-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Phillip Hughes Inquest
- Thread starter Burgey
- Start date
After watching about half of the games televised in the recent one day series, I heard only one comment which referred to Phil Hughes being hit.
Ian Chappell was commenting on the preliminary final. He made a comment after Nick Maddinson played a pull shot off the front foot.
He said that particular way of playing that shot was due to poor technique. The batsman should be playing off the back foot, which would also result in the head inside the line of the ball. The batsman would have more chance to move their head out of the way of the ball if they thought it might hit them, ( I think he meant by turning or tilting it)
The shot played by Maddinson was replayed, and it showed the ball was in line with the batsman's face.
He then made an analogy of having a ball thrown at you if you were behind some sort of transparent fence.
If it is thrown directly at your face you would flinch and take your eyes off the ball in doing so.
If the ball was thrown at your face but slightly off centre you would move your head to avoid it but would still watch the ball.
This was from someone who had played cricket without a helmet and also played baseball to high standard.
Ian Chappell was commenting on the preliminary final. He made a comment after Nick Maddinson played a pull shot off the front foot.
He said that particular way of playing that shot was due to poor technique. The batsman should be playing off the back foot, which would also result in the head inside the line of the ball. The batsman would have more chance to move their head out of the way of the ball if they thought it might hit them, ( I think he meant by turning or tilting it)
The shot played by Maddinson was replayed, and it showed the ball was in line with the batsman's face.
He then made an analogy of having a ball thrown at you if you were behind some sort of transparent fence.
If it is thrown directly at your face you would flinch and take your eyes off the ball in doing so.
If the ball was thrown at your face but slightly off centre you would move your head to avoid it but would still watch the ball.
This was from someone who had played cricket without a helmet and also played baseball to high standard.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
He makes a very valid point. A lot of players pull and hook off the front foot these days, and I suspect that is due to helmets. About the only bloke I saw do it before them was Viv.
I do think, though, that you can play the pull shot pretty well without your head being outside the line of the ball, but not the hook shot so much. I know it's a bit of a nit pick, but if you're copping chest high balls on or outside off it's slightly different to a head high bouncer in terms of where you place your head and how you transfer your weight. Having said that, I'm a cricketing nobody and he was a test match number three, so if in doubt, probably run with what he says, not me!
I do think, though, that you can play the pull shot pretty well without your head being outside the line of the ball, but not the hook shot so much. I know it's a bit of a nit pick, but if you're copping chest high balls on or outside off it's slightly different to a head high bouncer in terms of where you place your head and how you transfer your weight. Having said that, I'm a cricketing nobody and he was a test match number three, so if in doubt, probably run with what he says, not me!
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah... I can understand the discussion about playing bouncers better, esp. for test match batsmen which is what Hughes was but given the lower levels of protective equipment at club and school/university level cricket, and the fact that it is basically the same ball and bowlers will be allowed to bowl bouncers, there is a lot of reason to research on improving the safety equiptment for batsmen like Kimber said. The Mallet piece just sticks out like a sore thumb given the timing of it. Thank God Chappelli has not written a piece yet on the same subject.
cnerd123
likes this
Yea tbf the issue here isn't what he is saying -it is true that modern batsmen don't play the short ball optimally- but the fact that him and Chappell and the like are saying all this with an air of 'Oh back in my day...', thus giving the impression that they are using this tragedy and the inquest as a means of bigging up themselves and to relive their past heroics rather than actually trying to contribute to the discussion at hand
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I haven't read the Mallett comments because if he isn't talking about spin bowling I don't want to know what he has to say, but having heard Chappell talk about the way modern batsmen play the short ball in the past, I don't think he's tried to big-up himself (he doesn't have to anyway tbh, his record is pretty fantastic, especially once he became captain). I think he's just making a point about the changes in techniques since helmets came along. I think it's a valid point. I don't even know if he' saying the don't play it optimally, rather that from a safety POV it's not great. From a run scoring POV I would reckon the way modern blokes take on the short ball would be more productive than ever.
Likewise, if you look at clips of the pre-helmet days, batsmen stayed on the back foot A LOT more than they do now. You see blokes like Chappell, Sobers, Boycott and Walters to name just a few from their era, and they're almost on the crease to balls which blokes are way forward to now. That may just as likely be a product of playing the ball later and not committing to the front or back dog too early in those days as opposed to now when blokes seem to just pick the line and hit through it earlier, or it may also be part of the evolution of batting in the era of the helmet. Either way, it's a noticeable change imo.
Likewise, if you look at clips of the pre-helmet days, batsmen stayed on the back foot A LOT more than they do now. You see blokes like Chappell, Sobers, Boycott and Walters to name just a few from their era, and they're almost on the crease to balls which blokes are way forward to now. That may just as likely be a product of playing the ball later and not committing to the front or back dog too early in those days as opposed to now when blokes seem to just pick the line and hit through it earlier, or it may also be part of the evolution of batting in the era of the helmet. Either way, it's a noticeable change imo.
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yup and that's why what Mallett et al is saying is pointless ultimately. Noone's going to go back to playing deep in the crease like they did because playing the pull opens up your scoring options which, y'know, you need if you want a T20 or OD gig these days. Players are clearly interested only in doing it more too because many have made other, for example, backlift changes to make it even easier to spray a quick anywhere over square-leg or wide mid. It ain't going away, especially since Hughes getting hit was a freak event and guys in general getting hit is still rare so the logical step is to keep improving helmet tech.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sad and violent death; shows inherent dangers of the game. Inadequate procedures for summoning ambulances; even new protective equipment would not have saved him. Was targeted by short pitched bowling but tried to play it rather than duck; claims there was no sledging are hard to believe.
