The Use Of Substitute Fielders?

Question

Do you think that substitute fielders should be able to participate more fully in the game if they're on the field of play for a sustained amount of time and there is no chance of the player they're substituting for coming back on? For example, do you think a substitute should be allowed to bat or bowl in place of the player they've replaced?

Law 2 Part 3 states that - A substitute shall not be allowed to bat or bowl nor to act as wicket-keeper or as captain on the field of play.

I'm thinking about numerous incidences where a team has been disadvantaged by this restriction, most recently it happened in the second test match between NZ and England at Old Trafford when Daniel Flynn got injured during the first innings and wasn't able to play any further part. In his place Patel came on and played for about 3 days without being able to do anything other than field, subsequently NZ were a batter and a bowler down (if you count Patel).

Do you think the rule is fine as it is? or do you think a change could be implemented?

Answer 1

yes mate i agree with u the ICC had tried out a supersub rule which did not work because the teams had to decide on the substitute player before the toss that was any ways in ODI's so according to me as far as test matches are concerned we should have a rule in which  each team can substitute one player who can do  all the jobs such as batting,bowling and fielding this will not only make any team weaker or stronger due to injury but also add some spice in the way test cricket is played

Answer 2

I have no problem with the rule(s) at all.

First of all the rolling substitute rule, players taking a rest and another substitute fielder coming on. I have no problem with this unless the replacement fielder is a specialist fielder (e.g quick on his feet, good catcher etc). I'm not saying that players deserve a quick rest and shower after a long spell, but seriously whats the difference between a player who came off who is an average fielder, and the substitute who is an average fielder too. The fielding side gains no advantage from using the new fielder???. Some could argue that the new player is more "refreshed" than the player he replaced, but again who cares?? its a petty thing to moan about. Subsititute fielders are only on the field for a matter of minutes, its not a big deal. Players and pundits should stop moaning about it. Was Ponting moaning in the 3rd Ashes test when he used Brad Hodge (a terrific fielder) to replace Glenn McGrath (a not so good fielder). In the time Hodge was on the field, he took one spectacular catch (the wicket of the danger-man Kevin Pietersen, it is likely that if McGrath was fielding at that time his old legs wouldnt have been able to run for the ball in time, thus dropping the catch etc etc). My point is that Ponting did the exact same thing in the exact same series. He didnt care about substitute fielders?? he was a captain under pressure and he needed something to blame.

As for replacing an injured player, i think that would cause too much chaos and confusion. Flynn got injured on day 1, Patel was used as the sub-fielder for the rest of the match, BUT it would have been extremely unfair for Patel to have a bowl in the match because he is not a like for like replacement of Flynn! Anyway the rule would be very confusing, and teams could use this rule to there advantage. I mean say a player gets seriously injured on day 5 session 1, and the team could choose a replacement, well they are more than likely going to either choose a spinner or there best batsmen (depending on the match situation). Injuries in matches are unlikely occurances, i dont agree that there should be a rule allowing players to sub there injured players.

Answer 3

I agree with that. It's sickening when a team suffers because one of their players is injured & the sub can't bat or bowl. Just imagine rugby league if a replacement player couldn't score, kick for goal or tackle! The law needs to be amended

Answer 4

I agree - to a limited extent substitutes should be allowed to play a full part in the game. It should never be allowed for tactical reasons - we don't want cricket to become like football - but in the case of a serious injury to a player, like when Simon Jones suffered his horrific injury at Brisbane, then a full playing substitute should be allowed.

I also think the current way substitutes are used should be clamped down on. Ricky Ponting, I am given to understand, has a voodoo doll of Gary Pratt next to his bed! Too often we see substitutes trotting onto a field to replace someone who has gone off for a 'rest'. Unless someone can prove they are genuinely injured, substitutes should not be allowed.

So I would revise the substitute law, alllow substitutes to play a full part in cases where a player is too injured or ill to take further part in the game, and ban the use of ones fielding for 'tired' players.

Answer 5

The rule does seem to favour one team over the other. In the game that you cite, NZ v Eng. if a substitute had been allowed to be used, then maybe only in the role of the injured player. In flynns case NZ would be allowed to use an alternate batsman, not a spin bowler, Patel, once the track has become spin friendly.