Phil Hughes helmet; cycling?

[[XAP]Bob]

No it's not - high tackling in Rugby is massively more dangerous - you are being impacted by something the size/weight/speed of Jonah Lomu on your neck. That can, and does, result in a broken neck - reasonably easily.

A Cricket ball, even at 90mph is significantly less damaging (as evidenced by them normally bouncing off helmets).

This is an exceptional case - I'm sure that many more than a million bouncers have been bowled in first class cricket (let alone club cricket).

Where is the analyst when you want him...


Interesting: http://swarajyamag.com/columns/cricket- ... tal-right/

[reohn2]

No it's not - high tackling in Rugby is massively more dangerous - you are being impacted by something the size/weight/speed of Jonah Lomu on your neck. That can, and does, result in a broken neck - reasonably easily.

A Cricket ball, even at 90mph is significantly less damaging (as evidenced by them normally bouncing off helmets).

This is an exceptional case - I'm sure that many more than a million bouncers have been bowled in first class cricket (let alone club cricket).

Where is the analyst when you want him...


Interesting: http://swarajyamag.com/columns/cricket- ... tal-right/

So you're saying carry on as is?
What is the effect of the bouncer in cricket other than to unnerve the batsman?
Or is it to get him out by whatever means?
Allowing the bowler to aim for the head or upper body is a crazy way to accept hard missiles at 90mph as sport IMHO.
Or is the answer to don ice hockey keepers dress to defend oneself?
I'm no cricket fan but what I see is unreasonable and unnecessary violence in sport.

[Si]

People in rugby have been killed and seriously injured by legal tackles - should we make it a none contact sport? Or should we look at the probabilities and accept that if we banned everything that might end up in a serious injury, however unlikely, then we'd basically have tiddlywinks (in full safety gear) as our only sport.

[reohn2]

People in rugby have been killed and seriously injured by legal tackles - should we make it a none contact sport? Or should we look at the probabilities and accept that if we banned everything that might end up in a serious injury, however unlikely, then we'd basically have tiddlywinks (in full safety gear) as our only sport.

There is a difference between deliberate and accidental,deliberate aiming at the upper body with a hard and high speed missile/ball isn't acceptable as sport IMO.
I'm not asking for sport to be non contact,I merely saying deliberate disabling of an opponent by violence in the name of sport isn't acceptable.

[[XAP]Bob]

People in rugby have been killed and seriously injured by legal tackles - should we make it a none contact sport? Or should we look at the probabilities and accept that if we banned everything that might end up in a serious injury, however unlikely, then we'd basically have tiddlywinks (in full safety gear) as our only sport.

There is a difference between deliberate and accidental,deliberate aiming at the upper body with a hard and high speed missile/ball isn't acceptable as sport IMO.
I'm not asking for sport to be non contact,I merely saying deliberate disabling of an opponent by violence in the name of sport isn't acceptable.

I'm saying that of the 5 recorded deaths on the field of play one was from an off spinner (the ball came off the batsman's glove and struck him on the temple), one was a fielder who took a pull shot to head at somewhere around silly point from what I can gather.

Additionally the bowler in this instance wasn't even a fast bowlerm he's a medium pacer.


Overall cricket is definitely not a dangerous sport.

[Si]

People in rugby have been killed and seriously injured by legal tackles - should we make it a none contact sport? Or should we look at the probabilities and accept that if we banned everything that might end up in a serious injury, however unlikely, then we'd basically have tiddlywinks (in full safety gear) as our only sport.

There is a difference between deliberate and accidental,deliberate aiming at the upper body with a hard and high speed missile/ball isn't acceptable as sport IMO.
I'm not asking for sport to be non contact,I merely saying deliberate disabling of an opponent by violence in the name of sport isn't acceptable.

Should an 18st forward be allowed to run at full speed and knock down a 9st scrum half? I think that you'll find that they are trying to deliberately inflict pain.

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.

