Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[honestbharani]

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.

Remember the 2011 India tour of England after the WC when Gambhir could not open due to a concussion and he was called a "coward" by many of the English posters here?

 

[Starfighter]

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?

The life saving bit is the compulsion to prevent a player resuming. As the ICC guidelines say 'A player diagnosed with concussion must be immediately and permanently removed from further participation in the match or training on that day'. There's no ifs or buts.

There isn't an immediate link to should have a full substitute, as opposed to a sub fielder. Of course, as ***** said, it may encourage people to not lie about their injuries (depending on how subjective the test are). The facts about neurological injuries are well known/avaliable and I'd like to think that people wouldn't take that risk even without the 'disincentive' of not being substituted, but then again any faith I have there is almost certainly misplaced.

 

[cnerd123]

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)

Could you imagine the macho alpha male former cricketers going on and on about a player leaving his team with just 10 men due to a mild headache, when back in his day he would play on with barely functioning knees or a broken jaw wrapped up in bandages

 

[OverratedSanity]

Tbf it was a different time I suppose hb. Concussions were treated as merely severe headaches until pretty recently by most

 

[Daemon]

I mean there’s certainly an argument to allow substitutes for certain types of injuries (broken bones, other visible external injuries) but the basis for that can’t be “oh we do it for concussions”. It has to be that it’s unfair on a side to lose a player who sustains one through no fault of his own.

This opens up grey areas though. I’d rather have SA just cop it and bowl without Steyn when he broke his collarbone instead of having some situation some day where an injury’s been exaggerated to gain an advantage or there’s an unequal substitute etc.

We only cop that greyish area for concussions because it’s necessary.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I rest my case.

Not trying to come across as rude, but what part do you need me to explain to you? Because you clearly haven't understood the posts you quoted

 

[OverratedSanity]

I'd like to think that people wouldn't take that risk even without the 'disincentive' of not being substituted, but then again any faith I have there is almost certainly misplaced.

You underestimate the level of toxic masculinity in sport

 

[Daemon]

I rest my case.

he did say ‘most of the time’

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You underestimate the level of toxic masculinity in sport

I thought it was more like half the time you don't even know that you're concussed until you "wake up" a few hours later.

 

[honestbharani]

Tbf it was a different time I suppose hb. Concussions were treated as merely severe headaches until pretty recently by most

Nah, I think some posters (maybe flibbertyjibber but I am not sure) definitely argued that we cannot take concussions lightly even then. And anyone who has followed wrestling would have known about the issues with Concussion and post concussion head trauma after the Chris Benoit tragedy. There was a lot of mainstream stuff about it even then.

 

[honestbharani]

he did say ‘most of the time’

Still wrong "essentially"...

 

[OverratedSanity]

I thought it was more like half the time you don't even know that you're concussed until you "wake up" a few hours later.

That too. But many sportsmen are dumb wannabe tough guys who will try to man up even if they know something's wrong.

 

[cnerd123]

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.

Wasn't it the Indian Team doc who ruled out Jadeja due to concussion? Says that on Cricinfo.

I think injuries are part and parcel of the game, and if a player breaks down during a match he either has to play through the pain, or the team finds a way around him. I think the trade-off between further aggrevating the injury or leaving your team short of players is fine because all physical injuries can heal and recover. But the brain does not, and that's why concussions should be treated differently. Plus, brain damage has far more severe impacts on your quality of life compared to any other injury. I'd rather be in a wheelchair that suffer from long lasting brain damage.

 

[harsh.ag]

When it comes to concussioned players being allowed subs, the other side is at least slightly culpable. There are risks to bowling a bouncer and you don't get to escape them willy nilly. Why should only one side suffer the consequences

 

[Daemon]

Wasn't it the Indian Team doc who ruled out Jadeja due to concussion? Says that on Cricinfo.

I think injuries are part and parcel of the game, and if a player breaks down during a match he either has to play through the pain, or the team finds a way around him. I think the trade-off between further aggrevating the injury or leaving your team short of players is fine because all physical injuries can heal and recover. But the brain does not, and that's why concussions should be treated differently. Plus, brain damage has far more severe impacts on your quality of life compared to any other injury. I'd rather be in a wheelchair that suffer from long lasting brain damage.

You’d rather be in a wheelchair than your current condition?

 

[honestbharani]

Wasn't it the Indian Team doc who ruled out Jadeja due to concussion? Says that on Cricinfo.

They may not have had netural docs for the same reasons we dont have neutral umpires or match refs though. Covid changed the game a bit. But if and when we are back to a regular non-pandemic world, there will be independent doctors at every international game to rule on concussion subs. Or at least that is how I understand the rule.

 

[honestbharani]

I think injuries are part and parcel of the game, and if a player breaks down during a match he either has to play through the pain, or the team finds a way around him. I think the trade-off between further aggrevating the injury or leaving your team short of players is fine because all physical injuries can heal and recover. But the brain does not, and that's why concussions should be treated differently. Plus, brain damage has far more severe impacts on your quality of life compared to any other injury. I'd rather be in a wheelchair that suffer from long lasting brain damage.

You seriously think physical injuries don't take a mental toll?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

When it comes to concussioned players being allowed subs, the other side is at least slightly culpable. There are risks to bowling a bouncer and you don't get to escape them willy nilly. Why should only one side suffer the consequences

One side loses their first-choice player.

 

[cnerd123]

When it comes to concussioned players being allowed subs, the other side is at least slightly culpable. There are risks to bowling a bouncer and you don't get to escape them willy nilly. Why should only one side suffer the consequences

Eh, you'd have the blame the bowling side for bowling any delivery that causes any injury to a batter then, and blame the batting side for hitting the ball hard enough to injure any fielder...becomes a slippery slope.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Still wrong "essentially"...

How so