|Posted on 20 August, 2019 at 0:55|
Yesterday I said the concussion rule cost England Victory at Lords because Australia were allowed a replacement batsmen. This prompted immediate response in defence of the rule and the severity of concussion.
Still, I am not convinced a replacement player should be allowed. Just as we accept an umpires decision when we are dismissed... why is it that we cannot accept a medical decision on the matter?
Concussion after all, is an injury and if sustain during the course of the match; I think it should be treated as such?
Concussion can occur many ways and not necessarily from a blow to the head (the helmet does not prevent it), it can come from a whiplash effect and only rest can repair the damage (just like many injuries). So if we are concerned for a players wellbeing, then the player needs to be taken from the game if the injury is deemed serious.
In the case of being concussed a players judgement, balance, reflexes memory and vision can be affected but it is an “injury” and as a result of this the player could be hit again. So what about the damage next time?
Any other blow to the head region may not need to be so severe from what I have read... this raises another issue. The player will be taking this injury into any future game of cricket... so should he continue to get replacement batsman?