Concussion Substitute : A case of sense and sensibility

However, was it the progressiveness of the injury or a sensible immediacy is a question that lingers. It was brought forward in the first India-Australia T20I in Canberra with the Ravindra Jadeja - Yuzvendra Chahal substitution creating a mind-boggling denomination among fans and experts alike. But the bottom line couldn’t have been farther from the truth.

Now let’s go back to where we started.

We all remember how Steve Smith kept on batting after being concussed yet had to be replaced the next day with Marnus Labuschagne when he realised the injury was hard enough. If the rush of adrenaline didn’t allow Jadeja to take the test just after the second delivery of the last over, we are surely talking about a problem here but in no way a crime. 

It was good that Jadeja admitted the same instantly and took the test which subsequently ruled him out of the series. That should shut some high-paid Aussie critics, blabbering the honesty of the Indian team management. But the most valid concern was actually shared by Australian all-rounder Moises Henriques who was not convinced if Chahal was indeed a like-to-like replacement for Jadeja. 

Henriques was right in many fronts but then again, Jadeja was a bowling all-rounder in a team that had five bowlers including him. In an ideal scenario, he should’ve bowled four overs as a left-arm spinner. Given it was a leg-spinner who replaced him, the outcry regarding the like-for-like was evident. But Henriques should understand that it is not the ability that decides concussion substitutes, rather it is the fundamental attribute of a bigger problem that does. 

Australia were unfortunate on a day Chahal, who had been at the receiving end of a scatching attack in the ODIs, did deliver. Australia were unfortunate that it happened the way it did and not the other way around. But that shouldn’t be the basis on which an injury's legality should be questioned. Rather it should be embraced that the “officially concussed” cricketer was not forced to the field to satiate someone’s question for integrity.

In all honesty, this should be the basis on which we can judge the concussion and not on a like-to-like basis, albeit the potential threat of people misutilising the rule remains. The ICC needs to be stronger in their approach and minimize what can be considered a life threat. It is the time the ICC brings in their own medical expert for the game and be fair to all in addressing one of the most under-discussed yet extremely-crucial situation in cricket and beyond.