Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

[jawaka]

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

[squeaker]

'Risk' by John Adams. Well worth a read

[bikepacker]

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.

[ferdinand]

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]

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.

[pjclinch]

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.

[Si]

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]

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 ) 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 ]

[Tonyf33]

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]

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?

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.

[RonK]

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.

[irc]

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?

[Si]

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 ) 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]

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]

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.