R.I.P Phil Hughes

Status
Not open for further replies.
CraigyLee said:
Ban fielding in close aswell much more likely to get killed when some scrubby spinner bowls a half tracker and a batsmen leathers it towards some poor lad 5 yards away
Click to expand...
and the Telegraph are reporting that an umpire was killed in Israeli league cricket after having been struck by the ball.
 


gards2 said:
Bouncers occasionally get a wicket but, let's not fuck about. They are only allowed because of tradition. This incident should hopefully see the end of the 'bouncer.
Click to expand...
Jesus wept.

Let's go the whole hog and replace the corker with a tennis ball :lol:
 
KGC83 said:
Jesus wept.

Let's go the whole hog and replace the corker with a tennis ball :lol:
Click to expand...

Yet another juvenile response with inappropriate emoticons.

Sweeper said:
Rubbish - they exist because they are a part of the game. There's as much risk of a fielder getting smacked by a ball that is hit at them by the batsman. Ban all shots? Ban fielding? Bouncers are not dangerous in the modern game with modern equipment. For the hundredth time - this was a tragic, freak accident.



The skull is protected by the helmet - Hughes was struck in the back of the neck.
Click to expand...

Hughes was struck where the neck joins the skull and is unprotected by the grille, especially when turning your head to play a hook shot.

gards2 said:
Bouncers occasionally get a wicket but, let's not fuck about. They are only allowed because of tradition. This incident should hopefully see the end of the 'bouncer.
Click to expand...

Careful gards, the bouncer is a sacred cow to sweeper and pals.

The fact it has been heavily restricted over the years in the name of player safety and a fairer contest of bat and ball is lost on them.

Not a single bouncer bowled in the Pak v NZ test today.
 
Last edited:
smoker said:
Yet another juvenile response with inappropriate emoticons.



Hughes was struck where the neck joins the skull and is unprotected by the grille, especially when turning your head to play a hook shot.



Careful gards, the bouncer is a sacred cow to sweeper and pals.

The fact it has been heavily restricted over the years in the name of player safety and a fairer contest of bat and ball is lost on them.

Not a single bouncer bowled in the Pak v NZ test today.
Click to expand...

You are clearly just on a wind up here, but I'll indulge your stupidity a little while longer.

The fact that you think the bouncer was restricted for safety reasons sums up your lack of knowledge of the issues here. It was restricted to stop bowlers using it as a means of "hiding" the ball six balls an over and making the game boring. It is in effect the same as the rule against persistent bowling down the leg side in test matches. If there was a genuine belief that bouncers were dangerous in the way you're suggesting, they wouldn't have restricted them, they would have been banned altogether. They weren't banned (and won't ever be) because they are not dangerous. There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that are more likely to kill you than a cricket ball. You have probably encountered hundreds of them today, and yet you have survived to post more shit on the SMB.

Hughes died from a split artery in his neck - it had nothing whatsoever to do with his skull.

You're getting juvenile responses because your posts are so stupid and ill-informed that theyre now bordering on the embarrassing.
 
Sweeper said:
You are clearly just on a wind up here, but I'll indulge your stupidity a little while longer.

The fact that you think the bouncer was restricted for safety reasons sums up your lack of knowledge of the issues here. It was restricted to stop bowlers using it as a means of "hiding" the ball six balls an over and making the game boring. It is in effect the same as the rule against persistent bowling down the leg side in test matches. If there was a genuine belief that bouncers were dangerous in the way you're suggesting, they wouldn't have restricted them, they would have been banned altogether. They weren't banned (and won't ever be) because they are not dangerous. There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that are more likely to kill you than a cricket ball. You have probably encountered hundreds of them today, and yet you have survived to post more shit on the SMB.

Hughes died from a split artery in his neck - it had nothing whatsoever to do with his skull.

You're getting juvenile responses because your posts are so stupid and ill-informed that theyre now bordering on the embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Nonsense on stilts.

1. The bouncer was not restricted just to stop bowlers "hiding" and the game being "boring". While this was certainly a problem for the cricket-watching punter (see my Windies comment), the explanation articulated by the ICC (1991) was to limit intimidation of batsmen and make a fairer contest of bat and ball. Intimidatory bowling is defined by Rule 42 of cricket (Unfair play): "deliberate bowling of fast short pitched balls which by their length, height and direction are intended or likely to inflict physical injury on the Striker. The relative skill of the Striker shall also be taken into consideration...." Is that 'stupid and ill-informed' enough for you?

2. You only need read this thread (your latest outburst in particular) to understand why bouncers haven't been banned: the topic is considered taboo by traditionalists.

3. The ball struck Phil Hughes at the top of the neck where the neck meets the skull. Hence Masuri moving to reassure their punters their 2014 model would have prevented the accident. Even if it had hit him low in the neck, that supports the/my argument that deliveries over shoulder height are the concern, not helmet design.

4. Re: "There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that are more likely to kill you than a cricket ball. You have probably encountered hundreds of them today" - don't be absurd. I have slept, eaten my breakfast, dressed the kids, read a book and come online today. I'd be very surprised if they were riskier than standing at a crease while some 6'4" bloke repeatedly flings a 160g projectile at my head at 90+mph. Besides, the fact there are more dangerous activities out there (bobsledding, war etc) is immaterial, this is all about acceptable risk within this particular sport.

Cue more abuse
 
That's the sefinition of intimidatory bowling then, not dangerous? Cheers.

Your arguments are a nonsense, and the question that was rightly asked of you was bang on point - you are clearly a non-cricketer. The game is safe and competitive. To change the rules as you've suggested would be the death of it. If we followed your logic then close fielding would be banned, short bowling, hard cricket balls, cross bat shots (heaven forbid a top edge should strike the batsman above the shoulder). It is one of the safest sports around as it is. One tragic, freak accident has done absolutely nothing to change that.
 
smoker said:
Nonsense on stilts.

"There are literally hundreds of thousands of things that are more likely to kill you than a cricket ball. You have probably encountered hundreds of them today" - don't be absurd. I have slept, eaten my breakfast, dressed the kids, read a book and come online today. I'd be very surprised.....

Cue more abuse
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know. I'd expect insurance companies keep lists of mundane things that people think are safe and yet figures show otherwise. Every now and then there are articles in the press highlighting that people's assessment of risk can be way off.

I mean everybody knows that if you sneeze you automatically close your eyes because if you don't your eyeballs pop out.
 
Greavsie said:
This thread started off as a tribute to a young cricketer who lost his life playing the game that we all love.

Time to get the thread back lads. Agree to diagree fellas and lets move on eh?
Click to expand...
Everyone was being respectful until some arsehole waded in talking shite.

Move on.
 
Sweeper said:
That's the sefinition of intimidatory bowling then, not dangerous? Cheers.

Your arguments are a nonsense, and the question that was rightly asked of you was bang on point - you are clearly a non-cricketer. The game is safe and competitive. To change the rules as you've suggested would be the death of it. If we followed your logic then close fielding would be banned, short bowling, hard cricket balls, cross bat shots (heaven forbid a top edge should strike the batsman above the shoulder). It is one of the safest sports around as it is. One tragic, freak accident has done absolutely nothing to change that.
Click to expand...

Greavsie is right. Send a PM if you want to argue further.

Already mentioned I played to U18 level. Some on here have never played cricket at all but are still entitled to their opinions as fans of the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top