Sorry but not sorry for the massive status!!! Does there need to be a change to the law and/or protective equipment after Phillip Hughes’ death? Let me start by saying RIP Phil Hughes. My deepest condolences goes to his family,friends and the entire cricket community on this sad day. Also thoughts must go to Sean Abbott. Words cannot describe how he must be feeling. Ever since Phil Hughes was submitted to hospital in critical condition many cricketers and individuals have been calling it a ‘freak accident’ and claiming that ‘these things happen, he should of played the ball better.’ So in the light of these terms I wanted to share my thoughts. I wanted to write this post as being a tail ending batsman, that has been hit and injured, it is a topic that is close to my heart. I have had my fair share of short pitched bowling targeted at me in both matches and team practice. So much so, I have even refused to bat at certain teams practises as I didnt enjoy being the pace bowlers amusement. This has been titled a ‘freak accident’ which is defined as ‘an accident thats extremely unlikely and unusual’ so does this apply to this tragic death? It all depends on whether the bowler was intentionally bowling the ball at the batsman or not, because if he was, what does he expect to happen if he bowls a hard ball at 90+ mph which does strike the batsman on an unprotected part of his head. Now I am not saying that Abbott was targeting Hughes, but believe me bowlers do intentionally target the body, throat or head. Is it also a freak accident is it has happened before? Hughes is the second cricket player to die after being struck by a ball. Thirty-two-year-old South African player Darryn Randall died last year after being struck in the side of the head as well - sportskeeda/cricket/hit-on-head-by-ball-south-african-cricketer-darryn-randall-dies. Phil Simmons was hit by a ball in 1988 and made a full recovery following life-saving brain surgery - bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30198194. Craig Kieswetter was also hit this summer, with devastating injuries and I am sure he is lucky that this did not have more serious consequences - https://twitter/kiesy_22/status/488333804277600256. And although not a player, as I write this a second umpire has died being hit by the ball, after it ricocheted off the stumps -indianexpress/article/sports/cricket/cricket-israeli-umpire-killed-after-ball-strikes-him-in-the-face/. The first umpire, having died in a match in Wales, after getting struck in the head when a fielder threw it back to the wicket - walesonline.co.uk/sport/other-sport/cricket-aberdare-match-cancelled-after-2086229. There are, however, laws already in place to control dangerous bowling, but how one person defines dangerous is completely different to another, so should more be done? ‘Law 42 7. Dangerous and unfair bowling - action by the umpire (a) As soon as the bowler’s end umpire decides under 6(a) above that the bowling of fast short pitched balls has become dangerous and unfair, or, except as in 8 below, there is an instance of dangerous and unfair bowling as defined in 6(b) above, he shall call and signal No ball. When the ball is dead, he shall caution the bowler, inform the other umpire, the captain of the fielding side and the batsmen of what has occurred. This caution shall apply throughout the innings. (b) If there is any further instance of dangerous and unfair bowling by the same bowler in that innings, the umpire shall repeat the above procedure and indicate to the bowler that this is a final warning….’ Others have also said that nothing should be done due to it being a one in a millionth chance of it occurring again and you can not go living your life wrapped in cotton wool. Quotes have been said such as ‘If you never leave your house you will never get run over’ or ‘you can’t ban cars, just because you might get run over.’ I would like to think and many people would agree that this is a completely different situation and you cannot compare the risks you face in your daily life to a sports field. Yes sports can be dangerous and horse riding is statically the most dangerous, but during peace time, there are many regulations, laws, rules, protocols and resources to help reduce the chances of injury and death when you step outside; for example speed limits, traffic lights, shops selling water and food, emergency services, sewage systems etc etc. Saying to never leave the house or ban cars is an extreme argument that we know is not achievable, but there are achievable solutions to prevent this happening again in cricket. So what can/should be done, a change to the laws and/or protection? I have heard and been told such things as… ‘You cant ban the bouncer!’ ‘Ok lets just bowl underarm with a tennis ball’ ‘Lets tell the batsman when we are going to bowl a bouncer’ These are all straw-man statements! When did I say ban the bouncer all together? The straw man is where someone misrepresents your opponents position so that it is easier to tear it down. These statements are fallacy because you have not proven my comment to be true or false. You have literally taken it to one extreme and trying to target an argument that is easy to beat up but was never actually made. There have been many law and rule changes in sport due to injury, death or with the hope of preventing them from ever happening. For example recently the new scrummaging laws in rugby which are aimed at enhancing player welfare by reducing impact upon engaging. You also have the introduction of new laws on concussion in rugby which states ‘In all situations, if there are any indications of concussion a player MUST be removed from play. This is known as Recognise and Remove.’ So could a change to the laws be implemented in cricket? I will be the first to say that we cannot ban short pitch bowling as it is an integral part of cricket and used tactical by many fast bowlers and even spinners. So changing the laws would be hard and controversial. So how about the protection? This is where I think we could improve. I first and foremost feel that you should not have a choice of whether you wear a helmet or not. I feel in the interest of safety the batsman should always wear a helmet. Even the best batsman get hit now and then. The British helmet regulations underwent an upgrade in December 2013 from the previous ones 1997, after a study was conducted by Dr Craig Ranson on improving helmet standards ‘Ransons study found the back of the head to be a vulnerable area with risk of concussion being a major concern. Prevention might be achieved via improved shock attenuation and by extending the shell of the helmet to cover the entire occipital region’ - espncricinfo/ci/content/current/story/805155.html Masuri, a cricket helmet company, have set new standard this year in designing a new helmet which unfortunately Hughes was not wearing. Hughes was wearing a Masuri Original Test model helmet which does not protect the back of a batsman’s head. But Masuri, have now developed a new model which does protect, a tiny bit more of the back of the head while still allowing the batsman comfortable movement. (picture 1) Now is this good enough? I still think there could be room for improvement and further protection could be increased down the neck just like a baseball helmet (picture 2,) especially as this is the part of the head which is exposed when you turn away from the ball. We should always be looking to improve the game and protection, and I also think bowlers, would like to have batsman wearing the highest level of protection allowing them to bowl fast bouncers with the confidence that the risk of death is as low as possible. The helmet will always be a vulnerable object and you will always experience problems if you get hit flush in the face. This death is a very rare occurrence, no doubt, and sport is a dangerous environment, that’s what makes it attractive and appealing to the fans. There is no one individual party to blame for Hughes’ death, but what I find hard to understand is people stating there is no need to assess what has happened or change regulations. But what do I know I am neither a batsman nor a fast bowler… ;) Please let me know your thoughts? Today the ICC stated that any action is unlikely to be taken to restrict bouncers despite Hughes death - bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30267439.
Posted on: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 13:49:37 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015