INJURY REPLACEMENT
Eddie Moore was replaced by Joshua van Heerden after sustaining an injury © Getty
Cricket quietly caught up with modern sport on a bright, breezy spring day at an almost empty Newlands on Saturday. The revolution was not televised; not much domestic cricket is on the box these days. Instead the news was delivered in the form of a text message that landed just less than an hour into the third day of a first-class match between Western Province and the Lions.
“Eddie Moore has been ruled out of the match after sustaining an injury during the first innings,” the media manager’s message read. “Under the new CSA playing conditions Joshua van Heerden has been named as a replacement and will take part in the remainder of the match.”
And, just like that, cricket stopped lagging behind football, rugby, and just about every other team sport. It had only taken hundreds of years, but finally a player had been replaced for the kind of injury not uncommon in cricketers.
Moore was not concussed, and the provision for Covid substitutes is no longer relevant. The WP opener had limped off with a leg injury while fielding on Friday. Once it was confirmed he had torn an inner thigh muscle and CSA agreed that he could no longer play in the match, he was replaced.
How could this be? Because that’s what is tucked away on page 44 of CSA’s playing conditions for the 2025/26 season, which came into effect on September 23. Clause 24 makes clear that “if a player suffers a serious injury on the field of play at any time after the match has started and is ruled out for the remainder of the game (including any pre-match warm-up period)” they can “be replaced for the remainder of the match by a fully participating like-for-like player”.
The player coming in must be on among “the list of nominated replacements submitted for the match” and “the replaced player must satisfy a minimum stand-down period of seven days before being permitted to play again”. Also, “an injury replacement will inherit all warnings, penalty time and suspensions that were imposed on the replaced player”.
The ICC have asked full member countries to trial a replacement system in their first-class competitions, and so far South Africa, Australia and India have taken up the offer. But there are differences between their approaches.
In South Africa, replacements can be granted for internal as well as external injuries. In India, the provision applies only to external issues. In Australia, internal and external injuries are valid for being granted relief, but no replacements may be made after stumps on the second day of the match.
Doubtless coaches, captains, players and supporters are asking what took cricket so long to reach sanity on this matter. Countless examples abound of teams being unfairly affected because of injuries, and of hurt players doing themselves further damage by shutting up and carrying on because they know they cannot be replaced.
Just as doubtless, traditionalists will argue that this development will rob the game of some of its drama. For instance, one of the most striking aspects of South Africa’s win over Australia in the WTC final at Lord’s in June was Temba Bavuma battling through a strained hamstring to score a vital 66 in the second innings.
They will be wrong, of course, as traditionalists usually are. Not about the potential for the loss of drama, but about what’s good for the game.
© Cricbuzz
