December 13, 2013
Otherwise, injuries make the match uneven.
Teams could misuse it to their advantage.
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
December 22, 2013, 3:51 GMT
It just would be unfair to have a test match go uneven because of injury and that is when the captain resort to negative tactics.. If the injury is checked by a neutral party then why not allow a replacement?!! Also, Instead of super sub in a one day game it would be nice to have a super sub ONLY for bowlers in test matches..
December 21, 2013, 20:48 GMT
Yes they should allow it but the captain of the other team decides which player can come in,in that way there cant be any cheating,because if the other captain decides which player can be the substitute then there is no point of faking since the other captain will probably allow someone who is not good at batting/bowling .
December 21, 2013, 17:11 GMT
Simple and fair policy :
1. Immediate replacements for that day should be denied.
2. The least that could be done is to allow a replacement for the next day, provided all the medical certificates related to the injury of the player concerned is submitted and verified by a neutral deciding authority.
3. The replacement done should be of the same category as the injured player is (batsman/bowler/keeper..)
4. The replacement should be from the squad that was announced before the commencement of the series.
December 21, 2013, 8:25 GMT
Two years ago,when Zak got injured in Lord's Test,leaving Dhoni with three bolwers,that time no-body batted an eye..Now that South Africa has lost Morne ,everyone loses their mind..
December 23, 2013, 15:21 GMT
no! but when the injured person hasn't taken any part in d match like a batsman who injures himself while fielding & hasn't batted yet or a bowler who hasn't bowled!
a player who injures himself after d toss shud also b replaced!
December 22, 2013, 7:23 GMT
Teams can manipulate based on the pitch conditions.
December 22, 2013, 6:10 GMT
No!Injury is an element of cricket,though unfortunate.Test cricket should not be changed & ruined in that manner.Keep our game traditional.
December 21, 2013, 15:42 GMT
No... Because it would be miss used by all the teams by faking injuries just like we fake dives in Football...
December 21, 2013, 10:32 GMT
In the old days of rugby union (and league) there were no replacements at all. If a player got injured he had to stay on wounded or go off and not be replaced. In time they brought in replacements for injured players but if the coach wanted to change players, one just faked an injury and went off. Eventually it became replacements without an injury which is where it would lead in cricket. Of course we'd have the faking of injuries first though.
December 21, 2013, 9:04 GMT
No, it is part of the game though I have never liked the idea that a runner can not be used. That should be all there is fir an injured player.
Should Voges have been given time to reach his 300?
Should Ben Stokes have been given out obstructing the field?
Should South Africa have lost points for drawing a rain-marred series?