ICC Concussion Sub laws: India did no wrong by bringing Harshit Rana in place of Shivam Dube; full explainer
The like-for-like replacement is not straightforward. Here's what the ICC laws say about concussion sub and why India were not wrong in bringing in Harshit Rana
India's decision to pick Harshit Rana as the concussion sub for injured Shivam Dube in the fourth T20I against England at the Maharashtra Cricket Association Stadium in Pune gave rise to a major controversy. The right-arm pacer, who became the first Indian to make his debut as a concussion sub, left a telling impact on the outcome of the match, which India won by 15 runs to take an unbeatable 3-1 lead in the five-match series.
Rana was brought into the side as a concussion sub in place of injured all-rounder Shivam Dube, who suffered a blow on his helmet in the last over of India's innings. Rana and leg-spinner Ravi Bishnoi took three wickets each as India bowled out England for 166 after putting 181 runs on the board.
India extended their unbeaten T20 series record to 17 at home since 2019. But Rana dominated the TV discussion between commentators. His inclusion was not like-for-like with Dube, a batting all-rounder, and it did not amuse the visitors, with cricketer-turned-commentator Kevin Pietersen slamming the move on air. England captain Jos Buttler, too, did not appear to be in sync with the decision, as he was seen having an animated discussion in the dugout.
"It is still a dream debut for me," said Rana. "When Dube came back, after two overs I was informed I will be the concussion substitute."
Rana was instrumental in sending Jos Buttler back when he caught the skipper at short thirdman off Bishnoi and later got his first T20 wicket for India in Liam Livingstone.
Rana also dismissed Jacob Bethel and played a key bowling role alongside spinners Bishnoi (3-28) and Varun Chakravarthy (2-28).
What do the MCC laws say about Concussions Sub?
The real question is, did India really take undue advantage by getting a fast bowler to replace an all-rounder who is, at best, a military medium? Here's what the laws say...
As per 1.2.7.3 of the ICC playing conditions for concussion substitution, “The ICC Match Referee should ordinarily approve a Concussion Replacement Request if the replacement is a like-for-like player whose inclusion will not excessively advantage his team for the remainder of the match.”
On the other hand, Rule 1.2.7.7 states: “The decision of the ICC Match Referee in relation to any Concussion Replacement Request shall be final and neither team shall have any right of appeal.”
The word like-for-like, however, is not as simple as it appears. As former ICC CEO Geoff Alardice explained in 2019, when the law was introduced for the first time with Marnus Labuschagne substituting Steve Smith during an Ashes Test. "Every circumstance is going to be different depending on when the player is requested to be replaced,” Allardice had told reporters at Edgbaston, adding: “…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.”
In this case, Dube, an all-rounder, had already performed his duties as a batter. There was no way he could have had any impact with the bat. It was only as a medium pacer that Dube could have played a part in the match. That is where the decision to use Harshit Rana, justifies the like-for-like theory.
