Virtually all sporting activity comes with the risk of injury, so it’s surprising that some team sports continue to not allow injury substitutes. But two recent incidents may have prompted a rethink of the current situation, with sporting bodies under pressure to change existing rules.
The sight of Chris Woakes walking to the wicket in the final Test match of the summer with his arm in a sling and batting one-handed left many spectators bewildered. The incident seemed almost cruel and a bit inexplicable, but at the time England were chasing runs and out of wickets. With no substitutes allowed in Test cricket except for fielding duties or in the event of a concussion, England turned to the injured Woakes to press through the pain barrier of his dislocated shoulder for the good of the team in its pursuit of India’s total. It’s worth noting that Woakes came the crease after Indian Rishabh Pant had batted with a fractured foot during their innings, for the same reason.
This week, in the run up to the forthcoming Ashes series and in response to the Woakes situation and other high-profile incidents, Cricket Australia has been trialing injury substitutes in its domestic Sheffield Shield competition. If a player sustains an injury or becomes ill at any time up until the close of play on day two, that player may be replaced at the referee’s discretion. To try and alleviate teams replacing players for tactical advantage, the trial rules also state that the opposition side would also be able to make a tactical substitution at the same time.
A similar trial is also currently taking place in the South African domestic competition, and the different Boards will be reporting back to the International Cricket Council (ICC) with the findings of the trials. It seems increasingly likely that the ICC will apply a like-for-like substitutions rule in the international game, but probably not in time for the Ashes starting in November.
The Ryder Cup rules on substitutions have also been on top of the news agenda. Following his team’s 15-13 loss to Europe last week, US captain Keegan Bradley said the Cup’s longstanding ‘envelope rule’ should change. This was after the overnight withdrawal of Europe’s Viktor Hovland from the singles matches due to a neck injury.
The substitution rule in the captain’s agreement requires each team to submit the name of one player on the Saturday night of the Ryder Cup in a sealed envelope. The player named wouldn’t play in the Sunday singles matches in the event of an injury to a golfer on the opposition team.
The rule was invoked for only the 4th time in Ryder Cup history when Hovland withdrew, and the unlucky American was Harris English, who ironically, was scheduled to play against Hovland in any case. That match did not go ahead, with each team gaining a half point. Had the match gone ahead with a substitute, and Harris won it, Europe would have been under far more pressure going into the final afternoon of matches, and who knows what impact there may have been on the overall result. Harris claimed that the outcome ‘sucked’ and it also robbed the spectators, and millions of TV viewers, of an additional match to watch.
Unsurprisingly Keegan Bradley spoke after the action finished and stated that ‘the rule has to change’. Perhaps even less of a revelation was that Luke Donald, who became only the second European captain to win back-to-back Ryder Cups, said that the rule should remain in place!
With global audiences and multi-million-pound TV deals, it does seem ridiculous that some sports have not yet moved with the times and introduced contingencies for when injuries occur. With ultra traditional sports such as cricket and golf contemplating changing ancient rules, it does seem that the message is finally getting through.
David Little is a Partner at Bishop & Sewell in our expert Sports Law and Corporate & Commercial teams.
If you would like to contact him, please call on either 07968 027343 or 020 7631 4141 or email: company@bishopandsewell.co.uk.
The above is accurate as at 2 October 2025.
The information above may be subject to change. The content of this note should not be considered legal advice, and each matter should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
