The result of the T20 series being played between India and England was decided before the last match. Team India defeated England by 15 runs in the fourth T20 match to capture the five -match series. Team India won the victory but its method has raised questions. The Indian team is now being accused of dishonesty. The reason for this is the Contingon Substitute Rules, under which Harshit Rana was fielded on the injury to Shivam Dubey, who changed the match. Former Indian batsman and famous commentator Akash Chopra has also raised questions on this.

What happened in Pune T20?

The fourth match of the T20 series was played in Pune on Friday 31 January. In this match, the Indian team batting first and for that Shivam Dubey played a great innings of 53 runs. But in the last over of the Indian innings, a sharp bouncer was on the head of Shivam Dubey, after which Physio investigated him for some time and gave the green signal to play the last 2 balls of the innings. But when Team India's bowling came, fast bowler Harshit Rana landed on the field as a substitute.

Initially, it was believed that Harshit has landed for some time for fielding instead of Dubey, but Harshit, close to the 9th over of England's innings, got an entry in the match as an official concentration subsidy, while Dubey got an entry in the match, while Dubey Get out of the match. Along with this, Harshit also got his debut in T20 International and he took the wicket of Liam Livingstone in his first over. After this, he also took the wickets of Jacob Bethal and Jamie Olerton and played an important role in winning Team India with 3 successes.

Akash Chopra-Machal von raised questions

However, as soon as Harshit was fielded as a contingent substitute, the debate broke out on it and started raising questions. During the commentary, former England batsman Kevin Pietersen also questioned this. At the same time, after the end of the match, former England captain Michael Vaughan also expressed surprise by tweeting. He wrote how a bowler can replace the batsman who is bowling a part time.

How can an out & out bowler replace a batter who bowls part time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! #INDVSENG

- Michael Vaughan (@Michaelvaughan) January 31, 2025

But not only English veterans, but also from India, voice raised voice against it. Noted commentator Akash Chopra also did not consider it to be the right replacement and told which player should have been replaced in the true sense. Chopra tweeted, "This is not the same (like for like) replacement, if he does joyful bowling, which he should also do." Ramandeep should have been the ideal of Dubey's ideal Convention Replacement. "

Its not really a like-for-like replacement if harshit bowls.which he should.
Ramandeep was the ideal concussion replacement for dube. https://t.co/qqytklrggt

- Aakash Chopra (@cricketaakash) January 31, 2025

What do ICC rules say?

The ICC implemented the rule of concentration in 2019, in which it was made clear that the team can replace it when a player battles with concentration. For this, the team will have to request the match referee and it will be applicable only after the referee's consent. But for this, there should be 'Like for Like' replacement. Questions are arising in the case of Dubey and Harshit because Dubey is mainly a batsman and sometimes bowls part time. At the same time, Harshit Rana is mainly fast bowler and comes for batting at number eighth-nine. Even he has scored only 2 runs in his entire T20 career. In such a situation, it is natural to have a ruckus on it.