'India Doesn't Need Wins Tarnished By...'

'How can an Indian match referee allow this Indian replacement? Match officials should be independent to prevent bias.'

Team India players

IMAGE: Sunil Gavaskar emphasised that India, a dominant cricketing force, does not require controversial interventions to secure victories. Photograph: BCCI

India's emphatic 150 run victory in Mumbai capped off a dominant 4-1 triumph over England in the home T20I series.

However, the celebrations were overshadowed by a contentious concussion substitute decision during the fourth match in Pune, sparking a heated debate on fairness and officiating in international cricket.

Chris Broad, a veteran ICC match referee, accused the cricketing body of 'bias and corruption' after Harshit Rana replaced all-rounder Shivam Dube as a concussion substitute in the Pune game.

'How can an Indian match referee allow this Indian replacement? Match officials should be independent to prevent bias,' Broad posted on X.

Retired England batter Kevin Pietersen called for neutral match referees, criticising Javagal Srinath, who officiated at the fourth T20I.

'The concussion substitute was NEVER like-for-like. The match referee should just admit the mistake and move on,; KP tweeted.

Harshit Rana

IMAGE: Harshit Rana made his India debut as a concussion substitute. in the fourth T20I in Pune Photograph: BCCI

The controversy erupted after Shivam Dube, who was struck on the helmet during India's innings, got out on the next ball and did not take the field for the second innings. Rana was announced as Dube's substitute only in the 10th over, prompting criticism from several cricketing voices.

Cricket legend Sunil Gavaskar criticised the decision, expressing discontent with the Indian team management.

In a column for The Telegraph newspaper, Gavaskar firmly stated that Dube's replacement by Harshit Rana was unjustifiable and lacked adherence to the 'like-for-like' substitution rule.

'In the Pune game, Dube batted right till the end after having got hit on the helmet earlier, so clearly, he was not concussed. So, allowing a concussion substitute itself was not correct,' Gavaskar pointed out.

'Yes, there could have been a substitute in case he had strained a muscle while batting, but that would have been only for fielding, and he could not have bowled,' Gavaskar stressed.

'Even by the most generous stretching of the like-for-like term, there was nothing such between Dube and Rana,' Gavaskar added.

'With tongue firmly in cheek, one can say that they are the same height and have the same standard in fielding. Otherwise, there's nothing like for like as far as they are concerned. England has every reason to feel done in.'

'This Indian team is a superb team and doesn't need its wins to get tarnished by such acts,' Gavaskar asserted.

'Independent match officials were introduced to prevent such situations. Why is the ICC reverting to the bad old days of bias and corruption?' Broad alleged, reigniting the debate on neutrality and fairness in cricket officiating.