Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[aussie tragic]

Then do you have squads of 22 for each match?

No, 1 batsman can be nominated to sub for top 5 bats, 1 for allrounder, 1 for keeper, 1 for spinner, 1 for 3 pacers. So 16, normal squad size. Make it 15 if 1 batsman for top 6

Alternatively, scrap the sub rule and treat concussion like any other injury during the match. 12th man fields for them and that's it.

 

[Chewie]

I understand the reason why it's treated differently is they don't want people to lie and stay on the field when concussed because they don't want to let their team down - so to allow a replacement alleviates that.

But at the same time, it seems like Jadeja knew that his concussion sub would be much worse at batting that him, hence why he didn't want to go off while batting, but was alright when it came time to bowl.

So having maybe 3 designated concussion subs - a batsman, a bowler and an all-rounder could be one option.

 

[weeman27bob]

The rules should be set up to give us more instances of non-bowlers having to bowl pivotal overs of the game. Bowlers are called upon the finish games off with the bat relatively frequently, but David Warner never has to defend 14 runs when bowling the last over.

Justice for bowlers.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This rule probably gonna go the no-runner route.

 

[honestbharani]

I understand the reason why it's treated differently is they don't want people to lie and stay on the field when concussed because they don't want to let their team down - so to allow a replacement alleviates that.

But at the same time, it seems like Jadeja knew that his concussion sub would be much worse at batting that him, hence why he didn't want to go off while batting, but was alright when it came time to bowl.

So having maybe 3 designated concussion subs - a batsman, a bowler and an all-rounder could be one option.

He wud have batted for all of 4 balls though. I dont think that is the issue here. My vote would be to go broader. They are supposed to have independent doctors on the field anyways who need to certify the concussion (which may have been done away with for covid times but hopefully are back once we are past the pandemic). So, to me, it would make more sense to allow injury substitutions as long as the injury happens during the game. It was always an unfair advantage to the other side when someone gets injured on your side. Apply the same like for like rules as the concussion sub but that is what I will do.

 

[Starfighter]

It was always an unfair advantage to the other side when someone gets injured on your side.

Not really. It's test cricket. A lot of injuries are due to fitness, or in the case of batsmen being hit on the head, poor batting technique.

 

[TheJediBrah]

An injury doesn't lead to an "unfair advantage". It can be unlucky but Starfighter is spot on, it's part of sport and while it can be a disadvantage it's usually the result of someone's body failing them, hence it's fair.

Maybe the odd occassion like stepping on a cricket ball in the warm ups on the other hand

 

[honestbharani]

An injury doesn't lead to an "unfair advantage". It can be unlucky but Starfighter is spot on, it's part of sport and while it can be a disadvantage it's usually the result of someone's body failing them, hence it's fair.

Maybe the odd occassion like stepping on a cricket ball in the warm ups on the other hand

Not really. It's test cricket. A lot of injuries are due to fitness, or in the case of batsmen being hit on the head, poor batting technique.

But those can be ascertained. An injury that is purely due to workload can be identified. And yes, when you play a game where the opposition only has 10 players, it is an unfair advantage. I mean, the fact that you have no better defence than "its test cricket" tells me there is not much to argue here. If an injury happens on the field of play because of a player diving or something else, I think they should be allowed to substitute.

And Starfighter, poor batting technique does not mean being hit on the head is ok. I hope you dont think this way when a serious injury happens on the field. And even if it is poor technique, it means a first choice player is taken out and some reserve guy is the one who is coming on. Surely it is not such a big deal if the team is good enough on the other side.

 

[Victor Ian]

Ignore HB. He's just pissed he is not maf.

 

[honestbharani]

I think it is a pretty productive discussion tbh. Allowing injury subs in cricket is something I have long believed in.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I just don't consider it "unfair". It's definitely a disadvantage but fitness and managing your body is an important part of professional sport. An injury is, to a large extent, a failure at that aspect.

 

[stephen]

Cricket is a non contact sport. It's rare that a player gets injured in it. Though if it is it's usually a bowler. A bowler who can be filled in for by a part timer or the other 3/4 stepping up in most circumstances.

It's a team sport and it's survived 150 years without allowing injury subs. Sides have gone on and won after players have been injured. I'm not too worried about injury subs. I support concussion subs because brain damage is a real thing and can damage a player's long term health far more than any other kind of injury.

