R.I.P Phil Hughes
- Thread starter OzzyMac
- Start date
- Status
Awful, awful news. I completely understand that 'the bouncer' is part of the bowler's attack but the only defence for the bouncer appears to be that it's an intimidation tactic. It's intimidating because it's potentially dangerous. The bowler knows that, the batsman knows that. Deliberately putting opponents in danger wouldn't be accepted in most other sports. A rethink is needed imho.
RIP Phil.
I know what you're saying but I don't think this accident, terrible as it was, necessitates a change in the game. Cricket is not a dangerous sport when compared to most others; and to outlaw bouncers - when bowlers have the deck stacked against them a fair bit already - would go a long way to killing the game as a contest. If batsmen can just take a guard on the front foot to every ball, safe in the knowledge that the bowler can't drop the ball short, then batting becomes a lot easier.
This was a terrible tragedy, but it was a freak accident. It shouldn't be allowed to damage the sport.
Laeotaekhun
Striker
It should also be remembered that he had been consistently criticised (in the Australian press) because of his inability to play fast bowlers, especially those who could "dig the ball in" and so I do not believe any rule changes should be even considered because of what (you quite rightly describe) as a "freak accident", coupled with a lack of the necessary technique to have prevented it.
Tragic though the outcome most certainly was.
smoker
Striker
The exact same thing happened to a player called Darryn Randall in SA 12 months ago.
There have been (at least) six other serious head injuries, as a result of bouncers in the last 12 months at FC & international level.
Bore off with this 'freak accident' nonsense
How many people have died or sustained serious injury playing football in that time? As a result of injuries sustained whilst boxing/engaging in another combat sport? Whilst cycling? Swimming? Playing Rugby?
Every year there are thousands upon thousands of cricket matches played. That's millions of individual appearances by players. Two people have died after being hit in the head by bouncers in the past 12 months. Two. It's tragic but these are freak accidents. The odds are well over one in a million. More people die having been hit by lightning than having been hit in the head by a bouncer playing cricket. Cricket is not a dangerous sport. Altering the rules of the game - and effectively sterilising the sport - on the back of a freak accident would be ridiculous.
Bri
Striker
Exactly. Every now and again you hear of people being killed playing golf by being struck on the head, it's rare but it happens. And you don't need to think very hard to extend the list of sports and activities where tragedies happen.
smoker
Striker
Not 'freak accidents' at all. They are an inevitable consequence of bowling a hard ball 90mph at someone's head.
And all of those sports have taken steps to improve participant safety. Cricket seems unable to reform itself due to entrenched conservative, macho attitudes.
The demise of the bouncer will drive new innovations to get batsmen out.
How many pro golfers have been hit on the head by a golf ball in the last 12 months?
Good article from Sydney Herald:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/time-to-ban-the-bouncer-20141127-11une7.html
Only sport other than boxing that allows you to deliberately attack the head of an opponent.
Last edited:
Cricket has done plenty - helmets have been introduced and continuously improved. The laws already allow the umpires to step in if they believe the bowling is deliberately intimidating; there are also restrictions as to the number of bouncers a bowler can bowl.
Your argument is ridiculous - the risk associated with bowling bouncers is at the very most negligible. There are negligible risks associated with every sport and indeed most things in life. I'm statistically more likely to be hit by a car walking to the shop than I am to be seriously injured by a bouncer playing cricket, does that mean I should stop going to the shops?! The natural extension of your argument would be the sterilisation of all sports - no tackles allowed of any kind playing football (and no headers allowed either), international touch-rugby, shadow boxing at the olympics, the list goes on.
If (hypothetically) bouncers were outlawed - it would largely ruin the sport as a contest and hundreds of thousands of participants would lose interest in it. How many of them would suffer serious health problems or an earlier death as an indirect result of the lack of exercise that their weekly cricket game used to provide?!
You would also probably see an upsurge in the number of people being hit in the head - batsmen would (i) stand on the front foot expecting a full ball and (ii) over time, lose any sort of technique to deal with a short ball. Therefore the occasional bouncer that would still be bowled (either as a deliberate surprise tactic - bowlers would just accept a no-ball to ruffle the batsman's feathers, or by accident - as bowlers make mistakes some times) would have much more chance of sconning the unprepared batsman.
From that article:
"Undoubtedly, the catastrophic head injury suffered by Phillip Hughes at the SCG on Tuesday was a freak accident"
Last edited:
Bri
Striker
Not the point and I notice you qualify the example by adding 'pro' and say the 'last 12 months'.
If you don't like golf as an example what about skiing? Or angling, apparently fatalities have occurred when the rod has made a connection with low overhead power lines? Never mind fishing beside a river, there's also sea angling from either the shore or boat? I could go on.
smoker
Striker
Rubbish comparison.
You wouldn't expect your 13 year old son to be asked to do a term of bobsledding at school.
The only line in that article that agrees with your argument.
"it would largely ruin the sport as a contest" - utter bollix. Did it ruin the game and did people stop participating when they limited the number of bouncers, change the number of balls in an over etc? I remember watching the Windies bowl six bouncers an over in the 1970s and it was awful to watch.
The only people who would miss it are traditionalists and shit bowlers.
How many 13 year olds are facing 80mph+ bowlers?! Are you for real?!
It would completely sterilise the contest between batsmen and bowlers; sitting on the front foot or walking at the bowler - safe in the knowledge that the ball will be full - largely removes the possibility of a batsman getting out LBW. It makes the whole contest uneven. That is completely different to limiting the number of bouncers in an over as the bowlers still have the chance to change their length as things stand and batsmen are kept honest.
You're pissing into the wind here and not making much sense. That line in the article is the important one - it was exactly that; a freak accident. The bottom line is that cricket, as it is now and without killing the game with ludicrous rule changes, is one of the safest sports going.
Aleem Dar
Striker
With all due respect, why would they? Accidents happen, and whether sporting or not, we can't be expected to be grief monkeys and have special recognition for every death. Particularly one in a different sport.
But then, even celeb/famous people deaths don't sit right with me when we have minutes silences/applause. Leave it to cricket this time.
Simple solution for those who want bouncers banned....don't play. You know the rules and the risks so of you fear for your life, play badminton instead
How many in the pro game are saying change the rules? Less than 0.01% I reckon as the know it would kill the game (no pun intended)
How many in the pro game are saying change the rules? Less than 0.01% I reckon as the know it would kill the game (no pun intended)
TwasOnTheFifthOfMay
Striker
Then we had Darren Gough on talkShite yesterday saying he was "like an assassin with the ball in his hand" and "wanted to hurt and intimidate the batsman at the other end" so he had an advantage over him. Quite shocking actually, and I bet this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Nobody will know what Abbott was thinking when he bowled that ball, on the other hand one thing you are never supposed to do is turn your back on the ball either. Was it Vaughan who said it's close fielders who are more at risk because that's what they normally do to protect themselves?
Anybody watching test matches in the 70s involving Thomson, Lillee or Holding was expecting somebody to be killed. I have read that England's batsmen were literally glad to survive the 74/5 tour. On the NZ leg that winter Peter Lever bowled a ball which hit Ewen Chatfield in the face, and he stopped breathing on the pitch and had to be revived. It is amazing it has taken this long for this to happen.
JimmyQuinn
Winger
Considering they were friends, I think it's pretty safe to say he wasn't looking to injure him. Also, in fairness to Hughes, he didn't turn his back on it; he just played too early and was already through the shot when it hit him.
- Status
