Should substitute fielders be banned?

[Owzat]

In light of the move to end the use of runners, should substitute fielders not follow? Logically a substitute fielder gains a much bigger advantage than a runner, preserves the replaced fielder and stops them getting (further) injured and the substitute's ability may exceed that of the fielder replaced.

Of course the fielder may be injured and you don't want to make said injury worse, but they can either not field at all, or field at slip. Sometimes the player may not be that badly hurt, resting something sore like an ankle or spinning fingers, it can give a tactical advantage and so I see no reason substitute fielders shouldn't be banned.

If someone wants to nip off the field then the side fields with 10 men. Far too often you see batsmen not fielding for long periods then batting either as normal or down the order, for me this is far far worse than runners which were pretty much harmless anyway. Noone able to run would risk using a runner, you could be fairly confident runners were used in cases of legitimate injury whereas fielding substitutes and the advantages gained leave me confident it is abused.

 

[puddleduck]

I think they could potentially look at going the other way. Have the 12th man position as a specific "substitute fielder."

They can be used at any time, for any player without repercussions. Yet that is all you get. None of this 3 sub fielders on the field at the same time.

 

[sifter132]

I think short term substitutes should be banned yes. Bowlers going off for 30 minutes to 'change their boots' is not right. They should have to field like everyone else. Field with 10! But if a player is off for longer and has an obvious injury eg. muscle pull, going to hospital for scan/x-ray then I think it's in the spirit of the game to offer a replacement, as long as the replacement is a WORSE fielder than the guy he replaces. Eg. Faf Du Plessis fielding all game in Brisbane was brilliant, but if it had been Morne Morkel and not JP Duminy injured, then it would have been quite unfair.

Was thinking about the subbing idea in general, given this Aus-SA series has had a number of mid match injuries: Duminy in Brisbane, Kallis & Pattinson in Adelaide. I think it detracts from the game and I'd be open to the idea of subbing a player out if he can't finish a match. Have the opposing captain approve whoever the replacement is eg. can't sub in a spinner once you realise it's a turning pitch. I just think it would be a good chance to showcase the 'spirit of cricket', by letting your opponent draft in another player when they are in need.

 

[puddleduck]

The problem there is that the 'spirit' of sport is often diluted down by the 'mixer' of reality.

 

[MUFC1987]

I think it's crazy that we don't allow runners for injured batsmen as it is. This only came about because of batsmen getting cramp in 50 over games and then getting someone a lot quicker to come in and run for them. I say we should allow runners, but have the opposing Captain choose who the runner will be. That would take out the problem of a batsman gaining an advantage and perhaps make them think twice when they're not that badly injured.

I have no problem with fielding subs though. Sure, it would be better if it only happened when actual injuries occurred though, so perhaps a better method needs to be thought of. Either that, or get everyone to do it, so it's fairer.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I don't think runners should be allowed, I totally agree with you mufc that they were taken away because people were using them to their advantage in a way not in keeping with the spirit of the game, however, I think as sport is a measure of physical ability not having the ability to run, no matter the circumstances, shouldn't be compensated.

I also don't really agree with bringing in a rule that says you can only replace a fielder with a worse fielder either. how can you quantify that? I would be against bringing averages in (I guess in fielding terms it would be catches per match or something) as that gives them some sort of official status, it's easy to forget in cricket with our obsession over averages and strike rates they are all nothing more than trivia for fans to pour over, having a bigger average than someone doesn't mean anything in terms of the actual sport. Trying to judge on some sort of subjective "well I think he's worse than..." scale would be even more of a minefield, and what do you do if the guy plays a blinder? we've all seen even terrible fielders have good days and take catches they shouldn't etc. kinda ruins the whole point of subbing in someone worse.

the subbing aspect regarding replacement batsmen and bowlers I'm not sure on, I think it might work but perhaps the sub should only be the 12th man? that way it stops tactical subbing as the team will have to declare their sub before the coin toss, if you want to take a spinner because you're worried it may turn more then fine, but don't go crying when your star batsman gets injured and it means you have a guy averaging 12 coming into replace him.

it would lead to all-rounders being declared as the sub which I think is fair. if anything it would give a lot of the bits and pieces players from ODIs and twenty20s a way to contribute to the test setup.

 

[angryangy]

This is up to the umpires. The laws give no unsanctioned allowance for a player to simply trot off for a change of kit; if a player does so, they are not to be replaced.

