Like for like injury replacements

[DriveClub]

I remember they trialled supersubs around 2005-6 as a tactical play but it didn't work. It gave 1 team an unfair advantage depending on who won the toss.

Also i remember the supersub would always be used in the 2nd innings

 

[ParwazHaiJunoon]

My take:-

All 15 players can take part in LOI match.
Anyone can bat or bowl.
For Fielding team, max 11 players are allowed on field.
No one can bowl overs >10 in ODIs & >4 in T20s.
For batting team, max 10 Outs are allowed.

This will increase batting quality. (as genuine batters can bat at #7)
Injury to any player (esp. bowler) will not screw chances of his team.
Chris Jordan type tactical fielders get legitimacy.
etc.

 

[Xuhaib]

Subs should be allowed in limited overs cricket.

I don't understand how will teams abuse the law. Say Rohit Sharma bats and in the second innings he gets replaced by Ashwin how is this any different in football to a Striker getting a replaced by a defender in the second half with his side 2 - 0 up.

Its called tactical play not cheating.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Subs should be allowed in limited overs cricket.

I don't understand how will teams abuse the law. Say Rohit Sharma bats and in the second innings he gets replaced by Ashwin how is this any different in football to a Striker getting a replaced by a defender in the second half with his side 2 - 0 up.

Its called tactical play not cheating.

Obviously if it’s allowed it’s not cheating. Cheating would apply if the subs were intended for injury only and injuries were feigned.
That’s what happened with English football in the mid 60’s when one sub was allowed for injuries and injuries were faked, so after a couple of years they changed it to allow the sub for other reasons.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Big believer that subs should be allowed in every format, and for tactical reasons too, not just injuries. If a player is sucking, teams should be allowed to bench him. There's some fun tactical play that cricket loses out on.

I remember they trialled supersubs around 2005-6 as a tactical play but it didn't work. It gave 1 team an unfair advantage depending on who won the toss.

Allow teams to finalize their playing XI after the toss. Simple.

 

[Prince EWS]

Big believer that subs should be allowed in every format, and for tactical reasons too, not just injuries. If a player is sucking, teams should be allowed to bench him. There's some fun tactical play that cricket loses out on.

Right but cricket is turn based. Why wouldn't teams just go totally full ****ing ham in the fourth innings and have either eleven batsmen or eleven bowlers?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Right but cricket is turn based. Why wouldn't teams just go totally full ****ing ham in the fourth innings and have either eleven batsmen or eleven bowlers?

That's only a problem if it's unlimited subs which I'm obviously not advocating for.

I dunno, make it 1-2 subs allowed for a test. I just don't think it should be zero.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's only a problem if it's unlimited subs which I'm obviously not advocating for.

I dunno, make it 1-2 subs allowed for a test. I just don't think it should be zero.

I think any number that's not eleven but also not zero will probably just enhance the value of the toss in Tests.

Let them do it in T20 IMO - make it 11 bats v 11 bowlers if they want - but the balance of Tests is really good.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think any number that's not eleven but also not zero will probably just enhance the value of the toss in Tests.

Let them do it in T20 IMO - make it 11 bats v 11 bowlers if they want - but the balance of Tests is really good.

Would it really enhance the value of the toss that much if it's just 1 sub? It's not like the team that loses the toss wouldn't be allowed to make one.

 

[honestbharani]

If the ICC is gonna have their own docs for every international game to rule on concussion subs, surely they can rule on injury subs as well? The match ref gets to take the call on like for like as it also depends on who is available in the squad.

 

[Prince EWS]

Would it really enhance the value of the toss that much if it's just 1 sub? It's not like the team that loses the toss wouldn't be allowed to make one.

Yeah it would IMO. Especially if it's only one.

 

[GIMH]

I’d allow subs but they have to bat bowl and catch with their weaker hand

 

[TheJediBrah]

I’d allow subs but they have to bat bowl and catch with their weaker hand

Or very 10 runs they score they need to do a shot

Or 4 shots per wicket they take

 

[cnerd123]

If the ICC is gonna have their own docs for every international game to rule on concussion subs, surely they can rule on injury subs as well? The match ref gets to take the call on like for like as it also depends on who is available in the squad.

The problem is that staying fit is part of Test cricket, so if you lose a player due to injury then you cop the consequences

There is also a wide spectrum of injuries a player can suffer, which means there will inevitably be backlash on a doctor taking a borderline call on whether or not a player is injured enough to be replaced. It's unfair to put them in that situation. It's a high pressure time constrained environment without the option for a second opinion.

Not only is the outcome of the game at stake, but also potentially the career of that player. Is the ICC going to be liable for their doctor clearing a player to play, who then goes on to aggregate the injury further?

 

[OverratedSanity]

The problem is that staying fit is part of Test cricket, so if you lose a player due to injury then you cop the consequences

Staying fit is a part of every single sport. Cricket is the only one weirdly anal about not allowing those players to be replaced.

Imo, a key bowler getting injured in the middle of a test match puts the team at such a massive disadvantage and ruins games. I genuinely can't believe sometimes why people think watching a team struggle to fill their quota by bowling other randoms makes for good cricket.

 

[Jack1]

The worst it can do is make a team's squad bigger. More players making a living. That's assuming the team's can afford to do it.

 

[Daemon]

There is also a wide spectrum of injuries a player can suffer, which means there will inevitably be backlash on a doctor taking a borderline call on whether or not a player is injured enough to be replaced. It's unfair to put them in that situation. It's a high pressure time constrained environment without the option for a second opinion.

Cnerd simping for the doctors now

 

[cnerd123]

Cnerd simping for the doctors now

bc you barely do your own job so not surprised you have no respect for how complex other people's jobs are

 

[Shady Slim]

Staying fit is a part of every single sport. Cricket is the only one weirdly anal about not allowing those players to be replaced.

Imo, a key bowler getting injured in the middle of a test match puts the team at such a massive disadvantage and ruins games. I genuinely can't believe sometimes why people think watching a team struggle to fill their quota by bowling other randoms makes for good cricket.

this isn't quite exactly right though if i'm being pedantic right? like in a hockey match if you lose a defenseman to injury you gotta roll with five defensemen for the rest of the night. sure you can replace him on the ice, but that's not a function of hockey allowing for injured players to be replaced, it is a function of hockey allowing for skaters to be replaced writ large for any reason from your benches - you don't actually get to replace the guy who's injured and theoretically if fourteen of your eighteen skaters got injured you wouldn't be able to call up a nineteeth

EBUG rule is the exception to this ofc where if both of your goaltenders get hurt you pick a guy from the crowd to suit up

 

[ataraxia]

EBUG rule is the exception to this ofc

why, of course!

But seriously, what a weird and great rule lol