Phillip Hughes Inquest

[TheJediBrah]

You'd think not but you just don't know the level of stupid people recommend in the name of occupational safety. I don't believe the inquest will but I'm not 100% sure after hearing what went down today. Bowling a missile directly at someone is a risk to life. Even if a recommendation is made but not implemented could that leave a governing body open to an accusation of negligence in a future occurence of injury?

This is so true. You never know.

 

[honestbharani]

Phillip Hughes short balls 'not excessive', the New South Wales Coronial inquest has heard | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo


So Abbott is spared but Cooper is not. What else should the poor guy go through now? He saw his batting partner die And they made him cry.. What a shame this entire inquisition is...

 

[Top_Cat]

Not up on legal trends but the criteria for a notifiable death is pretty broad in NSW and I'd think this is reflected in all the other states. I'd imagine a Coronial dig was inevitable with regards the medical response alone, notwithstanding the high-profile nature of the whole thing. With that in mind, I'm wondering whether the Coroner can have any influence over the general theme of the investigation i.e. instruct lawyers to lay off the players. Or is it more in keeping with the traditions to keep it broad as described earlier? Burgey, any insight?

 

[indiaholic]

This inquest is morally repugnant. Players should be allowed to sue the state for mental harassment. This is a sport. Millions upon millions of hours of cricket is played every year. Deaths are vanishingly few and it is inevitable with a sufficiently ginormous sample size. ****s should ban driving if they are enacting this circus anyways.

Edit: Ignore this. Just furious that the players who were so deeply affected by it are being forced to go through this when there is nothing good that can come out of it.

 

[Top_Cat]

There are reports on the news here that his family are of the belief he was being targeted with short pitched bowling tactics.

Makes me ask, and what if he was? I mean, it's an entirely legit cricketing tactic to make a bloke who's looking comfortable sniff some more leather for a while. What if the NSW boys, knowing Hughes's history with the stuff at his leg-stump, decided at lunch that they'd up the short ball rate? Who's then responsible for what happened?

Not directed at you, of course, I'm just spit-balling here. It is a bit of a rabbit-hole, though.

 

[Midwinter]

Thanks to Burgey for providing the background and context on why and how inquests are held and what they seek to achieve. It's helping to keep this thread on track.

 

[Burgey]

what is the inquest looking at exactly?

From a cricketing standpoint, everybody uses the same type of helmet he had back then and the injury was literally a freak. Didn't the doctor say a 1in 100 chance of it happening?

Or are their questions into the medical procedures and speed of response that followed?

Yeah it's mostly the latter I believe. NSWCA and SCG staff taking the stand today.

 

[Burgey]

This inquest is morally repugnant. Players should be allowed to sue the state for mental harassment. This is a sport. Millions upon millions of hours of cricket is played every year. Deaths are vanishingly few and it is inevitable with a sufficiently ginormous sample size. ****s should ban driving if they are enacting this circus anyways.

Edit: Ignore this. Just furious that the players who were so deeply affected by it are being forced to go through this when there is nothing good that can come out of it.

Look, I'm not saying your priorities are skewed, but a bloke died. That takes precedence over a sport and over people feeling harassed.

Besides, judicial officers rightly have immunity from suit in the carrying out of their duties, and barristers have immunity from suit for their actions in court.

I do understand and also share to some extent your frustration at this though. It's a gut wrenching spectacle to watch and must be many times worse to go through.

 

[Burgey]

Makes me ask, and what if he was? I mean, it's an entirely legit cricketing tactic to make a bloke who's looking comfortable sniff some more leather for a while. What if the NSW boys, knowing Hughes's history with the stuff at his leg-stump, decided at lunch that they'd up the short ball rate? Who's then responsible for what happened?

Not directed at you, of course, I'm just spit-balling here. It is a bit of a rabbit-hole, though.

Yeah, don't disagree with any of that.

 

[91Jmay]

Phil Hughes was targeted with the short ball because it was a legitimate tactic in dismissing him as his career to date had shown.

The questions are disgusting, could easily have made safety recommendations without this witch hunt, no doubt done by fame hungry lawyers.

 

[Burgey]

It's not a witch hunt ffs.

It's an investigation into what happened to try and see what can be done to improve safety and improve responses to on-field injuries.

A bloke DIED ffs. How and why that happened and what can be done to try to ensure it doesn't happen again is more important than whether someone gets shaken up by questions asked of them which they might find hurtful or offensive. What's more, if the Coroner thought any of the questions asked of the players were along lines which could lead to some level of criminal or civil responsibility for the death being laid at their feet, they have to issue a warning and then provide a certificate to the witness that their evidence won't be used to prosecute them or used against them in later proceedings.

