They did nothing wrong, certainly nothing to suggest they have ruined the spirit of the game. Hogg came on as a substitute fielder when Watson was injured, he was not used as the super-sub. Then when it was decided that Watson would not come back, Hogg replaced Hayden and Hayden fielded in place of Watson. Fairly simple to understand and certainly not outside the rules.marc71178 said:
Are you saying that it was clever shot selection from Strauss?marc71178 said:
The ball's path moved several degrees, if it wasn't an edge, I don't know what it was... Still, it ain't mattering.SirBloody Idiot said:
Aye, good work. We aren't in a position to criticise with the way we use Solanki (and Prior), either.Mister Wright said:
It affects Richard's first-chance-which-isn't-to-Rampers-average, and robs TEC of a mindless drone opportunity.Neil Pickup said:
IndeedMister Wright said:
It was just another standard un-necessary attacking post from Marc.Scaly piscine said:
Hello! There is nothing in the rules that says the sub has to replace an injured player. If Hogg had of stayed out there for 10 overs while they wait for a diagnosis on Watson and he hadn't bowled, then he hasn't been used as the sub has he?marc71178 said:
And your post was necessary?marc71178 said:
Subs are an extra tactical dimension, not injury cover.marc71178 said:
Exactly.Neil Pickup said:
Err, did Solanki replace an injured player? No?marc71178 said:
Well, I think it's fitting that the GLA should be the first-ever Aussie supersub.Mister Wright said:
Over-reacting would be to say Strauss should be dropped from the team, stating it was a moronic dismissal is merely a statement of fact.marc71178 said:
