Cricket offers an incredible range of highs and lows, and injuries are the unwanted guests all teams dream of avoiding. Images come flooding back to us, such as Rishabh Pant being unable to make it to the dressing room because of a fractured foot, or Chris Woakes gallantly battling on through a dislocated shoulder (although he eventually had to give in) with England. These sorts of situations remind us that cricket can be a sport of skill, but also a sport of resilience. But the BCCI has provided an alternative safety net, the Serious Injury Replacement rule.
Why the BCCI’s Move Makes Sense
Let’s be honest: multi-day cricket is a slog. A single whack, a moment of madness, and a player can be out of the game, leaving their teammates short one player for hours or days. The BCCI’s new rule is a similar concept of a like-for-like replacement protocol for serious injury in play. This is similar to the concussion replacement protocol we have seen in the last few years. The premise is simple: if Pant could hardly even crawl after having the ball smack into his foot, there is no point to his team soldiering on one shy. It is a player-first policy that guarantees a degree of competitive equity while protecting careers at the same time. The idea is that this occurs with the match referee as the ultimate authority, meaning it is not some free-for-all loophole for impatient players to exploit, either.
The Controversy – Stokes vs Gambhir
However, not all are on board. Ben Stokes described it as “absolutely ridiculous.” he had referenced possible loopholes and added that cricket is no stranger to injuries, and this is one of its beauties and challenges. On the other hand, Gautam Gambhir – after Pant’s injury in Manchester, Gambhir supported the move, and referenced how it wouldn’t have made sense playing a tight series a man down. Both sides have merit. Stokes is the traditionalist, and cricket has traditionally tested stamina and durability, and Gambhir has a bigger picture in mind – the welfare of the player and the integrity of the team’s performance should not be damaged due to simple bad luck. Certainly, this conversation will continue on, especially if the ICC were to put its stamp on any international uptake of the rule.
How This Could Change Domestic Cricket
It’s not an order for T20 or white-ball competitions – it has to be multi-day cricket, CK Nayudu Trophy, and domestic matches. Clever. The implications for long-format matches could be significant. The teams will not rush players back from injury, creating a potential higher standard of cricket throughout the season. Cognitively, captains and selectors with a greater sense of seriousness might even think about contributing players and their selection opportunities, knowing that if a replacement player were required, a like-for-like change would be easily manageable mid-inning.
Cricket can provide magnificent highs and disastrous lows, and injuries are the unnecessary guests that every team hopes to avoid. Too easily we recollect images of Rishabh Pant unable to walk in the dressing room with his broken foot or Chris Woakes trying to battle through a dislocated shoulder, which he had to give in to, when he was with England. It reminds us that cricket can be a sport based on skill – but also resilience. Now, thanks to the BCCI, we have a new potential safety net known as Serious Injury Replacement.