Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
jawaka
Posts: 522
Joined: 6 Dec 2007, 2:46pm

Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby jawaka » 28 Nov 2014, 9:52am

I don't want to start a helmet debate but have done a quick search for cricketers' head injuries pre-helmet days. seems there were remarkably few. Geoff Boycott (some may think opiniated, but he does make a lot of good points) cites poor technique post helmet i.e. players taking their eye off the ball and turning away, presuming that the helmet will protect. I bet that a lot more players are hit on the helmet than were ever hit on the unhelmeted head. I am sure that I ride with a bit less care and feel just that bit less vulnerable when I'm wearing the helmet

User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 3589
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby squeaker » 28 Nov 2014, 9:58am

'Risk' by John Adams. Well worth a read :wink:
"42"

bikepacker
Posts: 2002
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby bikepacker » 28 Nov 2014, 11:24am

I was discussing this last night with a Worcestershire CC member who attends most 1st class games at New Road. He was of the same opinion as Mr Boycott, that batsman rely to much on the helmet and not enough on technique.
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".

ferdinand
Posts: 374
Joined: 31 Oct 2014, 6:59pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby ferdinand » 28 Nov 2014, 12:32pm

bikepacker wrote:I was discussing this last night with a Worcestershire CC member who attends most 1st class games at New Road. He was of the same opinion as Mr Boycott, that batsman rely to much on the helmet and not enough on technique.


At Worcestershire surely more drown than get hurt by bouncers?

Ferdinand

bikepacker
Posts: 2002
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby bikepacker » 28 Nov 2014, 3:44pm

ferdinand wrote:
bikepacker wrote:I was discussing this last night with a Worcestershire CC member who attends most 1st class games at New Road. He was of the same opinion as Mr Boycott, that batsman rely to much on the helmet and not enough on technique.


At Worcestershire surely more drown than get hurt by bouncers?

Ferdinand


About 50/50. :wink: :wink:
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby pjclinch » 28 Nov 2014, 3:59pm

Boycott in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/australia/11256608/Phil-Hughes-injury-Helmets-have-made-batsmen-feel-impregnable.html

"Injury to Phillip Hughes is a sad reminder of the danger inherent in playing cricket, even if protection is worn. Helmets have taken away a lot of fear and give batsmen a false sense of security. They feel safe and people will now attempt to either pull or hook almost every short ball that is bowled"

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15083
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Si » 28 Nov 2014, 4:00pm

You also have to wonder if fast bowlers are now more likely to bowl bouncers (especially at tail enders (which I know that Phil Huighes wasn't)) given that in theory the helmet allows them to put the wind up the batsman without actually harming them (because as we know helmets can save you from anything from wasp stings to thermal nuclear destruction).

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Tonyf33 » 29 Nov 2014, 5:27am

Terribly sad Hughes dying but incredibly rare, they were showing the newer 2014 helmets would have given Hughes a little more protection around the side of the head than the current one and counties have now being ordering them in a typical knee-jerk reaction. I played for a couple of seasons in my college days in the mid 80s, medium fast and a close in specialist fielder (or wherever tbh I loved fielding :D ) a few of the younger up and coming batsmen wore helmets, I never did, the only protection was a cup (if I could be bothered) and pads/gloves. I had a few bouncers batting at 8-11 but at the pace at our level weren't much faster than 75-80mph I would have thought.

It seems to me that close in fielders are 'braver' than ever because they can wear helmets/shin pads, similarly to what 'boycs' said players are wafting at everything but losing the skill factor and good judgement too with the helmet as the coverall for a mistake.

The other thing that annoyed me was hearing that fast bowlers (Hoggard I think it was) say they never ever bowled to hurt a batsman, just to intimidate..[ that is not credible ] :evil:

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Tonyf33 » 29 Nov 2014, 5:34am

Si wrote:You also have to wonder if fast bowlers are now more likely to bowl bouncers (especially at tail enders (which I know that Phil Huighes wasn't)) given that in theory the helmet allows them to put the wind up the batsman without actually harming them (because as we know helmets can save you from anything from wasp stings to thermal nuclear destruction).


Bowlers are allowed 2 bouncers per over currently though they did try with one per over per player back in 1991, it went back to two per over in 1994. It was down to the umps to decide how much was too much but now it's all set in stone.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Vorpal » 29 Nov 2014, 8:02am

I have to admit that when I saw the news report the first two things that came to mind were...

1) was there any risk compensation involved?
jawaka wrote:I don't want to start a helmet debate but have done a quick search for cricketers' head injuries pre-helmet days. seems there were remarkably few. Geoff Boycott (some may think opiniated, but he does make a lot of good points) cites poor technique post helmet i.e. players taking their eye off the ball and turning away, presuming that the helmet will protect.
I heard that as well, and even if it just opinion, I would think that it is worth investigating. I doubt they will, though. Everyone seems to assume that the problem is the helmet didn't off enough protection, rather than too much.

