NEW DELHI: Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar has strongly criticised the International Cricket Council (ICC)’s present concussion substitute coverage, suggesting it lacks consistency and equity. Speaking throughout the fourth Test between India and England in Manchester, Gavaskar argued that if concussion substitutes are allowed, there must also be provisions for harm replacements, particularly in instances as clear as Rishabh Pant’s fractured foot.Go Beyond The Boundary with our YouTube channel. SUBSCRIBE NOW!“I’ve always felt that you are giving a like-for-like substitute for incompetence,” Gavaskar instructed Sony Sports.
“If you are not good enough to play short-pitched bowling, don’t play Test cricket; go and play tennis or golf. You are giving a substitute for somebody who gets hit because he can’t handle it.”Pant, regardless of being severely injured, returned to bat and scored a brave fifty in India’s first innings of 358. However, his continued participation in the match — and presumably the collection — is now unlikely.
Poll
What is extra important for participant security in cricket?
Gavaskar questioned why a substitute is permitted for a head blow however not for an apparent harm.“Here, it is a clear injury. There has to be a substitute. Let an independent committee, including medical experts, be formed to make these decisions,” he stated.Former England captain Michael Vaughan, who was a part of the dialogue, agreed with Gavaskar and referred to as for rule adjustments to guard the high quality of the recreation.
“If a footballer breaks a leg early in a match, they can be substituted. Why should cricket be any different?” Vaughan stated. “Pant has a broken foot. He can’t play again in this match or the next. We need a clear protocol for like-for-like injury replacements in such situations.”With high-profile voices weighing in, the debate over harm substitutions in Test cricket is more likely to intensify extra.