In the fourth India-England T20I, specialist pacer Harshit Rana was a concussion substitute for all-rounder Shivam Dube – a clause in the ICC's laws allowing India to do so despite the two not being "like-for-like" players.
Off the penultimate ball of the first innings, Dube, who scored 53, was struck on the helmet by a Jamie Overton bouncer. He was checked briefly by the Indian team physio, before going on to face the last delivery of the innings, taking India to 181-9.
Initially, Dube did not come out to field in the second innings, with Ramandeep Singh standing in as a substitute fielder. As the innings wore on, Dube did not take the field and it emerged that Harshit Rana was on the ground instead.
Match 4th T20I, India vs England
vs
- Ball by ball Over
There were explanations ventured by the broadcast commentators that Rana may be a concussion substitute for Dube, given the blow the latter had taken earlier on – this was confirmed at the end of the 10th over, meaning this was now officially Rana's T20I debut.
Why was the Harshit Rana-Shivam Dube concussion sub controversial?
England captain Jos Buttler was not happy with the decision to allow Rana to replace Dube, and former England international Kevin Pietersen said on commentary that he didn't like the call.
The ICC playing conditions state that a concussion substitute must be a "like-for-like" replacement for a concussed player. Dube is largely a batting all-rounder, who can bowl seam-up, but rarely does so for India.
Rana, on the other hand, is a specialist pace bowler, who can swing the bat a bit – meaning the argument can be made that these two players are not like-for-like.
Dube has bowled nine overs in his last 12 T20Is, while Rana, making his T20I debut, has just two T20 runs to his name.
So why were India allowed to make the change?
Clause 1.2.7.4 of the ICC's T20I Playing Conditions states, "In assessing whether the nominated Concussion Replacement should be considered a like-for-like player, the ICC Match Referee should consider the likely role the concussed player would have played during the remainder of the match, and the normal role that would be performed by the nominated Concussion Replacement."
Since the role to be considered by the ICC Match Referee is that of the player for the remainder of the game, Rana was allowed to be the substitute as he could bowl and field – the same role that Dube would have performed, had he remained on. Further support for the "like-for-like" aspect is that both players are pacers.
However, Clause 1.2.7.3 states that "The ICC Match Referee should ordinarily approve a Concussion Replacement Request if the replacement is a like-for-like player whose inclusion will not excessively advantage his/her team for the remainder of the match."
Watch: England outsmart SKY with funky leg-side trap to cap off Mahmood triple-wicket maiden
There is a case to be made that Rana is a significantly higher-quality bowler than Dube, so the substitute would excessively advantage India for the remainder of the match – but that is a judgment call left up to the Match Referee.
Against Australia in 2020, India made a similar concussion subsitute as all-rounder Ravindra Jadeja made way for Yuzvendra Chahal – something Australia coach Justin Langer was unhappy about, although in that case the gap in quality between the two players may not have been as large as it is here.
In 2019, Bangladesh substituted wicketkeeper-batter Litton Das for specialist spinner Mehidy Hasan Miraz in a Test match against India, and Mehidy was not allowed to bowl, in order to ensure that the substitution was like-for-like in terms of the role each player would perform for the remainder of the match.
Follow Wisden for all cricket updates, including live scores, match stats, quizzes and more. Stay up to date with the latest cricket news, player updates, team standings, match highlights, video analysis and live match odds.
