India vs England: Harshit Rana, concussion substitute for Shivam Dube right or wrong? Here's what rule says

Harshit Rana was the concussion substitute for Shivam Dube. (BCCI Photo)

India vs England: Jos Buttler, England’s captain, didn’t mince his words after the 15-run defeat in Pune that gave India an unassailable 3-1 lead in the series. “It is not a like-for-like replacement,” he said. “We don't agree with that. Either Shivam Dube has put on about 25mph with the ball or Harshit has really improved his batting. It's part of the game and we really should have gone on to win the match, but we disagree with the decision.”

The controversy at the heart of the fourth T20I involved Dube, who was hit on the head by a Jamie Overton bouncer off the penultimate ball of India’s innings. Ever since Phillip Hughes’ tragic death a decade ago, cricket has tightened its concussion protocols, and India’s medical staff ruled that Dube needed to be observed for symptoms like dizziness instead of being allowed back out on the field for England’s run chase.

According to the rules, India could nominate a concussion substitute as his replacement. Even though Ramandeep Singh, a batting all-rounder like Dube, was on the bench, Harshit Rana was the name India proposed to Javagal Srinath, the match referee.

It is for him to then decide whether the replacement is really like for like. In T20s, the definition of an all-rounder is hazy at best. On their part, India could argue that Dube has 52 wickets in T20s, including 11 in internationals. His best figures, 3-30 against Bangladesh, are certainly not those a pure batter would ever be able to boast of.

Also Read - Meet Himanshu Sangwan, player who spoiled Virat Kohli's comeback in Ranji Trophy

Dube, when he bowls, is a medium-pacer. He certainly isn’t as rapid as Harshit Rana is – he nudged the speed gun past 150 kmph on Friday – but then, the match referee can’t be expected to compare bowling-speed data. If India argued that Dube, drafted into the XI for the first time in the series, was part of their initial bowling plan, Srinath would have found it hard to say that was a lie.

Cricket history is replete with examples of teams taking advantage of or benefiting from loopholes in the laws. The most famous example came in the 2019 World Cup final when Ben Stokes and England benefited from a ricochet off his bat that sped away for four runs. In a match that ended in a tie, even after the Super Over, and was eventually decided by boundary count-back, the stroke of luck – within the rules – made all the difference.

Greg Chappell, once India’s coach, made Trevor, his younger brother, bowl underarm to deny New Zealand in a tri-series final in 1981, eventually leading to a change in the laws. Whether the Rana incident results in a rewriting of the concussion-sub protocols remains to be seen.