In the end, the first Test at the Gabba petered out to a draw, albeit with the odd moment of tension.
But both times Australia was in the field it was aided greatly by the fact that it needed only nine wickets to terminate the South African innings.
Had the match gone down to the wire on the final day it would have been a sense of great ire for the Proteas that they were depleted personnel wise.
But, all they could have done was shake their heads in frustration because the match officials had no leniency to change their plight.
Law 2.3 states that “a substitute shall not be allowed to bat, bowl or act as wicket-keeper”.
It is a law that has been codified forever and a day.
But does that mean it should remain in that form?
The injury to JP Duminy occurred after the cessation of a day’s play when he tore his Achilles tendon during the warm down.
And therein lays the possibility for a farce developing at some point.
Should injuries that occur away from the field of play, or serious illnesses, be looked upon in a different light to injuries that are incurred on the ground?
For many a year cricket fans have questioned why it is that substitutes are not allowed to fulfil the roles assigned to a member of the selected XI.
In most other team sports substitutes are allowed to assume the full duties of injured or ill players.
Cricket has long chosen not to go down that path.
There may well be an argument for maintaining the law as it stands with respect to injuries that are incurred on the field of play.
But are we not courting a potential farce if there is not a common sense rule applied to injuries that occur outside the normal realm of the game?
What would happen to the validity of a Test match should three or four players be injured in a car accident going to or from the ground or when they were heading out to dinner after a day’s play?
While their injuries may not be severe, should they be of an extent that rules them out of the remainder of the match, do we really wish to see a 7 v 11 contest.
And what if the players concerned were all of the same ilk?
The Australian team during its recent pomp had its own little subset – the ‘Fast Bowling Cartel’ or ‘FBC’ as its members referred to it.
It was not uncommon to see the likes of Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee and Jason Gillespie head out to dinner as a group when they were all in the same side.
If the same band of brothers still exists in the current team, and Peter Siddle, James Pattinson and Ben Hilfenhaus all ventured out together only to end up bruised and battered as a result of an accident, the cricketing aftermath would be hard to swallow.
A ‘pace’ bowling attack comprising Rob Quiney, Mike Hussey and Ricky Ponting backed up by Nathan Lyon and Michael Clarke would not exactly get the competitive juices flowing.
I may be wrong, but I reckon the said match would become a farce.
Nowadays, elite level sportsmen are often the targets of intoxicated members of the public after hours.
Wouldn’t it be great to have a player who has been assaulted allowed to be replaced by a fully active substitute?
JP Duminy will not play again for at least four months due to the unfortunate occurrence after the first day’s play at the Gabba.
It wasn’t as if he was play acting.
I propose that the match referee be given the power to adjudicate on the role allowed for a substitute where his inclusion in the match results from an off-field injury to a teammate.
Should the match referee deem that there is a genuine case for the injured player to be replaced by a substitute who can take a full role in the remainder of the match it should be a case of replacing like with like.
Duminy, for instance would have needed to have been replaced by a player whose primary role in the squad was a batsman who may or may not be able to bowl a little, as is the case with Duminy.
Replacing him with the likes of specialist leg-spinner Imran Tahir would be a no-no.
I think fans want to see a fair fight – XI v XI.
Therefore, I reckon it’s time for the MCC to revisit the substitute law with regard to players who are dealt a poor hand off the field during a Test match.
Sandy
Guest
Clarke obviously wasn't asked...and for good reason. Come on Shaun, after a whole day of play, get real.
I would think it stops at the twelfth man. Same with rugby, you have a limited number of replacements, after that t is finished. Besides, how often and how lkely is it that a team will lose two players?
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
It is fine t have the 12th man fill-in for one injured player but what happens beyond that. I was in SRL in 1999 when S Waugh & Gillespie collided in the outfield with each suffering broken bones. AUS finished the match with nine players. At which point is the line drawn? If another had been injured it goes down to eight. At some point it could become farcical.
red
Guest
If I clarke If offerred I would have made a deal like I'd give you Du Plessis & Thami for Duminy & Amla....Deal?
Neuen
Roar Rookie
The props fake injuries in rugby what do you think will that 'you know who teams' will do with such rulings? Cricketers can't even be trusted with grandma's lunch money these days and most do not even walk if they were out. Others pushed the umpires in the pressure situations with loud 11 man appeals cause of them knowing the umpire will succumb to the pressure and give the Batsman out. Now we want to give them a extra batsman or bowler they can use when a player is injured. They will fake more injuries than Didier Drogba in the cup semi final match. Best solution is your down to 9 in the batting even it up by ending the other teams innings at 9 as well.
I think it is a good idea, but as some have said it should be the twelth man. If you consider any other sport it is the reerve bench that is selected with the run on team. You can't nominate a different bench player in rugby during the match, you replace a run on player with a sub. Same could apply to cricket.
