Delhi: Although there were many memorable moments of the Oval Test, but the fifth morning of the Test of the Test will never forget the pitch for helping England’s victory for England’s victory. He was ready for batting like Khabu, despite being a right -handed batsman with one hand and that too. His shoulder bone was uprooted and England lost a bowler. In the same series, Rishabh Pant’s leg was broken and he too came to the crease to gather precious runs for the Indian team without worrying about his condition. Due to this injury, the oval test could not play and the team lost a special batsman.

Now the question is that if a player gets a fatal injury like breaking legs or shoulders in the test and he gets out of the game for the remaining Test, should there not be an option to play the substitute in his place too? When Rishabh Pant suffered a leg injury, this issue was raised, discussion has also taken place and this discussion intensified due to the uproar of Vox.

Pant batted with a broken leg and scored 17 runs off 28 balls but in fact he was not fit for batting, could not run and there was a danger of injury and growing. Chris Woakes threw 14 overs in the first innings, not a single one in the second innings, did not bat in the first innings and did not play any ball in the second innings but stayed at the crease for 16 minutes. It is so strange that Pant’s subsidy was found for wicketkeeping duty in Old Trafford but not for batting/bowling. Similarly, no substitute was found for Vox’s bowling duty. The same has been going on in cricket for years and Pant and Vokes are not the first players to be out of the Test in this way, so why is this debate on there is no such option in Substitute Law?

Now experts are considering it responsible for not changing the truth of cricket and not recognizing the truth of the modern era. In this way, not getting a subsidy in this way definitely weakens that player’s team. In this way, the team is forced to play with 10 players in the remaining days. There is a difference between a simple injury and bone fracture, dislocation like voks or not participating in the game further. Now the issue of debate is left that even if he allows such a player for the substitute, when will he become active in the remaining game?

In cricket, the substitute can come for conversion/Kovid, which is already known from the list. A substitute is also needed for other such bad injuries. Gautam Gambhir supported this thinking, not Ben Stokes, because he feels that it will be misused when this law is built. Yes, if the names are already decided for this vegetable, then you can avoid misuse. Will anyone deliberately eat a deadly injury like Pant or Volks so that his team gets another subsidy?

One of the greatest features of Test cricket is that what is at the time of the toss does not change. Now cricket is changing and that’s why this question is special. When Jimmy Anderson in Ashes’s Edgbaston Test in 2019 or Nathan Leon’s calf at Lord’s after four years, no one insisted on the need for a subsidy in his place but now he is considering it special for changes in cricket.