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.
Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Steady rider » 5 Dec 2014, 6:22pm

If all players did not wear helmets would they be more likely to change the rules or do something else to improve safety?

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Dec 2014, 6:44pm

Steady rider wrote:If all players did not wear helmets would they be more likely to change the rules or do something else to improve safety?

I don't know that they'd need to; 46.2 would come under different interpretation...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

reohn2
Posts: 37928
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby reohn2 » 5 Dec 2014, 7:18pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:42.6 leaves the jjudgement with the umpire. A top batsman is considered capable of facing some short stuff.

This wasn't a fast ball, it wasn't a particularly dangerous ball, it was an exceptionally unlucky result...


If that's what a medium(?) paced ball is capable of,albeit unlucky(?) regarding target area,I'm left wondering what a fast bouncer is capable of resulting in.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Dec 2014, 8:04pm

generally even a fast bouncer results in a duck or a sway, sometimes a 4 or a 6.

Occasionally they bounce of the helmet or bruise the body. Very occasionally they'll break a finger or a larger bone.

A Yorker, well bowled, is called a toe crusher for a reason.

Remember that this has happened from a normally pitched off spin (properly slow) which had bounced off a glove (taking even more pace off) - there is no need for an irrational kneejerk against either pace or pitch - fortunately there isn't one from the ICC
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Steady rider » 5 Dec 2014, 8:38pm

I think a cricket ball is about 160 grams, moving at about 135 km/hr in the case of Phil Hughes, 'g' force on impact possibly 1000, mass x accel = 0.16 x 1000 x 9.81 = 1450 N, about similar to a load of 150 kg to a small area of the body.

Tennis ball weight about 60 grams,

Designing a cricket ball for 100 grams, giving a load of about 100 kg, but the ball would deform more, so the 1000 g would probably be about 600 g, 0.1 x 9.81 x 600 = say 600 N, less than half the load on impact.

Lighter softer ball and 10 inch wide stumps would be one option, probably 4 to 5 times safer.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Dec 2014, 10:41pm

And no longer cricket.

The sport isn't sufficiently dangerous to warrant wholescale changes.

This is a single incident, not particularly similar to the mere handfull of similiar events over many previous decades...

There is nothing to suggest any specific piece of play is dangerous, fielding silly point, facing medium pace, facing spin...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Steady rider » 6 Dec 2014, 9:33am

I could agree or even disagree, your point of view is essentially valid, but http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/ ... /haz08.pdf

Table 3 has some data.

What is the point of using a hard ball that may occasionally cause injury when a softer ball could be used. In the old days cricketers may have seen a need for a hard ball, so that it lasts so many overs, today technology may be able to provide a softer ball that lasts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8134885.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... -ball.html

I would try out the wider stump at 10 inch to focus balling at the wicket and not the player, and try out a softer ball.

Even cricket should not be set in stone.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Si » 6 Dec 2014, 12:28pm

reohn2 wrote:
And can you prove that a fast bowler bowling a bouncer is trying to damage/disable a batsman any more than a rugby player going in for a hard tackle is? The bowler might well be trying to shake up the batsman or give him a bruise...but that sort of thing is acceptable in many sports, and doesn't mean he's trying to inflict real damage.

I watched the video up thread and have seen other examples(I'm not a cricket fan TBH) the ball is pitched short to bounce at the upper body and head,so let's stop being silly when the aim is apparent to all and sundry :?


I notice that you have neatly dodged the question there. So, I'll ask again - do you really believe that the bowler was trying to inflict real damage? Or was he just, at worst, trying to shake the batsman up just as a hard but legal tackle in rugby might be intended to shake the tackled player up but not actually seriously damage him.

reohn2
Posts: 37928
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby reohn2 » 6 Dec 2014, 12:43pm

Si wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
And can you prove that a fast bowler bowling a bouncer is trying to damage/disable a batsman any more than a rugby player going in for a hard tackle is? The bowler might well be trying to shake up the batsman or give him a bruise...but that sort of thing is acceptable in many sports, and doesn't mean he's trying to inflict real damage.