No such warning was given, and if the coroner had even a sliver of thought that there might be something self-incriminating about to be said, they would always err on the side of giving the warning.

The inquest was most likely established by the Coroner at the request of the Hughes family. The Coroner isn't a fame hungry lawyer, they're a magistrate, in fact any magistrate has the power to act as coroner. It's part of their job, and not a fun part.

 

[91Jmay]

Shutting down any critique of your sacrosanct legal system by reminding us that someone died like you're the only person who remembers is beneath you. Someone dying, whilst absolutely tragic and probably the most I've personally been impacted by a non personal death, is assumed risk when you consensually play a dangerous sport. I also didn't accuse his Holiness the Coroner of being fame hungry I accused the 'prosecuting' (or so it would seem) barrister Greg Melvin. Just because they might be legally fine with their questions doesn't make them morally fine and is certainly doesn't mean they are above critique.

 

[Athlai]

It's not a witch hunt ffs.

It's an investigation into what happened to try and see what can be done to improve safety and improve responses to on-field injuries.

A bloke DIED ffs. How and why that happened and what can be done to try to ensure it doesn't happen again is more important than whether someone gets shaken up by questions asked of them which they might find hurtful or offensive. What's more, if the Coroner thought any of the questions asked of the players were along lines which could lead to some level of criminal or civil responsibility for the death being laid at their feet, they have to issue a warning and then provide a certificate to the witness that their evidence won't be used to prosecute them or used against them in later proceedings.

No such warning was given, and if the coroner had even a sliver of thought that there might be something self-incriminating about to be said, they would always err on the side of giving the warning.

The inquest was most likely established by the Coroner at the request of the Hughes family. The Coroner isn't a fame hungry lawyer, they're a magistrate, in fact any magistrate has the power to act as coroner. It's part of their job, and not a fun part.

Yeah this.

I think as fans of cricket we can get a little defensive on aspects of the game such as short pitched bowling. Theres every reason it should be questioned. I personally believe that upon receiving all the evidence they'll lean towards the tactic of short pitched bowling WAS used on Hughes by the bowlers and this a legitimate tactic of the sport that is statistically unlikely to cause serious harm. That Hughes was the victim of a freak accident and some recommendations or new requirements for kit may be made.

Cricket isn't sacred, questions should be asked.

 

[the big bambino]

They'll come to the conclusion everyone else has without the benefit of an inquest. Good for them. The only difference being the public were never **** enough to imply premeditation.

 

[Burgey]

91JMay called it a witch hunt. It isn't a witch hunt and, quite frankly, he's losing the plot here. Criticise the questions all you like, but you carry on like it's some sort of Stalinist show trial. It isn't ffs. There are times you have to ask questions of people which your skin crawls at asking. It doesn't mean you like it, but it's part of the job.

Everyone would like a gig where you don't have some matters which confront you or force you to do unpalatable stuff, but they get you in the end and you'll have to do it eventually. It's part of the job. I've been doing this 23 years now, and there's been maybe a handful of times when I've had to do it. But you can't pick the easy ones and pass on the tough stuff. That would make you the Indian Cricket Team of lawyers - comfortable at home in your own simple way, but not up for anything which poses a challenge to your own sensibilities and compass. Sometimes you've got to suck it up and do it, and if you can't or won't then you need to move on and get another job.

 

[the big bambino]

Look I did too but that was just a figure of speech. Should have used another description. You can do an unpalatable job and still be respected. In accepting the job they can also expect unpalatable criticism too. They're looking into a bloke's death. I'm guessing the point is to determine a cause and recommend subsequent actions. I'd expect they will get to protective equipment and, if practical, the level and speed of medical care.

Trouble is I can't see any recommendations along those lines coming from the type of questions asked of 4 players and 2 umpires. I think the type of question asked of so many people is a fair indication of what interests the inquest. So if you ask that many people about sledging and bowling tactics I can only assume they think its relevant to Hughes' death and can only lead to recommendations regarding on field banter and preparatory game plans. So I think the game should be concerned with the questions asked and fans rightly critical of subjecting players to what many would reasonably interpret at this stage involvement at least bcos of negligence..

 

[Burgey]

They're probably asking those questions on the instructions of the family though, who had heard second hand that certain comments had been made. But truly, if there were going to be serious suggestions made that there was some reckless indifference to Hughes' life (which is sufficient to ground a really, really serious charge) then there would have firstly been a lot more questioning about it, and secondly warnings given to the likes of Haddin and Dougeh.

 

[Spikey]

this was worth it just for the wonderful phrase "the Indian Cricket Team of lawyers"

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I look forward to the interrogation of Harmison and Flintoff for establishing the short ball tactic to Hughes.

 

[Spikey]

Harmison to be forced to play for Durham in 2nd Division