Phillip Hughes Inquest

[Burgey]

Yeah I think that's him

 

[SeamUp]

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.

There are crude comments on the cricket field. It has been going on for some time like you say.

Peter Heine said to an England batsman after hitting him with a bouncer that you must get up because I want to hit you again.
Lillee even did it to his own team mates in the nets. Bowled a bouncer to Kim Hughes. Lillee said sorry - sorry I didn't heat you in the head you curly headed ****.

It may make them sound ****** as human-beings but if we being honest it is all part of the theatre and contests and nothing said should be taken literally. Ever. I don't think we as fans are sick for wanting a heated contest within the laws of cricket.

Just want the Hughes family, Abbott, Bollinger, Haddin & all others involved to get through the week without any issues. Must be so tough.

 

[Burgey]

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

It appears from what Taufel has said, as noted above, that there weren't a great deal more bouncers than normal and that he was handling them quite easily at you can't blame his family for being upset and wanting to know what was happening on the field in the lead up to it all.

 

[Spikey]

I would have thought that if the Prince was smashing you all over the park, it was something of an unspoken rule that you should probably try some short stuff at him.

 

[Burgey]

Probably something you should do to everyone not called Ponting or Richards tbh.

 

[Adders]

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

It appears from what Taufel has said, as noted above, that there weren't a great deal more bouncers than normal and that he was handling them quite easily at you can't blame his family for being upset and wanting to know what was happening on the field in the lead up to it all.

My fullest sympathies are with the family and I can't begin to imagine what they have been through.........but that's the game of cricket. Players do get targeted like that, Hughes himself was in the '09 Ashes as soon as there was a sniff that he may have a weakness to the short stuff.

It doesn't sound like it was according to Taufels comments, but what if he was targeted?? Surely they can't find fault in it??

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I would have thought that if the Prince was smashing you all over the park, it was something of an unspoken rule that you should probably try some short stuff at him.

It was a widely used tactic all over the world against him as he at various times struggled with it. Not like the next time England tour Australia that Moeen Ali isn't going to get a lot of short stuff is it as we all know he has an issue with it or Broad. It happens and will continue to happen as a ploy to get them out. Nobody thinks it will lead to serious injury or death.

 

[mr_mister]

That makes it more tragic imo

 

[Burgey]

Haddin's testimony about the moments after Hughes was hit is gut wrenching.

 

[Red]

Haddin's testimony about the moments after Hughes was hit is gut wrenching.

Yeh. Awful stuff. And unnecessary for Haddin and the others to relive it IMO.

This inquest seems absurd. Regardless of who said what, or what the tactics were used, there was NEVER any intention to kill, or even hurt, Hughes. What actually happened to him was freak, medicos said it was only a matter of millimeters and he would've just had a headache. The whole thing seems sad, and I cant see what good will come out of it.

 

[BeeGee]

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

Yes. Hogan

As for the topic, there has to be an inquest, but at the end of the day it was a tragic freak accident that couldn't reasonably have been avoided. Apart from banning all bouncers, there is no fix that would have saved his life.

 

[Adders]

I get that there needs to be an inquest but I'm honestly struggling to see what good can come of it?

And from what I'm reading none of it is sitting well with me at all. I don't like that Bollinger is being questioned on whether he said "I'm going to kill you" Apparently he has vehemently denied it but why should he have to defend himself like that?? What if he had of said it?? Something that probably gets said on cricket fields all over the world every game.........everyone knows this so why is it being looked at by this panel and reported in the media?? I can only begin to imagine how this must make Bollinger feel after already going through the most harrowing of experiences.

Same goes for Brad Haddin having to deny as captain he was not in charge of a short pitched barrage on Hughes..........what if he was?? It is a legitimate tactic that everyone (including batsmen) accept is a big part of the game we love. Haddin just happened to be the poor **** in charge when a freak freak accident occurred. He should not have to defend himself or his teams tactics as being responsible for their mates death..........it's an appalling thing to put him through.

And they haven't even started on Sean Abbott yet, a young bloke we all have so much respect for. He must have worked so hard to get through this and move on with his life both personally and professionally and now he is going to have to go through it all again.

