Cycling UK Forum

thirdcrank wrote:My main point was that the conventions / instincts / whatever, which deter somebody from targeting the human head with a cricket ball are diminished if that head is protected with a helmet. I don't know what the current rules are about fielders wearing them as it's a long time since I watched any, but a fielder in a helmet might have fewer concerns about being close enough to the bat to risk being hit by it rather than the ball.

Reminds me of my friend at school.

He was knocked out while wicket-keeping (before anyone wore helmets, at least I don't remember seeing one in those days - mid 70s). A ball was bowled, the lad batting took a mighty swing back to hit the oncoming ball. As he did so he lost his grip on the bat which flew back over the wicket & hit my friend on the head!

The utility cyclist wrote:batsmen less skilled at high balls nowadays and get struck more often including death, classic risk compensation.
Helmet manufacturers have stated Phil Hughes death could not be prevented by ANY modern/improved helmet (he was wearing one), solution should be to ban bouncers {FFE - family-friendly edit }. I say this as an ex medium quick/
Gridiron had deaths and they brought in helmets, consequence, more TBIs and even more deaths, suicides, early onset dementia etc, boxing, more tbi cases, helmets are NEVER EVER THE ANSWER!

Are there stats on this?

I haven't looked tbh but I've watched the sport a fair bit since the very early 80s played a couple of seasons in the North at a reasonably competitive std and two more in the South.
So anecdotal observations at all levels.
However just like nfl, just like cycling, just like boxing wearing helmets has had a negative effect on overall safety including to the head, the effects of risk homeostasis are very well documented and can be seen. You only have to look at the differences between rugby and gridiron (I've played both though gridiron briefly), rugby banned shoulder charges, have clamped down on head shots, have made penalising reckless tackles more so players have adapted what they do and take more responsibility.
In cricket the helmet clearly doesn't prevent death, in fact it's such a rare occurence even despite the reckless and deliberate targetting of the head that there are THREE incidents of death from a batter .dying after being struck by a ball, two in the helmet wearing era, one in 1870.
Wearing helmets was never the solution to something that was not a major problem before.

Thread resurrection alert

The Grauniad reports that several famous footballers have apparently suffered brain injury from heading balls
I think the thing is, they do so much training and practicing, thousands of impacts
Can anything be done? There is so much money in football. Would helmuts look silly?

As for cricket, I should not want to play that even with a helmut

I shall stick to cycling, aiming to make a million as the Laterne Rouge in the TdF

In soccer restrictions on heading by youngsters are already in place eg:

UK:
• Heading guidance in training for all age groups between under-six and under-18
• No heading in training in the foundation phase (primary school children)
• Graduated approach to heading training for children in the development phase between under-12 to under-16
• Required ball sizes for training and matches for each age group
• No changes to heading in matches, taking into consideration the limited number of headers in youth games
https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/feb/24/updated-heading-guidance-announcement-240220

USA:
• It (the mandate) prohibits players 10 years and younger from heading soccer balls. This means coaches aren’t allowed to teach them heading techniques.
• For children 11 to 13 years old, heading practice is limited to 30 minutes each week. The player can’t head a ball more than 15 to 20 times a week.
• The purpose of this law is to raise awareness about head injuries and protect younger players. It went into effect January 2016.
https://www.healthline.com/health/heading-in-soccer#minimizing-risk
and that does mention helmets.

We'll continue to learn more about how much damage is caused. I'm not expecting compulsory helmets. I'd put money on a ban but not for some time.

Jonathan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfTM1mMce40

PS. Footballers also cycling not wearing helmets. So definitely on topic.

Never seen that before.

Thanks

Jonathan

Also suggested by YouTube, cyclist not wearing helmet. Very definitely on topic. I'm off out on the bike now, I'll try some of these moves. But I'll probably leave my helmet on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D04tgM04I1A

https://twitter.com/marthakelner/status/1322899286376534022

It can be difficult or impossible to determine the cause in an individual. But public attention and campaigns often hinge on them.

Jonathan

Hi
In relation to footballers; many of us will have kicked a football around in the 1960s and 70s and can remember what a soggy, misshapen heavy lump a leather ball came within a very short time, and it stayed like that
The first synthetic stitched balls didn't appear until the 1960s and had massively reduced problems with getting soaked, and their weight and shape was better controlled because the materials used were more uniform
A modern Fifa-marked football is rigorously tested, and even the unlicensed IMS footballs are to those same standards. I don't know if the connection is a definite one, but modern footballs will be a lot easier on the noggin
Regards
tim-b

Modern footballers train much more and head the ball thousands of times

Stevek76 wrote:Reaction times I think. Helmet use was only recently made mandatory and it applies to the batsman, wicketkeeper (when standing up to the stumps) and some close fielders (the 'silly' ones that are in-front of the batsman). In those positions there is a chance that a funky ricochet from the bat can hit you before humanly possible reaction times have elapsed.

Slips and the bowler are the notable exceptions. For the slips it's near impossible for an unpredictable and unreactable ball to go in their direction and for the bowler it's likely because bowling with a helmet on would be impractical.

The mandatory seems excessive but most players in such places were already using helmets. Less out of a brain injury concern (though that has happened) and more out of the fact that a cricket ball to the face at speed really hurts!

I think there was some suggestion that high speed bowlers might be more willing to bowl a high ball to a batsman with a helmet on though.

If you get hit outside those places then you probably need to pay more attention and you'll probably catch some stick from team mates due to poor fielding/missed catches.

Tell that to Larwood or Fred.

tim-b wrote:Hi
In relation to footballers; many of us will have kicked a football around in the 1960s and 70s and can remember what a soggy, misshapen heavy lump a leather ball came within a very short time, and it stayed like that
The first synthetic stitched balls didn't appear until the 1960s and had massively reduced problems with getting soaked, and their weight and shape was better controlled because the materials used were more uniform
A modern Fifa-marked football is rigorously tested, and even the unlicensed IMS footballs are to those same standards. I don't know if the connection is a definite one, but modern footballs will be a lot easier on the noggin
Regards
tim-b

Interesting interview on R4 with (I believe) the widow of Jeff Astle this morning. Whilst lighter, modern balls also travel much faster, so the amount of energy they impart to the head is similar, if not greater to the old 'caseys' as we used to call them.

For anyone unsure about helmet wearing...Stott your head off a wall a few times,with and without a helmet....Then come on and convince me it makes no difference...(with pictures of the impact)

50sbiker wrote:For anyone unsure about helmet wearing...Stott your head off a wall a few times,with and without a helmet....Then come on and convince me it makes no difference...(with pictures of the impact)

I'll let someone else try the experiment, but I predict that it will make a difference. I imagine the presence of a helmet would make head-stotting much more comfortable, with a corresponding increase in the practice among helmet wearers.