The question of allowing full-fledged injury substitutions in cricket has once again sparked fierce debate in the aftermath of Rishabh Pant’s courageous but visibly painful innings in the fourth Test against England. Pant fractured his foot on Day 1, returned to bat the next day in visible discomfort, and was replaced by Dhruv Jurel behind the stumps.
Under current ICC rules, a substitute can only field unless the injury is a concussion, where a like-for-like replacement is permitted to bat and bowl as well. Pant’s situation has renewed calls to re-examine these rules. Former cricketers like Sunil Gavaskar, Gautam Gambhir, and Michael Vaughan have supported the idea of allowing injury-based replacements during a match. Gambhir, now India’s head coach, strongly advocates the change.
“If the umpires and match referee can clearly see it’s a major injury, there should be a provision for substitution,” he said. “In a series this closely fought, imagine how unfair it would be to play with 10 men. This isn’t about tactics—it’s about fairness.”
WATCH – Ravichandran Ashwin Slams Ben Stokes For ‘Double Standards’ During Manchester Test Finale
However, the opposition to this idea is equally vocal. England’s Test captain Ben Stokes firmly dismissed the concept, calling the conversation “ridiculous” and warning that it could open too many loopholes.
“Injuries are part of the game,” Ben Stokes argued. “I understand concussion protocols because they’re about player safety. But if we allow general injury replacements, what stops teams from faking or exaggerating issues to get a fresher player in?”
WATCH – Gautam Gambhir Hails Rishabh Pant’s Grit, Says “Generations Will Remember” His Knock with Broken Foot
Stokes illustrated his point by saying any player could technically find inflammation or discomfort through scans and use that as grounds for substitution. “Imagine putting a bowler through an MRI. A little inflammation around the knee? Great—bring in a fresh pacer,” he scoffed.
The cricketing world remains divided. On one hand is the argument of fairness and genuine player welfare; on the other, the fear of potential misuse and tactical manipulation. As cricket continues to evolve, this debate may eventually force the ICC to reassess where the line between compassion and competition should be drawn. For now, it remains one of the sport’s most polarising and unresolved discussions.
