44 off 23 with the bat.
3/25 with the ball.
Quite the all-round performance in a T20I game that. However, it wasn’t from a single player as Manuka Oval witnessed bizarre scenes Friday evening.
Ravindra Jadeja, who had lifted India to a reasonable total after a top-order meltdown with a stunning 44 off 23 was substituted out at the innings break citing concussion as he had been hit on the head by a Mitchell Starc delivery.
In came Yuzvendra Chahal who was dropped for this game. Incidentally, Chahal went on to have a remarkable day with the ball and sent back the Aussie skipper, Aaron Finch and Steven Smith, the lynchpin in the batting line-up. He later returned to dismiss Wade to complete a miserly four-over spell.
While concussion substitutes are common in cricket these days, there are several reasons to believe BCCI hit a loophole in the law with their substitution on Friday.
The concussion substitution law:
1.2.8.1 In assessing whether the nominated Concussion Replacement should be considered a like-for-like player, the ICC Match Referee should consider the likely role the concussed player would have played during the remainder of the match, and the normal role that would be performed by the nominated Concussion Replacement.
1.2.8.2 If the ICC Match Referee believes that the inclusion of the nominated Concussion Replacement, when performing their normal role, would excessively advantage their team, the Match Referee may impose such conditions upon the identity and involvement of the Concussion Replacement as he/she sees fit, in line with the overriding objective of facilitating a like-for-like replacement for the concussed player.
***
However, at Edgbaston during the Ashes, ICC Cricket Operations boss, Geoff Allardice explained it a bit more.
“Every circumstance is going to be different depending on when the player is requested to be replaced,” Allardice explained. “It’s very much around the circumstances around the game and the referees will be given guidelines as will the teams how to interpret those. But it’s very much around what is the likely role of the injured player for rest of the match and who is most like-for-like with the role that player will play. The match referee could put conditions on a player being involved. The referee has some flexibility to best accommodate a like-for-like replacement.”
Where the Jadeja incident went awry was the sequence of events that led up to the substitution
- Jadeja wasn’t checked for concussion signs after being hit on the head.
- The helmet wasn’t changed, as is the norm, after he was struck on the head.
- Jadeja suffered from a hamstring niggle and the physio had to come out to strap him up.
- India request for concussion substitution for Jadeja and referee approves.
Source: Twitter (ICC)
A miffed Justin Langer had a heated discussion just before the second innings. According to rules, the opposition team/captain has no say in the substitution being allowed with the team doctor and match referee being the only ones involved.
It’s hard to look past the possibility that India played with the law to bring Chahal in for the second innings with Jadeja a doubtful bowler after his hamstring issues. With no concussion tests done on the field either, it was a bizarre call from the match referee to allow Chahal to bowl, especially as he had leeway to say Chahal can’t bowl under these circumstances as Jadeja might not have bowled at all given his hamstring trouble.
Should the opposition team doctor be allowed to check the player? Should protocols be skipped in the first place? And if they are, should such a substitution be allowed in any case? Quite a few interpretations there as Australia find themselves 0-1 down in the series with an all-round performance from two players counted as one on the team sheet.