So the reality isn't that rare, more about luck of the blow fractured skull depression etc.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/30377213
As I've said, in other sports they've done stuff to alleviate matters, made players change behaviour & risk taking, not added more 'protective aids'. They removed the grey areas so as to vastly lessen injury, all this talk about it being part of the game, so was smashing your opposite number in rugby league, pile drives, shoulder charges, virtually nothing was off the agenda, a good stiff arm or even elbow was overlooked. And yet in one of the toughest sports on the planet they saw sense..why can't cricket.. because it's part of the game...idiots
In a study published last year, researchers at Loughborough and Cardiff Metropolitan universities analysed 35 videos of first-class cricketers being injured despite wearing helmets.
Most involved being hit on the faceguard or peak, or when the ball got through the gap between them. These mostly caused cuts, fractures and contusions.
But six (17%) of the injuries resulted from the ball hitting the back of the helmet's shell and two (6%) the unprotected neck or occiput (lower left- or right-side region of the back of the skull). The study said impacts in these areas were more likely to result in concussions. This seemed to corroborate findings from US studies into baseball impacts on batters' heads.
Prevention might be improved by "extending the shell of the helmet to cover the entire occipital region", the study recommended.
"We should design helmets as strong as technology allows," says Antonio Belli, professor of trauma neurosurgery at Birmingham University. "But we need to accept that in cricket and other sports that involve hard objects or bodily contact there will always be freak accidents. I would put what happened to Philip Hughes into that category.
"For the number of hours played in cricket, it's actually considered a safe sport in terms of concussion."
Cricket simply isn't particularly dangerous, certainly not in terms of head injuries. There is no reason to change the law to prevent something that is very rare. Or maybe we should all play touch rugby, with a sponge ball. And cricket should have a sponge ball and a foam bat?
In rugby, and other contact sports there is a continuum of injuries sustained, with some statistical variation - the target for the rules in these sports is to shift those injuries into the "acceptable", and make sure that the life changing injuries are well outside the bounds of normality
They still happen, but they are rare, because the aim for rules is to limit the opportunity for these events. Rugby hasn't decided that you can't tackle from a standing position, the game continues despite freak occurrences.