Making his international debut, Harshit Rana played a crucial role, taking three wickets at a key moment, significantly contributing to India's win. However, former England cricketers and England captain Jos Buttler raised concerns, claiming that the substitution was not in line with ICC concussion substitute rules.
What Sparked the Controversy?
According to ICC’s concussion substitute rule, a player who sustains a concussion can only be replaced by another player with a similar role. The debate stemmed from the fact that:
- Shivam Dube is a batting all-rounder who occasionally bowls spin.
- Harshit Rana is a specialist pace bowler.
This raised concerns about whether Rana's inclusion was truly a like-for-like replacement.
Reports suggest that Jos Buttler was dissatisfied with the decision and questioned the match officials. Speaking after the game, Buttler stated:
"This replacement was not appropriate, and we strongly disagree with it. We were not consulted about it at all. When I came in to bat, I asked why Harshit was fielding, and they told me he was a concussion substitute. They said the match referee made the decision. We will seek clarity on this from Javagal Srinath."
What Do ICC Rules Say About Concussion Substitutes?
Under ICC regulations, a player can only be replaced if they suffer a concussion. However, the replacement must be a like-for-like player, meaning:
- A batsman must be replaced by another batsman.
- A bowler must be replaced by another bowler.
- An all-rounder can only be replaced by another all-rounder.
The final decision on a concussion substitute rests with the ICC match referee, and the opposing team has no right to appeal.
Why Is This a Big Issue?
The controversy arose because:
- Shivam Dube (a spin-bowling all-rounder) was replaced by Harshit Rana (a specialist fast bowler).
- England believes this was an unfair tactical advantage, as Rana’s pace provided India with an additional bowling option.
Will ICC Revisit the Rules?
Following the controversy, there are discussions about whether the ICC should clarify or revise the rules regarding like-for-like replacements to avoid future disputes. This case has now become a hot topic in international cricket, with experts debating if India gained an unfair advantage or if the match referee’s decision was within the rules.
