Terrible day for cricket
Discussion
Vocal Minority said:
I do think this needs clearing up. This was a fluke accident. It could not be designed to happen again.
Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
Football is far worse.Grandad Gaz said:
Sad news. 
O/T why are cricket balls so hard? Surely, something more like a tennis ball would be more fun.
I know nothing about cricket, btw!
That would skew the game to the advantage of the batsman too much. They are difficult to bowl fast and to turn, and very easy to hit a long way. O/T why are cricket balls so hard? Surely, something more like a tennis ball would be more fun.
I know nothing about cricket, btw!
Vocal Minority said:
I do think this needs clearing up. This was a fluke accident. It could not be designed to happen again.
Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
I have expressed my sadness elsewhere, so won't do again - but it is worth noting that this was the metaphorical 1 in a million thing.
Agreed. Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
I have expressed my sadness elsewhere, so won't do again - but it is worth noting that this was the metaphorical 1 in a million thing.
A pretty ignorant post there Twig and not really necessary. To suggest he had it coming because he took a risk playing a 'daft' sport with a hard ball is way off the mark in my opinion.
RIP Philip Hughes - at least he died doing what he loved.
Legend83 said:
Vocal Minority said:
I do think this needs clearing up. This was a fluke accident. It could not be designed to happen again.
Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
I have expressed my sadness elsewhere, so won't do again - but it is worth noting that this was the metaphorical 1 in a million thing.
Agreed. Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
I have expressed my sadness elsewhere, so won't do again - but it is worth noting that this was the metaphorical 1 in a million thing.
A pretty ignorant post there Twig and not really necessary. To suggest he had it coming because he took a risk playing a 'daft' sport with a hard ball is way off the mark in my opinion.
RIP Philip Hughes - at least he died doing what he loved.
But for the sensible people, as a non cricketer, I don't see why the ball has to be so ridiculously hard. Could it not be made softer, and the bat made lighter to compensate? Would that detract from the sport?
I used to work with a fanatical cricketer and he was forever nursing broken fingers, massive lumps on his legs, bruising and whatnot, where he'd been struck by the ball.
I realise accidents are rare but could they be made even rarer?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't think I actually said that, but don't let what I did say get in the way of your warped perception of my views. Idiot.
But for the sensible people, as a non cricketer, I don't see why the ball has to be so ridiculously hard. Could it not be made softer, and the bat made lighter to compensate? Would that detract from the sport?
I used to work with a fanatical cricketer and he was forever nursing broken fingers, massive lumps on his legs, bruising and whatnot, where he'd been struck by the ball.
I realise accidents are rare but could they be made even rarer?
More than most sports, the characteristics of the ball are absolutely central to the game. But for the sensible people, as a non cricketer, I don't see why the ball has to be so ridiculously hard. Could it not be made softer, and the bat made lighter to compensate? Would that detract from the sport?
I used to work with a fanatical cricketer and he was forever nursing broken fingers, massive lumps on his legs, bruising and whatnot, where he'd been struck by the ball.
I realise accidents are rare but could they be made even rarer?
To make the ball quantifiably less dangerous you'd have to make it so squashy that the art of bowling would be basically finished.
You'd also lose the fine art of playing with a ball whose characteristics change in a meaningful way throughout the game.
It's just a fluke accident. Tragic, and very, very rare.
You could make motorsport safer by limiting speeds to 40mph, or by moving it completely onto computers, but something essential would be lost.
Up until around 1998, it was a rare sight indeed to see anyone wearing a helmet at a school cricket game. A good under 16 bowler could still bowl at around the 65 mph mark and I have seen a few blows to the head over the years. As has been said, this was such a freak accident which has had terrible consequences. Abbot must be feeling rotten.
RIP Phil Hughes and condolences to all his family, friends and colleagues.
While I don't follow cricket as such, as a motor sport fan the accidents of Michael Schumacher and Jules Bianchi have brought the theme of head injuries into sharp focus this year, therefore, I couldn't help but find myself rooting for Phil, with thoughts of the battle that may lie ahead for him and the hope that he would win it early and return to his sport. I felt deeply saddened when I woke up to the news this morning, having already been loaded with hopes for Michael and Jules, and now feeling the same sentiment for Phil.
While I don't follow cricket as such, as a motor sport fan the accidents of Michael Schumacher and Jules Bianchi have brought the theme of head injuries into sharp focus this year, therefore, I couldn't help but find myself rooting for Phil, with thoughts of the battle that may lie ahead for him and the hope that he would win it early and return to his sport. I felt deeply saddened when I woke up to the news this morning, having already been loaded with hopes for Michael and Jules, and now feeling the same sentiment for Phil.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
What, to call Legend83 an idiot for completely misquoting me? Why not?
If I misinterpreted you then I apologise but I didn't know how else to interpret you basically saying "I chose not to play cricket because of the hard ball despite being called a coward but I am still alive, cricket is stupid".
Other posters replies would suggest I am not alone here.