I watched the video up thread and have seen other examples(I'm not a cricket fan TBH) the ball is pitched short to bounce at the upper body and head,so let's stop being silly when the aim is apparent to all and sundry :?


I notice that you have neatly dodged the question there. So, I'll ask again - do you really believe that the bowler was trying to inflict real damage? Or was he just, at worst, trying to shake the batsman up just as a hard but legal tackle in rugby might be intended to shake the tackled player up but not actually seriously damage him.

I don't think I dodged anything.
Tackling in rugby has been covered by Tonyf33 far better than I ever could and with which I agree with.
I believe any ball aimed at the batsman's upper body or head is dangerous.

FWIW,I have a grandson aged 6 who plays rugby league and is coached how to tackle as safely as possible.
I'd struggle to see who he could be coached to handle bouncers as safely in cricket.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

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

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Tonyf33 » 6 Dec 2014, 2:36pm

Si wrote:
reohn2 wrote:
And can you prove that a fast bowler bowling a bouncer is trying to damage/disable a batsman any more than a rugby player going in for a hard tackle is? The bowler might well be trying to shake up the batsman or give him a bruise...but that sort of thing is acceptable in many sports, and doesn't mean he's trying to inflict real damage.

I watched the video up thread and have seen other examples(I'm not a cricket fan TBH) the ball is pitched short to bounce at the upper body and head,so let's stop being silly when the aim is apparent to all and sundry :?


I notice that you have neatly dodged the question there. So, I'll ask again - do you really believe that the bowler was trying to inflict real damage? Or was he just, at worst, trying to shake the batsman up just as a hard but legal tackle in rugby might be intended to shake the tackled player up but not actually seriously damage him.


I answered that question on the first page of the thread, the ex-Yorkshire cricketer Matthew Hoggard came out and stated "you bowl it to be intimidating, but you don't bowl it to try and hurt people", frankly that's a nonsense.

Firstly you have the act itself, a deliberate one of bowling at the head/around the head, knowing full well there is a good chance of hitting the batsmen's body in some way
Second, you repeat this tactic (through the captain and bowler/s) again & again, trying to trick the batsmen, either in missing his stroke or not getting out of the way sufficiently. Ergo the batsman may be hit directly or indirectly through a mistimed shot or the ball may slice off and hit him, this happens plenty, it's there to see & yet bowlers continue with the practise at the same player, even tailenders.
Thirdly, you have the psychological aspect, a bowler wants a batsman out, at pro level sport and being legal you don't care how. If you've hit the batsmen you've accomplished part of your job to get them out. If you hurt them, oh well, that's just tough. I've played cricket (albeit 20+ years ago), I've met a lot of players and first hand experience tells me this is true, watch any of the quicks over the last 30 odd years, it as Reohn2 says there for all to see.

Of course no-one would come out (at this delicate moment) and say they deliberately go out to hurt someone whilst bowling bouncers but yes they do, not to kill or maim but to harm both physiologically & psychologically (intimidation). Nobody bats an eyelid these days when a ball hits the helmet, it is accepted as 'part of the game', much less so for a rib or hand injury. It is this risk compensation because helmets are being worn that head/helmet strikes are hugely more common than before in everyday cricket. If the helmets were not there I would like to think the rule makers would look at least to limit the number of allowed bouncers and possibly restrict them for known 'bunny's' (oft refered to as 'rabbits' in lower order batsman parlance)

An interesting viewpoint http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/phil ... s-outlawed
Last edited by Tonyf33 on 7 Dec 2014, 7:44pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17179
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 6 Dec 2014, 11:28pm

Tonyf33 wrote:I answered that question on the first page of the thread, the ex-Yorkshire cricketer Matthew Hoggard came out and stated "you bowl it to be intimidating, but you don't bowl it to try and hurt people", frankly that's a nonsense.

