Rishabh Pant became the talk of the town after fracturing his right toe while attempting a reverse sweep off Chris Woakes on Day 1 of the ongoing Manchester Test between England and India. Despite the fracture, Pant returned to bat on Day 2 and was unbeaten on 41, with India well-placed at 336-6 in the second session, at the time of writing.His injury sparked a big debate between pundits and former cricketers regarding the substitution rule in cricket. The rule, currently, does not allow a new player to get drafted in to replace an injured one for the rest of the match, unless it's because of a concussion.This means that if Pant were to be completely ruled out of the match, India would have to play with 10 batters, getting just a substitute fielder to make up the numbers when bowling.In this piece, we take a look at the top four expert reactions to the current ICC substitution rule:#4 Steven FinnFormer England seamer Steven Finn argued that no substitutes should be allowed in the sport, as it would take away the beauty of Test cricket. He took to the social media site X to express his views.Finn said that a Test match is played over five days for a reason, implying the longevity and endurance needed for players of both teams to negate the challenges sent their way. He also spoke about why determining the extent of injuries could be a big challenge to ascertain if a substitute is needed or not."There should not be injury substitutes in test cricket. The game is played over 5 days for a reason. (Some) teams bat long in order to wear a bowling unit down. If you could substitute a fresh bowler in because of injury it would just be wrong. Also, how on earth do you determine what an injury is? MRI scanners at every ground to check a muscle tear? Pants’ injury is a real shame and the match will be less rich with him not taking part. But, it’s part of the game unfortunately (sic)," wrote Finn.You can see his tweet here:#3 Parthiv PatelEx-India wicketkeeper-batter Parthiv Patel, currently working as an expert on JioHotstar, also aired his views on the substitution debate. He said that although Pant's injury was unfortunate, there was not much that could be done.Patel mentioned that the concussion rule has already allowed teams to have substitutions in cricket, and he did not want them to mould the rules any further. He was, however, happy with how specific substitutions were allowed, allowing teams to bring in a substitute wicketkeeper in their bowling innings."There are already quite a few grey areas that teams try to exploit. Like in T20 cricket, we've seen, you know, the concussion rule, and people try to take advantage. So, in an ongoing game, if someone gets injured, what do you do? So, I think it's only fair," said Patel."At least, now the rule has changed so that a wicket-keeper can do wicket-keeping. Otherwise, it wasn't even there. Someone from the team would have had to keep wickets, but I'm okay with the rule. It's unfortunate that Rishabh got hit, but it is what it is. What can you do about it?" he asked rhetorically.#2 Michael VaughanFormer England captain Michael Vaughan, most renowned for leading them to victory in the 2005 Ashes over Australia, sparked the debate by arguing in favor of a substitute player being allowed for Pant.Speaking to BBC Sport (via Indian Express), Vaughan mentioned that a substitution should be allowed when a player seriously injures himself/herself by fracturing a bone or rupturing a muscle. He felt that it would be unfair for India to play with just 10 men.“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,'" said Vaughan."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.#1 Sir Alastair CookAnother former England captain, the legendary Sir Alastair Cook, disagreed with Vaughan on the same BBC Sport show. The southpaw was adamant that the rules cannot be fluid and need to be fixed to allow for uniformity.Cook countered that if substitutions were allowed for serious injuries, what would the ICC do if a player had only sustained a bruise but could not move that particular body part? However, he did admit to not having thought this out through.“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?” asked Cook.“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 added.