I can't get behind the line of thought that "it's not the bowler's fault, he didn't know it would happen". It's obvious that if Sean Abbot knew that the bouncer he was about to bowl would have caused this, he would have bowled a half volley in the off-side. But it seems ludicrous to say that a pace bowler doesn't intend to hurt a batsman when bowling a bouncer, he only intends to intimidate the batsman. The reason it intimidates the batsman is because the bowler is reminding him that he can hurt him, and so a bowler who bowls a bouncer must accept that they're taking a risk when bowling a bouncer. Thus surely a bowler must accept a degree of responsibility when it does go wrong like this? I don't want to sound harsh, and I'm sure Sean Abbot didn't want this to happen (who would?), but bowlers need to accept the dangers of bowling bouncers.
However, to then say that we shouldn't bowl bouncers at all seems to be an over reaction. Of course the equipment companies should always be looking for new ways of protecting the players, but it will probably never be perfect. Equally the bouncer should not be totally taken out, but do England really have to bowl bouncers at tailenders (or equally bowlers bowling them at Jimmy Anderson) for example, when the risks are most obviously higher when bowling them at tail enders? I remember reading about a match in the 70s between England and Pakistan. A Pakistani nightwatchman stuck around for a long time, defending everything. Eventually Bob Willis bowled a bouncer, injuring him and causing controversy. Eventually the TCCB made the sides give a list of unrecognised batsmen who the opposition weren't to bowl bouncers at. Whilst this wouldn't have helped Hughes, it would surely be a good next step to dealing with these dangers?
