Sunil Gavaskar Blasts Over ICC on Concussion Rule: Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar has strongly criticized the current Conversion Substitute Policy of ICC. He called it incompatible and unfair.
During the fourth Test between India and England in Manchester, Rishabh Pant got a ball of Chris Woakes directly on the leg in the 68th over of the Indian innings and fractured his leg. Pant had to take the ground from the ambulance. But no other player can bat instead of Pant, because the ICC rules do not allow it. Sunil Gavaskar questioned this and said that if the substitute is allowed for conversion, then there should also be an option in cases of clear injury such as in the case of fractured legs of Pant.
Gavaskar said on Sony Sports, “I always feel that you are giving the same option for failure. If you can’t face short pitch balls, do not play Test cricket, go to tennis or golf. Despite being seriously injured, Rishabh Pant batted in India’s first innings. After retiring for 37 runs on the first day, he returned on the second day and added 17 runs in his innings. While scoring 54 runs, he scored a courageous half -century, causing the team’s score to 358. However, his further participation is now suspicious in this match and possibly in the entire series.
Rishabh Pant Arrives to Bat Despite Fracture. Image: PTI
Gavaskar questioned that when the substitute is allowed when the head injury is allowed, then why not for a clear -looking physical injury? He said, “There is a clear injury here. There should be a substitute. An independent committee should be formed for this, which also consists of medical experts, which decide on such matters.”
Former England captain Michael Vaughan, who was involved in this discussion, also agreed with Gavaskar and demanded a change in the rules to maintain the quality of the game. Von said, “If a player in football takes the feet at the beginning of the match, then someone can play his place. Then why not in cricket? Pant’s leg is broken. He will neither play again in this match nor in the next. In such a situation, clear protocol is necessary for the same option (like to like injury replacement).”