2) if the injury might not have been partially caused, or at least made worse by the helmet

Did the edge of the helmet 'catch' the ball? Might the ball have deflected and perhaps done less harm if the helmet hadn't been there?

RIP Phil Hughes.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

RonK
Posts: 190
Joined: 17 Sep 2011, 1:56pm

Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby RonK » 29 Nov 2014, 9:22am

Vorpal wrote:Did the edge of the helmet 'catch' the ball? Might the ball have deflected and perhaps done less harm if the helmet hadn't been there?

Phil Hughes played only one bouncer in his final innings - the one that struck him behind the ear when he turned his back trying to avoid the ball. All the others he left.

The incident has been shown repeatedly here and it's pretty clear that even the slightly greater coverage of the newer helmet would not have protected him.

According to his surgeon, the impact ruptured an artery which caused a massive bleed into Hughes brain. He had no chance of survival really. The surgeon also mentioned that there were only around 100 known cases of this injury.

In 40 years of watching Australian cricket, I cannot recall another death from a batsman being hit on the head. I think there may have been one in a club match caused when a batsman was hit on the heart and had a heart attack.

The worst injury I can recall was when Rick McCosker had his jaw broken by a Bob Willis bouncer in the 1977 Centenary Test. It was this incident that prompted Tony Greig to pioneer the use of helmets.
The theory is simple: a) cycling is inherently fun, and b) the less weight you carry, the more fun it is.

Tour Journals, Articles and Blog: Whispering Wheels

irc
Posts: 4673
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby irc » 29 Nov 2014, 12:44pm

Tonyf33 wrote:
Si wrote:You also have to wonder if fast bowlers are now more likely to bowl bouncers (especially at tail enders (which I know that Phil Huighes wasn't)) given that in theory the helmet allows them to put the wind up the batsman without actually harming them (because as we know helmets can save you from anything from wasp stings to thermal nuclear destruction).


Bowlers are allowed 2 bouncers per over currently though they did try with one per over per player back in 1991, it went back to two per over in 1994. It was down to the umps to decide how much was too much but now it's all set in stone.


As someone who knows naff all about cricket can someone explain to me why, when the object is to hit 3ft high stumps any head high balls are allowed?

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15083
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Si » 29 Nov 2014, 1:24pm

irc wrote:
Tonyf33 wrote:
Si wrote:You also have to wonder if fast bowlers are now more likely to bowl bouncers (especially at tail enders (which I know that Phil Huighes wasn't)) given that in theory the helmet allows them to put the wind up the batsman without actually harming them (because as we know helmets can save you from anything from wasp stings to thermal nuclear destruction).


Bowlers are allowed 2 bouncers per over currently though they did try with one per over per player back in 1991, it went back to two per over in 1994. It was down to the umps to decide how much was too much but now it's all set in stone.


As someone who knows naff all about cricket can someone explain to me why, when the object is to hit 3ft high stumps any head high balls are allowed?


the point that I was making was not about the rules but about the bowler being more likely to bowl bouncers if they thought the batsmen were protected, and specifically more likely to bowl at those non-specialist batsmen (the tail enders) who were least likely to be get out of the way. Which I hopefully shouldn't have to explain (but will anyway :lol: ) has parallels with how drivers treat cyclists - if they think that they are protected by h*lm*ts then they may be inclined to treat them with less care.

As for the cricketing question: bouncers can unnerve batsmen and thus make it more likely that the next ball will bowl them, if a batsman trys to fend off a bouncer then there is a chance that they will nick or glove it to a fielder and be caught out, and a bouncer may lure a batsman into hooking - if they don't make the boundary and you've a fielder out there then you've a good chance of a caught out.

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Thermostat9 » 29 Nov 2014, 2:08pm

There was a piece on Channel 4 News after he had been hit and before he died where they touched on the idea that people might take greater risk (be they batters or bowlers).

JamesE
Posts: 417
Joined: 12 Feb 2013, 1:12am
Location: London

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby JamesE » 29 Nov 2014, 3:34pm

RonK wrote:Phil Hughes played only one bouncer in his final innings - the one that struck him behind the ear when he turned his back trying to avoid the ball. All the others he left.

I don't think Hughes turned his back on the ball, did he? As I understand it he tried to hook but it was a slow-ball bouncer so he was through the shot too soon. (Might be wrong: I haven't watched video of the incident and don't want to). Slow-ball bouncers are another confounding factor, having originated in T20 cricket and recently coming in to the longer versions of the game - the flight of slow balls being notoriously hard to judge.

In the absence of firm stats I'm not convinced there's been a rise in head injuries since the introduction of helmets - Ewen Chatfield, David Hookes, Nari Contractor, Bert Oldfield, just for starters - but helmets have legitimised bowling bouncers at tailenders who may be poorly equipped to deal with them. Meanwhile, Hughes' own injury was an incredibly rare one - he was hit on the side of the neck hard enough to burst an artery. You could design a helmet to protect against that, I imagine, but it would be useless 99.9999999% of the time and the extra weight and limited mobility might bring its own dangers.