A great day of cricket in the T20 series between India and England went for the books due to controversy, as England captain Jos Buttler expressed his frustration over India’s use of a concussion substitute. The Indians won their first match at the Wankhede Stadium by 15 runs to clinch the series. The real talking point was the use of concussion sub Shivam Dube with Harshit Rana.
Shivam Dube was hit on the helmet during India’s innings and suffered a concussion. According to ICC protocols, he was withdrawn from the match, and India brought in Harshit Rana as a concussion substitute. The move, however, raised questions about whether the replacement was truly “like-for-like,” as the rules require.
Dube is primarily a batting all-rounder, while Rana is a specialist fast bowler. This made Buttler quite uneasy and he had the guts to question whether it was a just decision. After the match, Buttler opined that his team did not accept the change, jokingly saying that “either Shivam Dube has got 25 mph on his bowling speed overnight, or Harshit Rana is a completely different player.” He indicated that England felt India had gained an unfair edge as they switched a batting all-rounder with a frontline pace bowler.
The match turned controversial when Rana played a match-winning innings, taking three vital wickets including Buttler himself. His inning placed England at the back foot while chasing the target of 181 runs that India had put on the board, and even a late comeback by the team could not get them over the line. The frustration was clear when Buttler was seen talking to the management about the ruling after he got dismissed.
The ICC concussion substitute rule says that the replacement should be as close as possible in terms of skillset to the injured player. The final authority for the substitution is with the match referee, who in this case was Javagal Srinath, who gave the go-ahead for the substitution. However, the fact that England is unhappy with the decision suggests that they feel the regulation was not applied in the right spirit.
Former cricketers and analysts have weighed in on the matter, with some siding with Buttler’s viewpoint, while others have argued that the decision followed established protocols. The debate highlights the complexity of the concussion substitution rule, which is intended to prioritize player safety but can also influence the competitive balance of a match.
Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) issued a response saying that all the needed medical tests were done, and the substitution was made according to the ICC guidelines. They concluded that the concern was for the welfare of the players; meanwhile, the claims of rules manipulation were of no relevance.
This series win came at a vital momentum for India, but more controversy might dog the match even in the future. The concussed substitute continues to be talked about, and there could also be demands that the rule could be further elucidated or pruned to eliminate future disputes arising from such claims. For the time being, India will go on to revel in their arduous triumph of the series, while the English will come back to reboot and move away from the brouhaha before the third match.
For more news updates, follow 12B Sports India Facebook .