The fourth t20i between India and England In Pune, it was not only a Crickt action, but also an important controversy with respect to the substitute rule of brain shock. The choice of India to bring Frog frog as a replacement Shivam Dube He drew criticism, with the patron of England Yes Buttler questioning whether the decision aligned with the regulations of the ICC.
The controversial decision raises questions
During the final of the entrances of India, Dube was hit in the helmet for a delivery of Jamie Overton. After the medical examination, India announced that Pacer Rana would take his place under the substitute rule of brain shock. Rana had a significant impact with the ball, claiming three wickts for 33 races and playing a fundamental role in the triumph of 15 races of India.
However, England expressed concern about the legitimacy of substitution. Buttler argued that Rana, mainly a rhythm bowling player, was not an adequate replacement as for Dube, known for his batting pocket and occasional average rhythm.
Also read: Triple Wickt Maiden: England Pacer Saqib Mahmood achieves a unique feat in the 4th T20i against India
Was Harshit frog a true replacement of “as for”?
Several experts believe that replacing an all -terrain as Dube with a specialized bowling player as a frog provided an advantage to India. Former players like Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook It also intervened, which suggests that the decision contradicts the spirit of the rule.
The substitute rules of CPI’s brain shock are intended to maintain equity in the game ensuring that a replacement does not give a team an improper advantage. Clause 1.2.7.3 establishes that the substitute must be a similar player, which means that his inclusion should not significantly strengthen the team beyond what the shocked player offered. This prevents the equipment from using the rule strategically to gain an advantage.
Meanwhile, clause 1.2.7.7 grants the final authority to approve or reject a replacement for brain shock, without any option for the teams to challenge the decision, ensuring that the disputes do not interrupt the party.
Clause 1.2.7.3: “A replacement for brain shock must be a comparable player whose inclusion does not provide a significant advantage for the team for the rest of the game.” This rule ensures that the equipment does not exploit the brain shock replacement process.
Clause 1.2.7.7: “The decision of the party referee with respect to a replacement for brain shock is final, and the teams cannot appeal against it.”