Phillip Hughes Inquest

[Burgey]

I think Hughes' death changed a lot of the on-field rhetoric by fielding teams. It wasn't unusual at all for bowlers and fielders to remind batsmen of the physical threats they faced. You only have to go back a season beforehand to the "Get ready for a broken ****ing arm" comment by Clarke, but that's only one example. The West Indies used to revel in it when they had their quicks, Lillee said he wanted to hurt batsmen and Thomson once said he wanted to see blood on the wicket. It goes way back even further than that to Bodyline and to McDonald and Gregory post WWI.

Compare that to what's happened afterwards with the default reaction of bowlers who scone batsmen to walk up and see if they're ok. Same with fielders. It's changed the game an awful lot.

And the thing is, no one contemplated someone getting killed like Phillip Hughes. People had been hit in the heart before and died from arrhythmia, but you hadn't heard of someone copping a blow to the head like Hughes did and dying. Living in the here and now, it's not easy to fully appreciate the change this incident made to the game. People will look back on it in 10-20 years time and realise it was a massive deal. I mean huge. It made players feel mortal.

So it's pretty revisionist to bag people for comments about hurting/ "killing" batsmen when in all honesty, no one seriously contemplated it would happen.

 

[Gnske]

Phlegm got torn to shreds by Mitch McCleneghan, Jimmy Neesham was a member before he got big, and ZinZan chased off Martin Crowe.

Classic kiwibloc, their own worst enemies.

 

[mr_mister]

Like threatening to kill a batsmen has ever been okay to say lol

Even if the great Dennis Lillee said it that doesn't make it any less of a **** thing to say

 

[Athlai]

Phlegm got torn to shreds by Mitch McCleneghan, Jimmy Neesham was a member before he got big, and ZinZan chased off Martin Crowe.

Don't forget HeathDavis is the real Heath Davis.

 

[Midwinter]

Is that helmet that covers the back of the neck mandatory now? Or is it still up to players?

Hadn't given it much thought recently until I think KWs attachment popped off the back of his helmet on the tour to India.

The changes to the helmets would not have prevented what happened in this case.

 

[Gnske]

Actually does anyone have a link to the McCleneghan rant? I've always been curious

 

[Burgey]

Like threatening to kill a batsmen has ever been okay to say lol

Even if the great Dennis Lillee said it that doesn't make it any less of a **** thing to say

No it isn't ok to say it. Malcolm Marshall said it to David Boon on the latter's dayboo too.

What I'm saying is it used to be said in the same way I used to say to Burgeinho's junior team that if they bowled poorly I'd inflict physical punishment on them. As a way to instil fear and respect. When I smashed a stump in the dressing room while they were in there and said "If this is how pissed off I am at a piece of equipment involved in that performance, imagine how pissed off I am at the people responsible for it", it didn't mean I was going to bash their 12 year old heads into the wall, it meant I was teaching them to listen and to respond appropriately to what I wanted them to do on the field. And they did. They won the comp.

Likewise, this was always something said to remind a batsman about the physical threat of fast bowling, rather than a literal threat to kill someone. Unlike my own entreaties to the under 13s, it is in poor taste, however, until Hughes' death I would be surprised if a bowler actually ever thought he would try to bounce a bloke to kill him.

 

[Dan]

Don't forget HeathDavis is the real Heath Davis.

Some things are so obvious that they don't need to be mentioned tbh.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Simon Taufel, the former international umpire and umpiring expert, reviewed the entire day’s play and, in a report, said there had been 23 bouncers bowled for the afternoon, an unremarkable number. He said the umpires had firm control of the match and he witnessed nothing untoward in the lead-up to Hughes’s death.

“Phillip was mostly playing the short deliveries with relative ease, either ducking underneath them, or hitting them for runs.”

Players also reported in statements that they did not believe there was any targeting of Hughes by bowlers that day, that there was no warning from the umpires about short-pitched bowling and no recollection of specific sledging targeted at Hughes

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/10/phillip-hughes-inquest-told-no-intervention-could-have-saved-cricketers-life?CMP=soc_567

This is so weird. I don't see why sledging is even relevant to the inquest anyway? And why does the number of bouncers bowled even matter? If they had bowled 53 instead of 23, would it have been seen as something untoward or malicious?

 

[Burgey]

The inquest isn't looking at it from a cricketing perspective though. It's looking at it from an investigative perspective to try to determine if there's any fault in his death, and if there are any recommendations which should be made.