Technically any sub is a weaker player because the only thing they can do is field. Having a bowler or batsman off the field for any length impacts their ability to bat or bowl and it stands to reason that a player who can neither bat nor bowl would not make the 11, so this is usually important. A player can only have up to 15 minutes with no consequence. If a player takes a half hour break, they can't bowl for half an hour.

If the umpires are not interested in the reasons players leave the field, I suspect it's simply in the interests of playing a decent game. Having 10 men on the field while a fast bowler gets his calves loosened might be the acme of fair, but the resulting play on the field is not exactly the acme of cricket.

 

[sifter132]

I don't think runners should be allowed, I totally agree with you mufc that they were taken away because people were using them to their advantage in a way not in keeping with the spirit of the game, however, I think as sport is a measure of physical ability not having the ability to run, no matter the circumstances, shouldn't be compensated.

I also don't really agree with bringing in a rule that says you can only replace a fielder with a worse fielder either. how can you quantify that? I would be against bringing averages in (I guess in fielding terms it would be catches per match or something) as that gives them some sort of official status, it's easy to forget in cricket with our obsession over averages and strike rates they are all nothing more than trivia for fans to pour over, having a bigger average than someone doesn't mean anything in terms of the actual sport. Trying to judge on some sort of subjective "well I think he's worse than..." scale would be even more of a minefield, and what do you do if the guy plays a blinder? we've all seen even terrible fielders have good days and take catches they shouldn't etc. kinda ruins the whole point of subbing in someone worse.

the subbing aspect regarding replacement batsmen and bowlers I'm not sure on, I think it might work but perhaps the sub should only be the 12th man? that way it stops tactical subbing as the team will have to declare their sub before the coin toss, if you want to take a spinner because you're worried it may turn more then fine, but don't go crying when your star batsman gets injured and it means you have a guy averaging 12 coming into replace him.

it would lead to all-rounders being declared as the sub which I think is fair. if anything it would give a lot of the bits and pieces players from ODIs and twenty20s a way to contribute to the test setup.

Only way would be to say that the sub has to be accepted by the opposition captain. Then to guard against the opposition captain being nasty and not accepting ANY sub, you'd need a list of potential subs that were nominated pre-match and then the opposing captain could pick one. It could even be an automatic system - nominate 5 subs before the match: a batsman, pace, spin, WK and AR - then whoever gets injured can be subbed out automatically for his corresponding reserve. Touring teams would be OK, but hosting teams would find it a bit burdensome pulling 5 guys out of domestic cricket to hang around just in case someone got injured.

Or...maybe it's just a stupid idea anyway Stick to the traditions!

 

[Fenil]

As the runners for the batsmen are banned, yes, substitute fielders should be partly banned. The key word here is 'partly'. If there is some strong reason for a player to leave the field like an injury, they should be allowed, moreover, the main can be allowed a minute's break in between for peeing () on a condition that there won't be a substitute fielding for him till he comes back. I hate when India or for that matter, any other team, fields their best fielders who are not in the final XI. I also am of the opinion that the batting team should be allowed runners but the batsman in question should be checked by a neutral physio appointed by ICC itself and if the batsman is really found to be injured, any of the opening batsman should run for him. For the fielders, in case of getting injured, the 12th man of the squad should field.

 

[Owzat]

Technically any sub is a weaker player because the only thing they can do is field.

So if your 12th man happened to be a Jonty Rhodes say, no advantage is gained if you bring them on?

Having a bowler or batsman off the field for any length impacts their ability to bat or bowl and it stands to reason that a player who can neither bat nor bowl would not make the 11, so this is usually important. A player can only have up to 15 minutes with no consequence. If a player takes a half hour break, they can't bowl for half an hour.

If the umpires are not interested in the reasons players leave the field, I suspect it's simply in the interests of playing a decent game. Having 10 men on the field while a fast bowler gets his calves loosened might be the acme of fair, but the resulting play on the field is not exactly the acme of cricket.

The whole point is the fielder can improve the side, and if a runner is banned then a fielder is a FAR greater advantage than the runner. A batsman might be able to walk or jog singles, can still hit fours, didn't Kallis score 58 batting down the order injured?

But if you have a lumbering fielder in your side and are allowed to bring on a top fielder who excels at neither batting or bowling, but does at fielding, you are loading the deck. Might as well be playing poker with an ace up your sleeve, that would be considered cheating.


