India achieved a commanding 4-1 victory against England in the home T20I series, wrapping up with a significant 150-run win in Mumbai. Nonetheless, the controversy related to the concussion substitute rule from the fourth T20I persisted, with veteran ICC match referee Chris Broad accusing the governing body of “bias and corruption. ” At the same time, former India captain Sunil Gavaskar criticized the Indian team management regarding the decision.
“Independent match officials were introduced to prevent situations like this! Why is the ICC reverting to the ‘bad old days’ of bias and corruption? ” Broad posted on X.
He further questioned the involvement of a non-neutral match referee, specifically targeting Javagal Srinath, who officiated the match. In response to a social media discussion, Broad concurred that “an Indian Match Referee” should not have allowed the replacement. “Match officials ought to be independent to eliminate bias! (sic),” he added.
Former England batter Kevin Pietersen also chimed in, claiming that the decision to allow pacer Harshit Rana as a concussion substitute for Shivam Dube was wrong. “Concussion sub is quite the topic everywhere here atm and my view is. . . it was NEVER a like-for-like replacement and the match referee should simply acknowledge he got that one wrong. End of event for good and we move on to another great clash this evening (sic),” Pietersen tweeted.
‘Dube was clearly not concussed. . . ‘
Dube was hit on the helmet in the last over of India’s innings but continued his batting and was dismissed on the following ball. He did not take the field during England’s chase, and Rana was brought in as a replacement, with the concussion substitute being officially declared only by the 10th over.
In his column for The Telegraph–, Gavaskar criticized head coach Gautam Gambhir and captain Suryakumar Yadav, claiming that the decision was unwarranted.
He wrote: “In the Pune game, Dube batted right till the end after having been hit on the helmet earlier, so clearly, he was not concussed. Therefore, permitting a concussion substitute was not correct. Yes, there could have been a substitute if he had strained a muscle while batting, but that would have been solely for fielding and he could not have bowled.
“Even with the most generous interpretation of the like-for-like term, there was nothing similar between Dube and Rana. With tongue firmly in cheek, one might say that they share the same height and possess comparable fielding standards. Otherwise, there’s nothing like for like as far as they are concerned. England has every reason to feel cheated. This Indian team is an exceptional team and doesn’t require its victories to be marred by such actions. “
