Substitutes for Serious Injuries: Cricket Takes a Step Toward Modernisation

Domestic first-class cricket to trial like-for-like replacements in landmark move beginning this October

Cricket’s long-standing relationship with tradition is about to encounter yet another modern twist. In a significant shift aimed at protecting player welfare, the International Cricket Council (ICC) has announced a six-month trial permitting like-for-like replacements for serious injuries in domestic first-class cricket.

This move, set to begin in October, will allow teams to substitute players during a match—yes, even during warm-ups—if they suffer what is deemed a “serious injury.” While the change won’t yet touch the international arena, particularly Test cricket, it signals a potential paradigm shift in how the game approaches injury management.

Why now? The Richard Ngarava incident that sparked debate

The push for this trial stems in part from a recent incident during Zimbabwe’s one-off Test against England at Trent Bridge. On the very first day, Zimbabwean fast bowler Richard Ngarava pulled up with a back issue. Although he attempted to return later, restrictions on how long he had been off the field meant he was no longer permitted to bowl.

It made for uncomfortable viewing—Ngarava visibly in pain, trying to contribute, before limping off again. Zimbabwe, already underdogs, were now a bowler short. For many watching, the question was obvious: why can’t we replace an injured player with someone who can bowl?

Under current ICC Test playing conditions, full substitutes are not allowed. Players may be replaced in the field, but these substitutes cannot bowl, bat, or act as captain. The lone exception? Concussion. Since 2019, teams have been allowed to bring in like-for-like concussion replacements, a move that was widely applauded and smoothly adopted.

Now, the game seems poised to take the next step.

How will the serious injury trial work?

Trials For ‘Serious’ Injury Replacement In Domestic Test Cricket To Start From October

The upcoming trial is strictly limited to domestic first-class competitions among ICC full-member nations. If a player is seriously injured—during play or even in the warm-up—they may be substituted with a “like-for-like” replacement.

While details around what constitutes a “serious injury” remain to be clarified, the ICC is expected to provide strict medical guidelines to prevent abuse of the rule. The replacement must be of a similar role (e.g., bowler for bowler, batter for batter), and the switch must be approved by match officials.

Think of it as cricket’s version of football’s injury substitutions or rugby’s Head Injury Assessments—only more conservative in nature, given the structure and nuance of the game.

A sign of progress or threat to Test tradition?

Purists will no doubt raise eyebrows. The very idea of substitution in cricket, outside of concussion or fielding replacements, has long been viewed as incompatible with the format’s strategic depth. After all, part of the game’s drama lies in coping with the unexpected—injuries included.

But the counterargument is compelling: should a team be forced to suffer competitively because a player pulls a hamstring or takes a blow to the ribs? In an age where player health is more closely scrutinised than ever, denying medical substitutions can seem archaic—if not outright dangerous.

As player workloads grow heavier, particularly among multi-format cricketers, the game faces increasing pressure to support recovery and reduce long-term injury risk. This move, even if restricted to the domestic game for now, may be the start of a more comprehensive rethink.

Learnings from the concussion rule

It’s worth remembering that the concussion substitute rule was once met with skepticism. But when Marnus Labuschagne replaced Steve Smith during the 2019 Ashes and went on to make a career-defining impact, perceptions changed quickly.

That precedent matters. It showed that cricket could handle in-match substitutions without compromising fairness. In fact, it arguably improved the game by removing the pressure on concussed players to continue. Could the same logic now apply to, say, a fast bowler who injures his side after bowling 20 overs in brutal heat?

What about international cricket?

For now, Test matches and international cricket will remain governed by existing laws, where concussion is the only accepted reason for a full substitution. However, if the domestic trial proves successful—particularly in high-profile competitions like the County Championship or Sheffield Shield—pressure may mount for a wider rollout.

There are still logistical and ethical challenges. Would allowing more subs shift selection strategies? Could it be exploited tactically? And how do you ensure that player replacements don’t disrupt the balance of the game?

These are all valid questions, and the ICC will be watching the October trial closely to assess both its efficacy and its impact.

A cautious but meaningful change

The cricket world is often slow to change, but it tends to get things right eventually. This move—while cautious and carefully defined—feels like another step toward a more balanced relationship between tradition and player welfare.

We may still be years away from seeing bowlers replaced mid-Test, but for the countless cricketers grinding through the first-class circuit, this trial is a welcome safeguard.

And if, over time, it paves the way for more compassionate rules at the top level, then Richard Ngarava’s unfortunate back injury may have inadvertently triggered something truly transformative.