And don't even go near boxing

[Si]

BTW, could this be the first thread to be moved out of the h*lm*ts section of the forum

[reohn2]

Overall cricket is definitely not a dangerous sport.

I didn't say it was.What I am saying is:-

There is a difference between deliberate and accidental,deliberate aiming at the upper body with a hard and high speed missile/ball isn't acceptable as sport IMO

If you think differently OK we'll have to agree to differ.

[reohn2]

Should an 18st forward be allowed to run at full speed and knock down a 9st scrum half? I think that you'll find that they are trying to deliberately inflict pain.

Yes,but a head butt wouldn't be allowed or throwing a hard ball it him wouldn't either.

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

And don't even go near boxing

I wouldn't,it's barbaric in all but at amateur level and even then with plenty of protection,especially the head.
As for pro boxing disgusting in the extreme IMHO.

[[XAP]Bob]

Ignore boxing (which has recently removed helmets IIRC)

Look at cricket - this instance wasn't even a fast bowler, a similar death had been caused by an off spinner which bounced off the batsman's glove.


Let's not think that this is anything about fast bowlers or bouncers, it's an inherent risk in a sport involving a hard ball (any deaths in golf? (yes I know it's not an actual sport))

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf ... 44385.html
http://www.snopes.com/sports/golf/shafted.asp

In 1951, Edward Harrison was playing a round at Inglewood in Kenmore, Washington, when the shaft of his driver broke and pierced his groin. He staggered 100 yards before collapsing and bleeding to death.

We should ban golf club shafts, just have the "hitty bit"

[reohn2]

Ignore boxing (which has recently removed helmets IIRC)

Look at cricket - this instance wasn't even a fast bowler, a similar death had been caused by an off spinner which bounced off the batsman's glove.


Let's not think that this is anything about fast bowlers or bouncers, it's an inherent risk in a sport involving a hard ball (any deaths in golf? (yes I know it's not an actual sport))

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf ... 44385.html
http://www.snopes.com/sports/golf/shafted.asp

In 1951, Edward Harrison was playing a round at Inglewood in Kenmore, Washington, when the shaft of his driver broke and pierced his groin. He staggered 100 yards before collapsing and bleeding to death.

We should ban golf club shafts, just have the "hitty bit"

I think you're missing the point.
It's no accident deliberately aiming at the batsman's upper body and head by the use of bouncers,which could be counted as a no ball in the same way as a wide would be.

You and Si appear to be saying it's all part of the game,I'm saying it shouldn't be,that's my opinion.

Accidents will happen in any sport,you can't legislate for that but you can minimise the chances by civilised rules.

[Penfolds11]

I think you're missing the point.
It's no accident deliberately aiming at the batsman's upper body and head by the use of bouncers,which could be counted as a no ball in the same way as a wide would be.

You and Si appear to be saying it's all part of the game,I'm saying it shouldn't be,that's my opinion.

Accidents will happen in any sport,you can't legislate for that but you can minimise the chances by civilised rules.

You'll be wanting Law 42.6 for that, then!

""6. Dangerous and unfair bowling

(a) Bowling of fast short pitched balls

(i) The bowling of fast short pitched balls is dangerous and unfair if the bowler’s end umpire considers that by their repetition and taking into account their length, height and direction they are likely to inflict physical injury on the striker irrespective of the protective equipment he may be wearing. The relative skill of the striker shall be taken into consideration.

(ii) Any delivery which, after pitching, passes or would have passed over head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease, although not threatening physical injury, shall be included with bowling under (i) above, both when the umpire is considering whether the bowling of fast short pitched balls has become dangerous and unfair and after he has so decided. The umpire shall call and signal No ball for each such delivery.

(b) Bowling of high full pitched balls

(i) Any delivery, other than a slow paced one, which passes or would have passed on the full above waist height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker.

(ii) A slow delivery which passes or would have passed on the full above shoulder height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease is to be deemed dangerous and unfair, whether or not it is likely to inflict physical injury on the striker.