Coronials are probably the most interesting, and perversely, fun hearings to appear at, because rules of evidence don't apply and you can just wade in as hard as you like. They're looking at it from a legal POV - issues of whether there was intent to cause him harm are relevant from a legal standpoint, though I would imagine the coroner will likely take a view there wasn't such intent and would acknowledge bouncers as part of the game. But, and it's an important but, they may also find that bouncers are an unsafe part of the game and should be banned. Such a recommendation wouldn't be binding though, unless parliament passed a law enforcing it, or, and this is even scarier because it could actually come to pass - the insurers and administrators behind cricket make it happen, because they're worried they'll be sued if someone gets hurt or worse by another snorter (the Tort Law reforms notwithstanding).

I mean, if a Coroner wanted to, they could make a recommendation banning the bowling of short pitched balls because they're inherently dangerous. They don't care that it would turn the game into a subcontinental-like mockery, they are interested in examining the cause of the death and what can be done to prevent such things in future.

 

[Midwinter]

For my own knowledge

Why is there an inquest ?

The incident was captured on film and there were numerous witnesses.

There is no mystery as to what happened.

And given the above, why is it expected to last so long ? (In the paper it said 5 days)

Lastly why was it taken so long to even start the the inquest ?

Appreciate any answers thanks

 

[Burgey]

Pretty much any sudden death (and fire for that matter) is referred to the Coroner. By that I mean, my grandfather died suddenly at a meeting and it was obviously a heart attack, and even his doctor almost referred it to the coronoer because it was sudden and he didn't die at home or in hospital from a life threatening condition which he was being treated for. The coroner then decides whether there should be (a) an autopsy, and then (b) an inquest into the death. An autopsy will be undertaken to determine cause of death (GSW, myocardial infarct, blunt trauma etc) whereas an inquiry will look at who did it, why, how it happened, whether any charges should be laid arising from it etc.

 

[Daemon]

The inquest isn't looking at it from a cricketing perspective though. It's looking at it from an investigative perspective to try to determine if there's any fault in his death, and if there are any recommendations which should be made.

Coronials are probably the most interesting, and perversely, fun hearings to appear at, because rules of evidence don't apply and you can just wade in as hard as you like. They're looking at it from a legal POV - issues of whether there was intent to cause him harm are relevant from a legal standpoint, though I would imagine the coroner will likely take a view there wasn't such intent and would acknowledge bouncers as part of the game. But, and it's an important but, they may also find that bouncers are an unsafe part of the game and should be banned. Such a recommendation wouldn't be binding though, unless parliament passed a law enforcing it, or, and this is even scarier because it could actually come to pass - the insurers and administrators behind cricket make it happen, because they're worried they'll be sued if someone gets hurt or worse by another snorter (the Tort Law reforms notwithstanding).

I mean, if a Coroner wanted to, they could make a recommendation banning the bowling of short pitched balls because they're inherently dangerous. They don't care that it would turn the game into a subcontinental-like mockery, they are interested in examining the cause of the death and what can be done to prevent such things in future.

Are you saying in the future we might see Australian batsmen shitting themselves at anything above knee height?

 

[Burgey]

It could happen.

 

[Gnske]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/oct/10/phillip-hughes-inquest-told-no-intervention-could-have-saved-cricketers-life?CMP=soc_567

This is so weird. I don't see why sledging is even relevant to the inquest anyway? And why does the number of bouncers bowled even matter? If they had bowled 53 instead of 23, would it have been seen as something untoward or malicious?

Ever since the incident I've noticed there's been an undercurrent theme of analyzing all the areas of perceived viciousness in the game , you had guys like Rob Steen on cricinfo I remember saying about the incident "What can we learn from this, an end to sledging must be certain" which was strange to me.

It's curious because if he had ducked into a fuller ball by mistake or if the ball had spat up off the pitch like crazy the discourse would be far from that and more on the ball itself and the state of pitch preparation or something to that effect.

 

[Shri]

Phlegm got torn to shreds by Mitch McCleneghan, Jimmy Neesham was a member before he got big, and ZinZan chased off Martin Crowe.

Neesham? What was his username?

 

[Shri]

Phlegm got torn to shreds by Mitch McCleneghan, Jimmy Neesham was a member before he got big, and ZinZan chased off Martin Crowe.

 

[Burgey]

Neesham? What was his username?

I think it was JimmyB or something like that iirc.

Or maybe that's a #kiwibloc nickname for him which I'm confusing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wait a minute...Martin Crowe was on here?

 

[Shri]

I think it was JimmyB or something like that iirc.

Or maybe that's a #kiwibloc nickname for him which I'm confusing.

There's no JimmyB fam. Did you mean JimmyGS?