Leg and Off: Should injury substitutes be allowed in cricket?

Team India wicketkeeper batter Rishabh Pant suffered a horrific injury to his feet on Day 1 of the fourth Test against England in Manchester. The left-hander was completely in his elements after a slow start, racing to 37 off 47 deliveries with two boundaries and as many maximums.

However, Pant missed one of his audacious reverse sweep attempts off Chris Woakes and was struck hard on his toe. The 27-year-old struggled to stand on his feet following the hit and was taken off the field through an ambulance.

The latest reports (Indian Express) suggest that Pant may be dealing with a fractured toe and will be out for the next six to eight weeks.

The injury comes as a massive setback for Team India in their pursuit to level the five-match series at 2-2. Pant is the second leading run-scorer in the series with 462 runs at an average of 77 with two half-centuries and as many centuries.

Considering he was unbeaten and well-set on 37 when retiring hurt, fans and former players have started pondering the impact his absence could have on the rest of the game and the series. It has also forced many to wonder if having a substitute to replace an injured player is something the sport should consider in the future.

Before we look into the good and bad of such a scenario, here is what a couple of former players had to say about substitutions possibly entering the game of cricket.

Experts' take on substitutions in cricket

Former England captain Michael Vaughan believes substitutes should be allowed in the middle of a cricket match for injured players. The 2005 Ashes-winning captain called on the change in rules to ensure fair competition is maintained throughout the contest.

Talking to BBC Sports after Pant's unfortunate injury (via Indian Express):

"I don’t like the fact that we’ve got four days left in the game, four days of action in what has been an incredible series where we are going to have 10 versus 11. I prefer that you’d have a sub. You know, once they brought in concussion subs, I was crying out, saying, ‘Well, just have substitutions then in the first innings of a game.’ That would be my stepping point."

"If it happens in the second innings, I feel that team might kind of break the rules or indulge in a bit of skullduggery. But if it’s clear and obvious when someone breaks a hand or a foot or ruptures a calf it’s so evident that someone is in real pain and can’t carry on. I think it’s very clear to me: you should be allowed a sub," he added.

However, another former England captain, Alastair Cook, disagreed with Vaughan's sentiments, saying:

"What if it’s just a bruise? I’m not sure I agree. I’m not even sure what I think at the moment. But say we’ve just seen Pant walk off — he looks in all kinds of pain. And then it turns out it’s not broken. So there’s nothing on the X-ray; it’s just a bruise. Does he have to play on then?"

"If he has broken his foot, then that’s a different thing. But there will be cases where someone gets hit on the arm. ‘I can’t move my hand, I’m bruised.’ But it’s only a bruise. So do you get replaced because of discomfort and the fact that you can’t hold the bat as well as you’d like even though it’s just a bruise?" he stated.

While it is impossible to come up with a conclusive statement for or against each side of the argument, let us deep dive into the pros and cons of having substitutes in cricket.

Why injury substitutes should be allowed in cricket

It is stating the obvious that allowing substitutes for injuries will ensure the parity in a match remains intact. While an injury can occur at any stage of the contest, one that happens immediately or in the first half of a game could tilt things completely in favor of one side.

Take the Pant injury, for instance - not continuing his batting in the first innings and missing the entire second innings could ultimately be the difference between India and England in a closely contested series. After four hard-fought Tests in India's previous series in Australia, ace pacer Jasprit Bumrah missed almost the entire series finale barring a few overs.

It wouldn't be far-fetched to think another seamer replacing Bumrah when the hosts chased down 162 by six wickets could have made a difference. Even if not, the uncertainty leaves a bad taste for fans, former players, and even participants, with a what-if often thrown in to certain matches in a series.

That a substitute could have been the difference between a 2-2 and 1-3 series for India in Australia changes much of the dynamics about the tour. Similarly, the runs scored by Pant's replacement in the ongoing Manchester Test, being the difference between a potential 1-3 deficit and 2-2 scoreline, makes the option of introducing injury substitutes alluring.

Substitutes have been allowed for concussion over the last few years. Reinforcing it for other major injuries will only ensure the competition remains fair, with the final result justified.

Why injury substitutes should not be allowed in cricket

Unfortunately, in sports, anything productive in theory often comes with grey areas and loopholes that get exploited in practice. The injury substitute will likely be no different even if several restrictions are in place.

The most basic rule in such cases of like-for-like replacement for an injured player saw its downside in the India-England T20I series at the start of the year. Batting all-rounder Shivam Dube was substituted out for Harshit Rana by using the concussion substitute rule in the crucial fourth T20I at Pune after the former scored a valuable half-century.

To turn the aftermath ugly, Rana produced a game-changing spell of 3/33 in four overs to help India seal a series win. While both players fall under the fast-bowling all-rounder category, their skillsets are vastly different.

A similar hypothetical in the ongoing India-England series would be a substitution of Nitish Kumar Reddy for Shardul Thakur should one of them get injured midway through a game. Imagine India chasing in the fourth innings. Who is to say that an injury to Shardul in the third innings cannot turn beneficial if they choose to replace him with Nitish for the final innings?

The injury substitution rule could also become a way for teams to field star players not fully fit, knowing full well the possibility of replacing them in the middle. It may not be a stretch to even state that an out-of-form batter or bowler could exaggerate an injury just to be replaced by a potential difference maker.

Conclusion

To conclude, the injury substitution can be seen on similar lines to the concussion substitution rule already in place. While it ensures parity in competition should an injury occur, especially early, teams exploiting the loopholes will be unavoidable.

Given the split on both sides of the equation, it will be best to stick with the rule as it has been for decades.