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/

[Tonyf33]

No it's not - high tackling in Rugby is massively more dangerous - you are being impacted by something the size/weight/speed of Jonah Lomu on your neck. That can, and does, result in a broken neck - reasonably easily.

A Cricket ball, even at 90mph is significantly less damaging (as evidenced by them normally bouncing off helmets).

This is an exceptional case - I'm sure that many more than a million bouncers have been bowled in first class cricket (let alone club cricket).

Where is the analyst when you want him...
/

Sorry but you are just plain wrong in that assumption, It's like saying cycling is massively more dangerous than walking!)
Modern rugby (especially league) where a grab tackle around the shoulders/neck is the norm rather than the exception means that around the neck tackles rarely if ever end in a serious injury. Even the most illegal of tackles that are bang on the money don't have the effect of a cricket ball hitting a skull. Players necks/shoulder muscles are so developed that this offers protection from a serious injury to say an untrained person. You can take a swinging arm/ accidental shoulder to the head (shoulder charges are now illegal in RL as of end of 2013) and whilst not particularly pleasant 99% of the time will leave you with nothing more than a busted lip/bruising & possibly a sore neck for a short while.

The last recorded (high profile) nasty incident was last year in Australia's NRL where a player was tipped in the tackle, he tucked his head to try to protect himself as he was driven head first into the ground and he broke his neck. This in rugby league is exceedingly rare. The tip tackle was outlawed many years ago to prevent exactly this despite severe neck/spine injuries being rare n any case and that is within one of the most brutal contact sports in the world. Players have it drummed into them that the safety of the person being tackled is the responsibility of the would be tacklers.

Yes cricket will not garner you the same level of injuries both numerically & severity as an overall (given one is a full body contact sport that is hardly surprising) but playing rugby is not that dangerous despite how people might perceive it, again, it goes against 'common sense' but the sports rule makers have taken steps to prevent/lessen severe injuries without ultimately losing the physical aspect which we love.

If you compare Gridiron to rugby the added protection did nothing but allow overtly high levels of 'violence' that was killing players in the early part of the 20thC, in the interim years players were receiving more injuries and at more severe levels because the equipment could not protect to those levels. Statistically it is now shown that repeated concussion has led to many ex-players deaths/suicides (more so than pre-helmet days), that players legs/backs are so damaged that they can barely walk even into their 60s. Rugby sans helmets/pads has no such extreme issues(yes of course ex players will always carry injuries & have wear & tear but in rugby it is vastly less than NFL)

despite what the cricket lot say and they are more stuck in the mud than any sport on earth, they really need to address how the bouncer is used despite the incident being of an extremely rare nature, is the death/potential death/severe injury worth it when the so called safety aid cannot protect players in each & every situation but actually increases chance of being struck on the head/chest/shoulder in the first instance.

[reohn2]

You'll be wanting Law 42.6 for that, then!........

Is it being implemented?
How long has that law/rule been in force?

As I said up thread,I'm no cricket fan and was unaware of such a law,but it seems that after watching the Phil Hughes incident,the ball was pitched deliberately short in contravention of law 42.6 if I understand the law correctly.

[[XAP]Bob]

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.

Beamers are rightly outlawed (and lower for faster bowlers than slower).
Bouncers are outlawed in excess, excess depends on the skill of the batsman, as judged by the umpire... (taking into account the condition of the ball, pitch, light etc...)

As for the high tackle risk - it is more risky than a bouncer, I didn't say it was unacceptable in every case, but it is a limit, somewhere below the "stupidly dangerous" spear tackle... As you say it is the responsibility of tackling olayer to return the tackled player safely to the ground. I'd rather be hit by a fast moving cricket ball than Wilko, and some of his tackles, had they been high, would have instantly fatal. The high tackles we aare left with are slippery affairs, not a full on clothesline style tackle.