I must say I'm surprised so few are with me on this one, a runner used to have to wear the same batting equipment as the batsman to make it fair, but a fielder has been kids from the MCC staff before I think it has been. Off goes your (maybe) injured 36 year old batsman and on comes a spritely 17 year old who is not only quicker, and more agile, but a better all-round fielder.

Yet three say "no" outright to this suggestion The banning of runners was a good move, either have substitutes legalised in the same way as you have in football/other sports, or simply don't allow them. The sub can't bowl, they can't bat, they can't keep wicket, but in this day and age there is an advantage. Ok maybe for the old gentlemen's cricket, very sporting, "I'm out so I'll walk" cricket. These days it is far more cynical, and I think the only circumstance a fielder might be allowed is if the person they replace is going to take absolutely no further part in the game through a confirmed illness/injury. Even then it would be hard to coroborate.

 

[sifter132]

^I agree with you. They changed the runner rule because they felt it was being exploited. I think the 12th man rule has been exploited for longer, Roger Harper for the West Indies being perhaps the first example, all the way through to Gary Pratt in the Ashes, and some of the current teams who seem to have their 12th man on the field a LOT.

 

[MUFC1987]

You can say it's exploited all you like, but if you get rid of them altogether, then the moment an injury occurs, a team is down to 10 men, which surely can't be fair.

 

[War]

The whole point is the fielder can improve the side, and if a runner is banned then a fielder is a FAR greater advantage than the runner. A batsman might be able to walk or jog singles, can still hit fours, didn't Kallis score 58 batting down the order injured?

But if you have a lumbering fielder in your side and are allowed to bring on a top fielder who excels at neither batting or bowling, but does at fielding, you are loading the deck. Might as well be playing poker with an ace up your sleeve, that would be considered cheating.

I see what you are saying, but is this really much of an issue though?. So what if a team can bring on an excellent fielder (in the case of a legitimate injury to a player who may be poor fielder) that can improve the game?

I like seeing excellent fielding as much a high class batting & bowling.

All umpires need to do, is be more strict about checking if the players are going off for legitimate injuries, since players have exploited this in the past. Why would we really want sub fielders banned & 10 men fielding, when this is all that needs to be done?

When Kallis had to bat without a runner in the adelaide test recenty, that was one of the most idiotic things i've ever seen in cricket. The man was clearly injured & should have had a runner. As aforementioned the umpires, match referee's should be able to make teams & player prove that they are seriously injured before the are allowed runners or else they can be fined/face bans for lying etc. Since its illogical to allow the Kallis adelaide situation to repeat itself.

 

[Anish.]

Not really in my point of view , you can't expect an injured player to run around like he does . Plus when Punter got run out from a substitute , he started offending the English Player's while walking back to the pavilion . Also,he argued with the umpire on whether when the substitute fielder gets a run out is allowed?

 

[sifter132]

I see what you are saying, but is this really much of an issue though?. So what if a team can bring on an excellent fielder (in the case of a legitimate injury to a player who may be poor fielder) that can improve the game?

I like seeing excellent fielding as much a high class batting & bowling.

It's just a grey area. See Ponting's reaction in 2005 Ashes - he had no real problem with Gary Pratt fielding...UNTIL he influenced the game by running him out. I can see both sides, Ricky's annoyance, and England's right to a substitute for a guy who was genuinely injured (Simon Jones I think it was). As you say, I think the policing could be improved. Get the match referee off his arse, or the 4th umpire, have them check out whichever players leave the field and make an assessment.

When Kallis had to bat without a runner in the adelaide test recenty, that was one of the most idiotic things i've ever seen in cricket. The man was clearly injured & should have had a runner. As aforementioned the umpires, match referee's should be able to make teams & player prove that they are seriously injured before the are allowed runners or else they can be fined/face bans for lying etc. Since its illogical to allow the Kallis adelaide situation to repeat itself.

They've certainly gone for the extreme side of changing the law. I wonder if they'll reconsider this very soon.

My thought the other day was this: give batsmen the option of a runner but if they take it, then they have to sit out the next match. That would flush out the 'fakers' who are just cramping up from the guys who actually can't run due to a proper injury. So you'd have to weigh up the severity of the injury against how much they need the player to contribute, in that match and in the series. Eg. under that rule, SA might have decided Kallis could bat well enough without a runner, just to give them the option of picking him for Perth. As it turned out, that's what happened, and that's what SHOULD be happening, not just trotting out a runner for everything, or the other extreme of outlawing them altogether.