Really - you actually think that fast bowling (which this wasn't) is about trying to hurt people?

the batsman may be hit directly or indirectly through a mistimed shot

And the same is true for any speed of delivery, at any height. Would you ban spin bowling as well? (Abdul Aziz) or "good" length deliveries (Lever to Chatfield).

I would like to think the rule makers would look at least to limit the number of allowed bouncers and possibly restrict them for known 'bunny's' (oft referred to as 'rabbits' in lower order batsman parlance)

They are limited, and the limit changes according to the skill of the batsmen, and the prevailing conditions, as judged by the on field umpires.
You'll also note that bouncers are generally wasted on tail enders anyway, you're much more likely to get them out with a good toe crusher...


I can see his point for T20, but not for test matches - different sport altogether.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Steady rider » 7 Dec 2014, 9:08am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... nd_cricket

Baseball ball is slightly lighter,
One main difference, however, is that the ball in cricket is harder and heavier in weight. The legal weight for the ball in baseball must weigh between 5 to 5.25 ounces (142 to 149 g). Whereas, the ball in cricket must weigh between 5.5 to 5.8 ounces (156 to 164 g)
.

Average
145.5 vs 160, cricket ball is about 10% heavier.

Edit added
A baseball is 9 to 9.25 inches in circumference.
Cricket ball measure between 8 13/16 and 9 in (224 and 229 mm) in circumference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ba ... ir_careers
Causes of deaths during a player's career include the aftermath of beanball. Being struck on the head by a ball was the most common cause of death before batting helmets were introduced to prevent this. Over a hundred batters have been killed in this way.[2] Other players died from commotio cordis — heart failure due to a blow on the chest causing the heart to quiver rather than pump correctly. Young players such as Little Leaguers are most susceptible to this and suffer two or three deaths from this cause each year.[3] Also, over thirty players and twenty spectators have been killed by lightning. At a game in Florida in 1949, the bolt killed the shortstop, second baseman and third baseman.
Last edited by Steady rider on 7 Dec 2014, 5:36pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Si » 7 Dec 2014, 10:10am

Reohn and tonyf, sorry but that just doesn't cut it.

The intent to harm argument: you've produced no evidence whatsoever that the bowler is trying to do anything more than shake up the batsman or give him the odd bruise. So, no worse than rugby, which you both seem perfectly happy with. Indeed, it can be argued that rugby should be made none contact long before bouncers are banned if we actually look at the stats for serious injuries.

Ah, yes, the stats. You want bouncers banned because out of the tens of millions that have been bowled this one has ended up in a fatality. More people have been killed or seriously injured mountain biking than playing cricket...so which would you have us ban first?

Also we can look at the cricketing community itself...the ones who you might suppose know a bit it about it. How many cricket experts have called for a ban on bouncers?

Bonefishblues
Posts: 7403
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Bonefishblues » 7 Dec 2014, 10:31am

That's the nub of it. Neither players, fans nor spectators are calling for immediate changes in the aftermath of this tragic, and freak event. Better to have a careful and measured review and response once the immediate emotion has passed.

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

Re: Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

Postby Tonyf33 » 7 Dec 2014, 8:17pm

1. it's an aspect of fast bowling, yes bowlers are quite happy if a batsman gets hit/hurt, it makes their job easier and is part of winning. if they were that bothered they wouldn't bowl another bouncer in the rest of the over/innings or indeed anytime over their career if they knew they could really hurt someone. They do bowl more bouncers and they continue to hurt people.

2. Not limited enough, you can ball 2 bouncers an over every over including that at tail enders. Maybe bowling bouncers is less effective but for one a yorker is much harder to bowl & be accurate as it can easily turn into a beamer (often worse than a bouncer) or a full toss, bouncers are far easier to bowl, that's fairly basic knowledge tbh. Indeed if a bouncer is so wasted on tailenders why does it still happen, countless times a no.10 or 11 comes in and the first delivery is a bouncer.. :roll: