Pant’s Injury A Catalyst For Change?
There’s a debate in progress about the need to review the rules of cricket to accommodate better player welfare. Here’s a look at a cross-section of views
By : Bipin Dani
Update: 2025-07-26 15:55 GMT
The 4th Test between India and England in Manchester wasn’t just a battle of skill, it became a flashpoint for a larger conversation. Rishabh Pant, despite suffering a fractured foot, played a gutsy half-century that reignited a long-standing question: Should cricket allow substitute batters for serious injuries, just as it does for concussions?
What’s a Concussion Substitute?
Since 2019, the ICC has permitted concussion substitutes — like-for-like replacements for players who suffer head or neck injuries during a match. These substitutes can bat, bowl, and field, but only after medical clearance and approval from the match referee. The rule was introduced to prioritize player safety, especially after tragic incidents like Phil Hughes’ fatal injury. But the rule’s narrow scope is now under scrutiny.
Gavaskar’s Call for Change
Sunil Gavaskar, never one to shy away from expressing opinions boldly, questioned the logic of allowing substitutes for head injuries but not for other serious physical injuries.
Speaking during the Manchester Test, he said: “This is a clear injury. A substitute should be allowed. Let an independent committee of medical experts make these calls.” He also criticized the concussion rule itself, calling it a “substitute for incompetence,” and argued that if a player can’t handle short-pitched bowling, they shouldn’t be playing Test cricket.
Should the Rules Be Changed?
The ICC is reportedly considering a rule change to allow like-for-like replacements for serious external injuries. A trial phase in domestic cricket is expected to begin in October 2025. But several challenges remain:
l Defining what qualifies as a ‘serious injury’
l Preventing tactical misuse
l Ensuring medical transparency and neutrality
Voices for & against
The debate has drawn a wide range of reactions from the cricketing world.
Michael Vaughan, former England captain, strongly supports injury replacements. “If someone suffers a clear injury, like a broken foot or a ruptured muscle, they should be allowed to be replaced. I don’t like the fact that we’ve got four days left and we’re heading into what is effectively a 10 vs 11 contest.”
Henry Olonga, former Zimbabwe pacer, takes a broader view. “I’m open to the idea of substitutes, perhaps with a limited number, not necessarily like-for-like and not only restricted to injuries. Think of football — subs can change the game tactically. Why not in cricket?”
Ex-England skipper Alastair Cook, urges caution: “What if it’s just a bruise? Do you get replaced because of discomfort? It’s a slippery slope.”
Steven Finn, former England fast bowler, opposes the whole idea. “There should not be injury substitutes in Test cricket. The game is played over five days for a reason. If you could bring in a fresh bowler because of injury, it would just be wrong.”
Shardul Thakur, India all-rounder, suggests that timing matters. “If it happens, it should be after this WTC cycle. Midway changes could be unfair.”
A cricket analyst, Sabyasachi Chowdhury, supports the idea with safeguards — “Allowing a like-for-like replacement in such situations seems only fair and reasonable, but the process must be airtight.”
Evolving situation
Pant’s bravery may become more than just a highlight, it could be the catalyst for a rule change that reshapes cricket’s approach to fairness and player welfare. If the game has evolved to protect players from head trauma, perhaps it’s time to extend that compassion to broken bones too. And if cricket is truly a sport that grows with its challenges, then maybe this Manchester Test wasn’t just a match — it was a moment of reckoning.
Since 2019, the ICC has permitted concussion substitutes — like-for-like replacements for players who suffer head or neck injuries during a match. These substitutes can bat, bowl, and field, but only after medical clearance and approval from the match referee. The rule was introduced to prioritize player safety, especially after tragic incidents like Phil Hughes’ fatal injury. But the rule’s narrow scope is now under scrutiny.
Gavaskar’s Call for Change
Sunil Gavaskar, never one to shy away from expressing opinions boldly, questioned the logic of allowing substitutes for head injuries but not for other serious physical injuries.
Speaking during the Manchester Test, he said: “This is a clear injury. A substitute should be allowed. Let an independent committee of medical experts make these calls.” He also criticized the concussion rule itself, calling it a “substitute for incompetence,” and argued that if a player can’t handle short-pitched bowling, they shouldn’t be playing Test cricket.
Should the Rules Be Changed?
The ICC is reportedly considering a rule change to allow like-for-like replacements for serious external injuries. A trial phase in domestic cricket is expected to begin in October 2025. But several challenges remain:
l Defining what qualifies as a ‘serious injury’
l Preventing tactical misuse
l Ensuring medical transparency and neutrality
Voices for & against
The debate has drawn a wide range of reactions from the cricketing world.
Michael Vaughan, former England captain, strongly supports injury replacements. “If someone suffers a clear injury, like a broken foot or a ruptured muscle, they should be allowed to be replaced. I don’t like the fact that we’ve got four days left and we’re heading into what is effectively a 10 vs 11 contest.”
Henry Olonga, former Zimbabwe pacer, takes a broader view. “I’m open to the idea of substitutes, perhaps with a limited number, not necessarily like-for-like and not only restricted to injuries. Think of football — subs can change the game tactically. Why not in cricket?”
Ex-England skipper Alastair Cook, urges caution: “What if it’s just a bruise? Do you get replaced because of discomfort? It’s a slippery slope.”
Steven Finn, former England fast bowler, opposes the whole idea. “There should not be injury substitutes in Test cricket. The game is played over five days for a reason. If you could bring in a fresh bowler because of injury, it would just be wrong.”
Shardul Thakur, India all-rounder, suggests that timing matters. “If it happens, it should be after this WTC cycle. Midway changes could be unfair.”
A cricket analyst, Sabyasachi Chowdhury, supports the idea with safeguards — “Allowing a like-for-like replacement in such situations seems only fair and reasonable, but the process must be airtight.”
Evolving situation
Pant’s bravery may become more than just a highlight, it could be the catalyst for a rule change that reshapes cricket’s approach to fairness and player welfare. If the game has evolved to protect players from head trauma, perhaps it’s time to extend that compassion to broken bones too. And if cricket is truly a sport that grows with its challenges, then maybe this Manchester Test wasn’t just a match — it was a moment of reckoning.