Injury subs aren't something I really care to get worked up about, especially when teams have already been known to abuse runners in the past. Just keep the game the same and you'll avoid gaming.

 

[honestbharani]

I just don't consider it "unfair". It's definitely a disadvantage but fitness and managing your body is an important part of professional sport. An injury is, to a large extent, a failure at that aspect.

Cricket is a non contact sport. It's rare that a player gets injured in it. Though if it is it's usually a bowler. A bowler who can be filled in for by a part timer or the other 3/4 stepping up in most circumstances.

It's a team sport and it's survived 150 years without allowing injury subs. Sides have gone on and won after players have been injured. I'm not too worried about injury subs. I support concussion subs because brain damage is a real thing and can damage a player's long term health far more than any other kind of injury.

Injury subs aren't something I really care to get worked up about, especially when teams have already been known to abuse runners in the past. Just keep the game the same and you'll avoid gaming.

Game did not have T20 cricket for more than 150 years either. Its about evolution and all sports need to do it. And you guys seemed to have missed the part where ICC is now mandating the presence of an independent doctor to rule on concussion subs anyways, I dont see why they cant have them rule on the other injuries too.

 

[Line and Length]

Game did not have T20 cricket for more than 150 years either. Its about evolution and all sports need to do it. And you guys seemed to have missed the part where ICC is now mandating the presence of an independent doctor to rule on concussion subs anyways, I dont see why they cant have them rule on the other injuries too.

Leave the subs to cases of concussion (being a traditionalist I'm against that as well). Doctors have a protocol to determine concussion but how do they determine if a back injury is genuine or feigned? Injury subs (for other than concussion) opens a whole new can of worms and would be open to abuse.

 

[honestbharani]

Leave the subs to cases of concussion (being a traditionalist I'm against that as well). Doctors have a protocol to determine concussion but how do they determine if a back injury is genuine or feigned? Injury subs (for other than concussion) opens a whole new can of worms and would be open to abuse.

I think it can be done from whatever I know of sports medicine. And you can delay naming the sub until it is proven through Xrays or whatever in case that is needed. Teams get those done within hours of an injury anyways. I just think there is enough advancement in these areas for us to go for something which I have long felt gives a rather unfair advantage to the other side. Not every injury is due to lack of fitness or "bad technique" against the short ball.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Game did not have T20 cricket for more than 150 years either. Its about evolution and all sports need to do it. And you guys seemed to have missed the part where ICC is now mandating the presence of an independent doctor to rule on concussion subs anyways, I dont see why they cant have them rule on the other injuries too.

No I'm not missing anything. I'm literally just saying that injuries usually aren't "unfair". I don't have a strong opinion on injury subs one way or the other.

 

[honestbharani]

No I'm not missing anything. I'm literally just saying that injuries usually aren't "unfair". I don't have a strong opinion on injury subs one way or the other.

Injuries are not unfair. The advantage a team gets playing 10 when they get to play 11, definitely is unfair.

 

[Chewie]

I do think concussion injuries need to be treated differently to other types of injuries and think subs are warranted for them. Other injuries I don't have a firm view but generally think it should be ok but more care needs to be taken there

 

[Chewie]

The against argument is for example, it's the CWC final, you've got one superstar player who has a niggle, and decide to play him anyway because you can just get a sub if he aggravates it and gets properly injured - this shouldn't be encouraged

 

[cnerd123]

I think the issue with the Jadeja concussion was that he was allowed to keep on batting after being hit. I'm not sure what the rules are around testing for a concussion right after a blow to the helmet, but ideally he would have gone off the field immediately after being hit, rather than be allowed to bat on. Having said that, there were only 4 balls left in the game, so I can understand why the test was taken in the innings break.

I don't think this is a rule that's going to be abused to the extent where it's going to be a problem. Firstly, no one is going to be willing to cop a concussion just to get an advantage over the opposition. If they were, they wouldn't be playing cricket - plenty of other sports let you trade bodily harm for glory. Even if a player were willing to do this, the resulting injury will cause them to miss several games. Jadeja was ruled out of the rest of the series as a result of the blow. Any advantage gained in this game was then lost for the upcoming matches.

Secondly, it's going to be bloody obvious if a player is copping severe blows to their skulls deliberately just to game the sub rule. If that starts happening there will be further repercussions, both from the ICC and from the fans/media. As of now, it's not a problem, and I don't see it becoming an issue in the future.

I do think it would be good practice to name the concussion subs for each player prior to the toss tho.