Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[Flem274*]

ew its back

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

That's contradictory, and incorrect. If you lose a player through injury it's essentially a failure of the body which is a major part of sport. It's a deserved disadvantage most of the time.

 

[Daemon]

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

Yeah this should be the way to go imo.

If Chahal was named Jadeja's replacement and we were chasing instead of batting first, it would've backfired.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

The sub doesn't have to bat immediately right? I assume that if Jadeja went off as soon as he got hit, it would have been just like retiring hurt, and India could have sent in Shami instead. Not much of a step up from Chahal tho tbf

 

[TheJediBrah]

The sub doesn't have to bat immediately right? I assume that if Jadeja went off as soon as he got hit, it would have been just like retiring hurt, and India could have sent in Shami instead. Not much of a step up from Chahal tho tbf

have you given up umpiring? thought you'd be all over this. btw you've been gone so long I almost miss u

 

[honestbharani]

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

We already have rules around "internal and external" injuries, which basically means injuries you go into a game with are treated as internal and you do not get the benefits associated with external injuries, which mean any injury that is caused on the field of play and not something you carried into the game.

 

[honestbharani]

That's contradictory, and incorrect. If you lose a player through injury it's essentially a failure of the body which is a major part of sport. It's a deserved disadvantage most of the time.

Its not always due to failure of the body, the simple point you have a hard time comprehending.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Its not always due to failure of the body, the simple point you have a hard time comprehending.

Why can't you have a discussion without behaving like a child? Come on this is not necessary.

And I literally said myself multiple times that it's not always due to failure of the body, so clearly I'm not having "a hard time comprehending" it.

 

[aussie tragic]

If you lose a player through injury it's essentially a failure of the body which is a major part of sport. It's a deserved disadvantage most of the time.

Tell that to the players that get a broken arm, wrist, fingers or feet from pace bowling

 

[TheJediBrah]

Tell that to the players that get a broken arm, wrist, fingers or feet from pace bowling

Funnily I wouldn't consider that unfair or entirely unlucky either. That would generally be a failure of the batsman, unless it's a freak bounce off a crack or dodgy wicket that's unavoidable, which can happen.

 

[Starfighter]

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

Player tears hamstring, ruled out of match - no sub. Player is hit on head, concussed, ruled out of match - sub. Why is one match ending injury more deserving of substitutes than others? What is the difference?

I don't think anyone will dispute that cricket's protocols around concussions needed a major overhaul - something like when Jeff Dujon went back out to bat in 1984 should be way off limits. But it don't see why that makes it alone deserving of substitutes. They're two different issues.

 

[aussie tragic]

Good time to remember some Llllee and Thommo I think

 

[TheJediBrah]

Player tears hamstring, ruled out of match - no sub. Player is hit on head, concussed, ruled out of match - sub. Why is one match ending injury more deserving of substitutes than others? What is the difference?

Really? The whole point of concussions subs are that if you keep playing with a concussion, which you are more likely to do if you can't get subbed, you are at a significantly higher risk of dying. That's not the same as a hamstring injury. It's a pretty clear difference right? It's there to protect life.

 

[harsh.ag]

Player tears hamstring, ruled out of match - no sub. Player is hit on head, concussed, ruled out of match - sub. Why is one match ending injury more deserving of substitutes than others? What is the difference?

I don't think anyone will dispute that cricket's protocols around concussions needed a major overhaul - something like when Jeff Dujon went back out to bat in 1984 should be way off limits. But it don't see why that makes it alone deserving of substitutes. They're two different issues.

It could be reasonably argued that the potential consequences of a bowling a bouncer shifts at least some responsibility to the bowling side

 

[Starfighter]

Really? The whole point of concussions subs are that if you keep playing with a concussion, which you are more likely to do if you can't get subbed, you are at a significantly higher risk of dying. That's not the same as a hamstring injury. It's a pretty clear difference right? It's there to protect life.

Think about it a little bit more. There's a logical leap being made there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Think about it a little bit more. There's a logical leap being made there.

You're clearly playing 4D chess here and I'm playing checkers so just spell it out for me. Do you mean that it's an assumption that concussions are potentially more deadly than hamstring strains? Or that it's an assumption that people will keep playing with concussions?

 

[cnerd123]

If a player sustains an injury so bad they can't play on even if they wanted to (like a torn hamstring or a broken bone or a torn ligament), it is different to a concussion because player can lie about concussion symptoms (especially if it's mild). A player can't lie about not being able to walk.

The idea behind concussion subs is to encourage players to be honest about head injuries so that they can be treated appropriately. You do not need this sort of encouragement for other injuries, mainly because those can't be hidden, and if they could, they are not severe enough to potentially ruin a players lives after they retire. CTE is a bitch.

 

[honestbharani]

Why can't you have a discussion without behaving like a child? Come on this is not necessary.

And I literally said myself multiple times that it's not always due to failure of the body, so clearly I'm not having "a hard time comprehending" it.

That's contradictory, and incorrect. If you lose a player through injury it's essentially a failure of the body which is a major part of sport. It's a deserved disadvantage most of the time.

I rest my case.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If a player sustains an injury so bad they can't play on even if they wanted to (like a torn hamstring or a broken bone or a torn ligament), it is different to a concussion because player can lie about concussion symptoms (especially if it's mild). A player can't lie about not being able to walk.

The idea behind concussion subs is to encourage players to be honest about head injuries so that they can be treated appropriately. You do not need this sort of encouragement for other injuries, mainly because those can't be hidden, and if they could, they are not severe enough to potentially ruin a players lives after they retire. CTE is a bitch.

Yeah if concussion subs werent available players would be far more reluctant to come off and there'd be way more inherent pressure to attempt to carry on because you dont want your team to be down to 10 men. With a sub atleast he'd be persuaded easier to stop playing because someone can take his place. Even if you want to say India gamed the system with the jadeja sub, surely this is a tiny price to pay.

Even in cases like say a broken shoulder or something, its still bad that players are lauded for trying to play on but atleast there its not life threatening (I think)

 

[honestbharani]

FWIW, I am not arguing the concussion issues are worse than regular injuries here at all. I am just pointing out that from a cricketing PoV, if you already have an independent doctor out there and medical science has improved so much that you can do X rays at the ground and scans can be done within an hour or two of a players' injury etc., then there is room to consider allowing injury substitutes as a whole which would include the concussion subs.