players live in the game for the best part of a week) rather than just a game, which helps give Test cricket some gravitas.

bigfluffylemon wrote:
Of course, injuries can be faked or overstated, but with the level of international scrutiny, any team that habitually bends the rules this way would be picked up pretty quickly, and the umpires could respond by simply refusing to allow them to substitute players. And in international games, it shouldn't be beyond the resources of the game to have an independent medical professional available to assess an injured player. And surely any hospital admission should allow for an automatic substitution?

The games administrators would probably find themselves powerless, much as they are with over rates.

no substitutes for me, either

because of the opportunities for abuse outlined by everybody above

I would never trust any team to not try and use a change in the ruling to attempt to garner some sort of tactical advantage for themselves. It is the nature of sports and sports players.

Dean Richards gave one of his rugby players a fake blood pill to bite on in case he felt the need to make a tactical substitution via the blood replacement rule. An extreme example, of course, but just to highlight how the minds of some professional coaches work

In 2005, the Aussies moaned like hell because they thought (probably rightly) that England were using the fielding substitution rule to rest their bowlers

the Ponting tirade and the subsequent sending on of the fielding coach to rub salt into the wound was one of my favourite moments of that series, but England were deliberately subbing their fast bowlers and replacing them with gun fielders to garner an advantage. Of course, it was up to the umpires to put a stop to that, but they either didn't realise (unlikely), didn't care (more likely), or didn't want to stick their heads above the parapet (by far the most likely)

whatever the reason, the Aussies probably had a point

does anyone really believe that the referral rule isn't being routinely used (often unsuccessfully) to try and 'get away with one'

Apparently the rule is changing soon so you don't get your referrals back at 80 overs, but you don't lose them for an umpire's call.

Don't get me started on umpires call

lets further erode the authority of the umpires

so much for the referral process being introduced to eliminate the howler.

FTECB

FTICC

FTBCCI

what a nonsense

I'd only allow them to have 1 review per innings. If it's a howler they will never lose it

I'm not terribly surprised by the responses here, although I still think that it shouldn't be beyond the wit of the guardians of the game to be able to find away to curb abuse while still allowing substitutions when they are genuinely warranted.

That said, I do take the point of those who've noted how toothless the umpires seem to be on such matters as over rates, on field discipline and how the DRS has been used for purposes other than intended (though I still think it improves the game overall, as it has achieved its primary aim - to get rid of the howler. We rarely argue any more about a match that should have been won but was lost because an lbw was given after an inside edge that everyone in the ground heard apart from the umpire).

bigfluffylemon wrote: (though I still think it improves the game overall, as it has achieved its primary aim - to get rid of the howler. We rarely argue any more about a match that should have been won but was lost because an lbw was given after an inside edge that everyone in the ground heard apart from the umpire).

that's true

although that is also an argument for not changing it

Surely one would see spin bowlers not being picked in the 11, and then on day 4 we would see pace bowlers suddenly get injured, and then replaced by a specialist spinner. Or bowlers being replaced depending on the outcome of the toss. Or bowlers or batters being replaced depending on the game situation relative to the next test match.

Some teams would not abuse the system, but England would. They would ruin it for everyone else, so probably best to keep it the way it is.