In what has been another resounding series win for India at home, the recent T20I match stirred quite a debate, particularly about the use of the concussion substitute, Harshit Rana, for Shivam Dube.
The discussion raised eyebrows, and veteran cricketer Ravichandran Ashwin shared his disbelief over the situation, comparing it to an IPL-style move, which, in his eyes, was out of place in an international match. Ashwin’s comments on the situation were sharp and raised key concerns:
“The game is done. India capture yet another series at home. T20I has been a real juggernaut of a win. What was this game? It was like a replica of the IPL. Supersub was there, and the game was played with an impact player,” Ashwin remarked, expressing his disbelief over the situation.
Ashwin’s initial statement highlights his surprise at how the game played out. He likened the use of a concussion substitute and impact player to something more commonly seen in the IPL, where strategic substitutions and tactical changes are often made.
In Ashwin’s eyes, this IPL-style substitution seemed misplaced in an international match, where the game’s flow and rules are more structured.
“The entire discussion is about how Harshit Rana came in as a concussion substitute for Shivam Dube. Did we forget that it was an international match and play an IPL match? I can understand. It has happened in the past. Ravindra Jadeja got concussed in Canberra, and Yuzvendra Chahal came in as a substitute. I don’t understand this. At least previously, Chahal came in for Jadeja, a spinner for a spinner,” the 38-year-old stated.
Here, Ashwin draws a comparison with a previous instance in international cricket when Yuzvendra Chahal replaced an injured Ravindra Jadeja during a match in Canberra. He highlights that Chahal, a spinner, was a like-for-like replacement for Jadeja, maintaining the balance of the team.
This logic, Ashwin suggests, should have been applied here as well, but in this case, the concussion substitute chosen, Harshit Rana, was a fast bowler, making it an unequal swap with Shivam Dube, who is an all-rounder.
“Here, Harshit came in for Shivam Dube. There is no role of the Indian or England team. If there is no one in the squad, then you can say that Harshit Rana can bat a bit and Shivam Dube can bowl a bit. That’s why we brought him in. Like-for-like replacement Ramandeep Singh was sitting outside. I don’t understand. This is a case of pure cricketing miscalculation, either on the part of the umpires or the part of the match referee. Ramandeep Singh was there, like-for-like for Shivam Dube. But not him. Harshit Rana was chosen as the concussion substitute. I think people in charge should look into this,” Ashwin concluded.
Ashwin’s frustration is rooted in the fact that a like-for-like replacement was readily available in the form of Ramandeep Singh, another all-rounder who could have taken Dube’s place.
Instead, the choice was made to bring in Harshit Rana, whose role in the team is far different from Dube’s. Ashwin argues that this move, whether it was the decision of the umpires or the match referee, was a clear cricketing miscalculation and went against the spirit of the concussion substitute rule, which is intended to maintain fairness and balance in the team.
The controversy centers on the concept of “like-for-like” replacements in concussion substitute rules. This rule is designed to ensure that a team is not unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged when a player is injured.
In this case, Harshit Rana’s substitution for Shivam Dube was seen as an anomaly, as Rana and Dube play vastly different roles within the team. Dube, as an all-rounder, offers a combination of batting and bowling, while Rana, a fast bowler, offers no batting contribution in the same capacity.
Ashwin points out that if a like-for-like replacement had been the priority, Ramandeep Singh should have been the choice. Singh, like Dube, is an all-rounder and could have filled the gap in both batting and bowling.
The substitution of Rana, a fast bowler, led to an imbalance in the team’s composition, especially when the rule’s original intent was to preserve the team’s structure in the event of an injury.
By raising these concerns, Ashwin not only questions the fairness of the decision but also suggests that the officials in charge may have made an error in applying the concussion substitute rule.
Whether this was a genuine mistake or an oversight, it raises a broader question about the consistency and clarity of such decisions in international cricket.
