Substitution in Cricket. I’ve been confused by the match Australia are currently playing against South Africa, as one of the SA players got struck on the hand and had to retire injured in the first inning. I assumed that somebody would bat for him in the second innings, right? I mean, the guy got his hand BROKEN. But no! Substitutions are only allowed in the field, and the new player can’t bat or bowl or act as wicket-keeper. How odd. Seems a little unfair that a single bit of bad luck can keep a team a man down for the rest of the match.
Tracy
January 7, 2009 — 12:51 pm
Not surprising. This is from a sport where most times a 5-day match is determined by the toss!
The winner of the toss had a HUGE advantage
SlythErin
January 7, 2009 — 3:03 pm
One of the many reasons I find cricket so bewildering. I utterly fail at understanding or enjoying cricket.
Tracy
January 7, 2009 — 5:13 pm
Smith has come out to bat, SA hanging on by a thread!
TOAST
January 7, 2009 — 5:49 pm
Why? Because IT’S JUST NOT CRICKET! That’s why!
Kris
January 7, 2009 — 5:52 pm
And holy crap! Broken hand man actually ended up having to play! He needed to stay in for like half an hour to save the draw. It was crazy tense; we were all in the conference room watching it. I winced every time he hit a ball. We ended up getting him out with only about 10 balls to spare. That was nuts. Reminds me of when Kerri Strug did that vault in the Olympics with, like, a broken ankle.
eileen
January 8, 2009 — 5:33 am
Playing with a broken hand? Add cricket to the list of sports that are more badass than baseball.
jp
January 8, 2009 — 6:41 am
Basically a substitute can’t bowl or bat for the originally named players (Regardless of reason). But you can have a runner if you need one.
The other one that freaks people out is the if you have gone off as a bowler you can’t bowl until the time you have returned to the field exceeds the time you were off!
JulieB
January 8, 2009 — 6:59 am
Well, if rampant substitutions were allowed, your bowlers could suddenly develop “ailments” that stopped them from batting and there would be nothing to stop the team from subbing in a decent batsman. There’s no way to ensure that the person you’re replacing the injured player with is of the same standard as the original, so I guess it makes sense that you’re just not allowed to do it.
You will learn to accept the weirdnesses of cricket and love the game like a proper Aussie 🙂
Kris
January 8, 2009 — 9:32 am
Oh, I love the game like a proper Aussie! I think I was the only one in the office listening to it all day long. 🙂
I just think the substitution rule is stupid. Every other sport in the world makes an allowance for people hurting themselves. I understand the worry that poor batsmen will fake ailments to swap out, but I think there are ways around that. 1) If you sub out in the first inning, you’re gone. No bowling in the second. 2) The captains and/or umpires will have to agree to the substitution, perhaps even with input from medical staff. Broken bones = substitute; blister on your toe = keep batting.