Brett McKay
Expert
Shaun, you're basing your comments here on the assumption that the Australian side actually knocked a South African request back, and given it's not been mentioned at all in the reports (and it would've been, if Clarke said 'no'), I think your slight on Clarke is not only wide of the mark, but highlights your own evident prejudices against him..
boes
Roar Pro
Based on your definition of a batsmen the current Aus Test team has 2, Ed Cowan and Matt Wade!!! Substitution to 'enhance' a game really changes the face of test cricket entirely and would never eventuate. Substitution in case of injury is a rare case and each should be taken on its merit. However I agree with the basic principle that once a ball has been bowled then you live with your lot. Once the game has started there are too many grey areas.
sittingbison
Guest
"...the first batsman out CBW – crutch before wicket." Wasn't that Colin Cowdrey vs Thomo at the WACA?
Russ
Guest
Perhaps, but on that basis it is open to widespread abuse. CA used it to de-nominate Ponting in a recent Shield game, but it isn't clear that it was a good idea. The laws are always a constraint on team selection. If we define a batsman as someone who will not bowl, then you need at least two bowlers or all-rounders in a test match, and at least 5 in an ODI or T20. Now I happen to believe that the over restriction rule is as daft as any conceived for any sport, for the simple reason that I don't like watching part-time bowlers get worked for singles, which is more or less inevitable, given the constraint. Similarly, the non-substitution of players into a role other than fielding is what defines the "demands of red-ball cricket" as you put it. But the question is not whether Cummins is best given that demand, the question is whether that demand is providing a better spectacle and game than an alternative. Watching a succession of quicks break down under those demands isn't a better spectacle, in my opinion, nor is watching a side play a man short for several days. Not that having one opportunity per game to substitute players would be a complete salve, nor undermine the need for fitness. In the past test Duminy's replacement under the rule I proposed wouldn't have bowled or batted. But then it was that kind of test.
Paul
Guest
The laws don't need changing, the current ones work well enough as long as the opposing captain is prepared to go along with it. In the second test in 1986 England's keeper Bruce French was hit on the head by a ball from Richard Hadlee and they replaced him with Bob Taylor, who was in the hospitality tent, and then called up another keeper.
jameswm
Guest
Shaun - before you go off half-you-know-whatted, do you know if Clarke was actually asked? I think that's a pretty relevant question, just quietly. Assuming he wasn't, your comments are completely meaningless. I'd wager that Smith never asked, and took it on the chin, as most captains would (maybe not India). Looks like you're Robinson Crusoe on this one.
Rhys
Guest
I think there should be room to make a substitution if the injury/illness has occurred prior to the player having any involvment in the game, and as others have pointed out there seems to be provision for this already within the laws. So, had Clarke been asked by SA, and he was in agreement, a replacement could have been allowed for Duminy. Alternatively, Duminy could have batted with crutches or a wheelchair. Potentially, he could have had the honour of being the first batsman out CBW - crutch before wicket.
Brian
Guest
I can understand him opposing Tahir but not sure about Du Plessis who would have been a like for like replacement with SA gaining no advantage. The rules do place a great deal of pressure on a captain. Imagine if Amla had ruptured his achilles on the 4th night and then Smith comes on the 5th morning and says I'd like to bring in 2 batsman to save the game, what's Clarke supposed to do? I think cricket is great like that in that a captain has to balance so many interest, certainly I think Ponting was hurt by Bollygate where (in contrast to Kumble) he pushed the win at all cost attitude ahead of the fair play aspects This is why in cricket being a great player does not make you a great captain - Ponting, Lara, Flintoff, Pollock etc
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Can;t agree with it - independent doctor this and that is overcomplicating matters. A 12th man can field and that's it. Substitutes in cricket should not be about tactics, which is what they would become in short order if these were allowed.
Bearfax
Guest
Tell 'em NO WAY. Also tell 'em that we want them to play with only 9 players. We've got to win some how.
Johnno
Guest
The book used to love to run around with frisbies , was crazy. they'd go hard playing like frisky rugby in the hot Australian sun, would of been exhausting.
Johnno
Guest
Shaun this is not a tea party Micheal Clarke is not a charity worker,.
jameswm
Guest
What a ridiculous sledge on Clarke. Was Clarke even asked? As far as we know, no. What's Clarke supposed to do, walk into the other change room and say "Geez I feel sorry for you guys, how about you play someone else instead". This has to be one of the more unfair comments I've read on here. And even if Clarke HAD been asked, he should have said no. Not after play has commenced. It's unprecedented in test cricket.
boes
Roar Pro
Perhaps its not the rule is insufficient, its the fact that its not used or used incorrectly. The composition of the team whether it is an ODI or Test is never a constraint, you can pick 1 wk & 10 all rounders for an ODI if you like. The only requirement is you pick XI starting players. As for Cummins, we won't see him in Tests this summer because he is not ready for the constant demands of red ball cricket, and therefore arguably not one of the best players.