No failure to enforce rules which led to death.
Even if sledged, nothing about it contributed to his ability to play the short ball
No suggestion ball bowled with any malice
Recommends CA work with manufacturers to make better neck protection
Recommends umpires be given better guidance re bowling rule (presumably short pitched bowling)
Recommends CA give umpires and ground officials better guidelines re summoning medical assistance
Finds death a "tragic accident".
Neither Sean Abbott nor anyone else is to blame for the death.
No failure to enforce rules which led to death.
Even if sledged, nothing about it contributed to his ability to play the short ball
No suggestion ball bowled with any malice
Recommends CA work with manufacturers to make better neck protection
Recommends umpires be given better guidance re bowling rule (presumably short pitched bowling)
Recommends CA give umpires and ground officials better guidelines re summoning medical assistance
Finds death a "tragic accident".
Neither Sean Abbott nor anyone else is to blame for the death.
Last edited:
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Compliance with rules makes game safer but not risk proof. Such was his skill he tried to make runs from the ball, but a slight misjudgment led to him missing it and being struck a fatal blow.
Ok, so pretty much as expected. Recommendations about having medical assistance close by or summoning it better to grounds, and try to develop neck protection with manufacturers.
With regards tot issues surrounding bouncers, the current rules I think have it right. It's in the umpires' discretion to say if someone is bowling dangerously, and that has to be a subjective matter which includes the pitch, light, pace of the bowler and the relative skill of the batsman.
Ok, so pretty much as expected. Recommendations about having medical assistance close by or summoning it better to grounds, and try to develop neck protection with manufacturers.
With regards tot issues surrounding bouncers, the current rules I think have it right. It's in the umpires' discretion to say if someone is bowling dangerously, and that has to be a subjective matter which includes the pitch, light, pace of the bowler and the relative skill of the batsman.
Last edited:
adub
International Captain
Violent is such an inappropriate word. He copped a bit of chin music, but it was ****ing Abbott FFS. He'd have copped scarier stuff in the Pratten Park nets from Starceh.
He was playing the game he loved. The game includes a threat of physical injury that all participants are aware of and accept. It makes the game what it is. Sledging is neither here nor there, it was a First Class match that Hughes was one of the most accomplished and experienced participants in. He'd have again copped far worse and probably happily participated. It's the game.
Freak and unfortunate accident. He was dead before he hit the ground. The ambos would have had to carry him off on a stretcher as Abbott was in his delivery stride to save him sadly. Have a look at helmet design and move on.
He was playing the game he loved. The game includes a threat of physical injury that all participants are aware of and accept. It makes the game what it is. Sledging is neither here nor there, it was a First Class match that Hughes was one of the most accomplished and experienced participants in. He'd have again copped far worse and probably happily participated. It's the game.
Freak and unfortunate accident. He was dead before he hit the ground. The ambos would have had to carry him off on a stretcher as Abbott was in his delivery stride to save him sadly. Have a look at helmet design and move on.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Being struck by something which kills you is a violent death. A rock falling off a cliff and hitting oyu in the head which kills you is a violent death. The violence is in the trauma of the blow, not in the act which precipitates the striking.
I've faced blokes who bowl at Abbott's pace, and plenty who bowl slower. I can tell you that when the ball hits you it feels plenty ****ing violent.
I've faced blokes who bowl at Abbott's pace, and plenty who bowl slower. I can tell you that when the ball hits you it feels plenty ****ing violent.
Last edited:
adub
International Captain
In a medical context trauma is the more appropriate word. Violence implies an intent to injure. Pretty hard to pin that motive on any bowler in a game. There is a legitimate cricket reason for short pitched bowling, the intent to injure isn't really part of it even despite "get ready for a broken ****ing arm".
And yes I've been hit by plenty of guys way slower than Abbott and it's ****ing hurt. But even against quicks banging it in I've never felt I was being subjected to violence. The ****s were trying to get me out, and if I wasn't good enough to play it or get out of the way then that was on me. Obviously you've played at a higher level than I have, but I'd be surprised if you'd experienced anything different. The bowler might be trying to put the wind up you and have you thinking about getting hit rather than hitting the ball, but your wicket is the goal.
I wouldn't want to get hung up on linguistic pedantry over such a shocking and painful incident for all cricket followers, but Hughes' death was traumatic (in both the medical and psychological senses) not violent.
And yes I've been hit by plenty of guys way slower than Abbott and it's ****ing hurt. But even against quicks banging it in I've never felt I was being subjected to violence. The ****s were trying to get me out, and if I wasn't good enough to play it or get out of the way then that was on me. Obviously you've played at a higher level than I have, but I'd be surprised if you'd experienced anything different. The bowler might be trying to put the wind up you and have you thinking about getting hit rather than hitting the ball, but your wicket is the goal.
I wouldn't want to get hung up on linguistic pedantry over such a shocking and painful incident for all cricket followers, but Hughes' death was traumatic (in both the medical and psychological senses) not violent.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Mate, I loke you and enjoy your posting, notwithstanding the Herath being TPC nonsense.
But you can't get into an argument over semantics on this with a coroner. The language he's used is perfectly appropriate for the circumstances of Hughes' death in the context within which he used them (the inquest). Like you said, best not to get into it all, it's sad enough either way.
But you can't get into an argument over semantics on this with a coroner. The language he's used is perfectly appropriate for the circumstances of Hughes' death in the context within which he used them (the inquest). Like you said, best not to get into it all, it's sad enough either way.