 

[Burgey]

Yes. Hogan

As for the topic, there has to be an inquest, but at the end of the day it was a tragic freak accident that couldn't reasonably have been avoided. Apart from banning all bouncers, there is no fix that would have saved his life.

Just read through that thread. What an opportunity it was to have him on the forum.

 

[Midwinter]

Not liking the look of this.

The questioning appears to be trying to establish intent to cause harm,( ie establish fault in a legal sense) which could then lead to criminal charges or a civil case for compensation to the victims family.

If that happens the body with the responsibilty for the competition may be liable and be sued (as they will have the money to pay)

The body responsible for the game may have a claim made against them for an unsafe workplace as well. (ie injury has occurred therefore it was unsafe)

Which may then lead to changes to the rules of the game to prevent anything similiar happening again.

And a possible increase in costs as insurers will require higher premiums to cover the potential costs of other compensation claims in the future.

I hope I am dreaming.

 

[the big bambino]

Yes. Hogan

As for the topic, there has to be an inquest, but at the end of the day it was a tragic freak accident that couldn't reasonably have been avoided. Apart from banning all bouncers, there is no fix that would have saved his life.

You see this is where I think the inquest is going. I thought the line of questions directed at Bollinger in particular to be deplorable conduct from the SC and possibly sinister. There is no relevance in getting anyone to admit they sledged the batsman except to establish premeditation and therefore intent. I'm not sure what the powers of the inquest are but I think the SC is on a glory hunt and is seeking a legal scalp. Turning an accidental tragedy into a witch hunt that will affect the lives of innocent players and place an obligation on the administrators to outlaw the bouncer and damage the game as a contest.

EDIT: What midwinter said.

 

[Dan]

It popped up on Channel 9 news coverage last night and the tone was horrible, in terms of implying that there were questions to be answered about whether there was intent to kill Hughes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It popped up on Channel 9 news coverage last night and the tone was horrible, in terms of implying that there were questions to be answered about whether there was intent to kill Hughes.

The media can be absolutely heartless ****s. Do anything to make a story more interesting.

I get that there needs to be an inquest but I'm honestly struggling to see what good can come of it?

That's life. 95% of inquests or even M&M conference topics into patient deaths are initiated with the thorough knowledge of everyone involved that there will almost certainly be no benefit or change to come of it, but it has to be done when necessary for accountability reasons and to satisfy family members etc

 

[Midwinter]

The bit I saw on the news was disgraceful.

Sadly it only reinforces prejudices about the legal system and the media and the use of the media by those in the legal system.

 

[BeeGee]

You see this is where I think the inquest is going. I thought the line of questions directed at Bollinger in particular to be deplorable conduct from the SC and possibly sinister. There is no relevance in getting anyone to admit they sledged the batsman except to establish premeditation and therefore intent. I'm not sure what the powers of the inquest are but I think the SC is on a glory hunt and is seeking a legal scalp. Turning an accidental tragedy into a witch hunt that will affect the lives of innocent players and place an obligation on the administrators to outlaw the bouncer and damage the game as a contest.

EDIT: What midwinter said.

That would be a ridiculous overreaction. Comparatively, cricket is one of the safer sports. If they ban bouncers in cricket on safety grounds then they should also ban boxing, turn rugby into a non-contact sport, reduce the slope of downhill ski events and impose an engine size limit of 1000cc on Bathurst.

 

[Burgey]

You see this is where I think the inquest is going. I thought the line of questions directed at Bollinger in particular to be deplorable conduct from the SC and possibly sinister. There is no relevance in getting anyone to admit they sledged the batsman except to establish premeditation and therefore intent. I'm not sure what the powers of the inquest are but I think the SC is on a glory hunt and is seeking a legal scalp. Turning an accidental tragedy into a witch hunt that will affect the lives of innocent players and place an obligation on the administrators to outlaw the bouncer and damage the game as a contest.

EDIT: What midwinter said.

It's irrelevant anyway because Bollinger didn't kill him