Out of deep respect for Hughes and the game that is me done with you on this subject.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I used to work with a fanatical cricketer and he was forever nursing broken fingers, massive lumps on his legs, bruising and whatnot, where he'd been struck by the ball.
I realise accidents are rare but could they be made even rarer?
What a sad little man you are, do you think that your colleague would keep playing unless he enjoyed it and knew of the risks and injuries? It's miserable gits like yourself that ruin things.I realise accidents are rare but could they be made even rarer?
And to clarify, the injury was a vertebral artery dissection leading to subarachnoid hemorrhage, an incredibly rate event - only 100 recorded cases in history and normally leads to sudden death, he just happened to be kept alive because of immediate medical attention. So not a normal head injury, it was a neck injury.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Legend83 said:
Vocal Minority said:
I do think this needs clearing up. This was a fluke accident. It could not be designed to happen again.
Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
I have expressed my sadness elsewhere, so won't do again - but it is worth noting that this was the metaphorical 1 in a million thing.
Agreed. Cricket is a safe game, and the rate of serious injury is much lower than in other sports like rugby, American football etc. Usually you get tagged by the ball, it's blydi sore but you can carry on. The safety gear is sufficiently good that even broken bones (the odd finger aside) are a rarity.
I have expressed my sadness elsewhere, so won't do again - but it is worth noting that this was the metaphorical 1 in a million thing.
A pretty ignorant post there Twig and not really necessary. To suggest he had it coming because he took a risk playing a 'daft' sport with a hard ball is way off the mark in my opinion.
RIP Philip Hughes - at least he died doing what he loved.
But for the sensible people, as a non cricketer, I don't see why the ball has to be so ridiculously hard. Could it not be made softer, and the bat made lighter to compensate? Would that detract from the sport?
I used to work with a fanatical cricketer and he was forever nursing broken fingers, massive lumps on his legs, bruising and whatnot, where he'd been struck by the ball.
I realise accidents are rare but could they be made even rarer?
Now, I would suggest - and if people would be so good as to hear me out before firing off an a hair trigger - that the main reason for your objection is that you think cricket is stupid. So why take any risk at all?
If I may be permitted - someone who doesn't care about driving would say 'why do you ever need to go above 50'; 'what's the point of a powerful engine its silly and dangerous', 'cars without ABS and Traction Control should be banned'. They don't see the point of driving as anything other than a means of getting from A to B. So everything that introduces a remote risk is silly - my mother in law (to be) holds this precise mind set. Fair enough to her.
Now as a member of Pistonheads I am sure you will disagree with one of those statements (if not all of the statements).
The reasons will no doubt be intangible and will, not necessarily defy logic, but may not strictly adhere to it in a particular way either. It will be because you love motoring. You love these intangible things about motoring that drove you (no pun intended) to emotionally invest yourself to such a degree in it. And that is grand. It really is. I feel the same. You either accept the risks that come with motoring, or you perceive them as so nominal that they aren't worth worrying to much about.
If you love cricket, what happened to Phil Hughes was the one in one million shot that falls into the latter category. In fact it is so rare that the whole cricket community has been plunged into a state of profound shock (as well as just grief).
With Jules Bianchi (we all hope he recovers), whilst there is real distress - there isn't necessarily shock. We all know Motorsport is dangerous. I would be my house that Michael Clarke never, ever, expected to have to make the statement to the media he made this morning.
Such is the rarity of this event.
Now - I would resist fiercely any attempt to change the game (helmet modifications that do not inhibit your playing style aside). I would stop playing wholesale if they changed to softer balls and lighter bats. It would take away from the game too much.
Now take a moment to think about how you would feel about an old lady, with a Hyundai i10, who drives everywhere at 40 (max), trying to tell you motoring should be changed because it was silly and daft to drive any faster or anything more powerful. You would dismiss them as 'just not getting it'.
Well logically speaking, motoring should be (even more) heavily restricted. As you say, lets make accidents even rarer.
But deaths still happen. Frequently. Many deaths are of blameless parties - just like Phillip Hughes was (no one has blame in this incident in my eyes).
But the reason we don't want changes is because 'we get it'.
Now, please take that logic, apply it to cricket. You don't see the harm in changing the game to soft balls and light bats. However, those who 'get it' see irreparable damage - caused by a knee jerk reaction to a freak event.
I do not begrudge you your opinion for a moment. Not one.
But I hope this answer to your question helps you understand why cricketers will want to keep the hard ball.
Edited by Vocal Minority on Thursday 27th November 14:51
Vocal Minority said:
In fairness that isn't what Twig said. He didn't say he had it coming, he said the sport was daft and it was an avoidable death.
As I said, I apologise to Twig if I put words in his mouth that he didn't intend, but it wasn't difficult to interpret the comment "I'm still alive to tell the tale" as suggesting Twig was alive because he didn't play cricket and Hughes was dead because he did - despite being factually correct in this instance the subsequent hole-poke at the game in general supported the possibility this was a flippant and unnecessary comment IMO.Edited by Vocal Minority on Thursday 27th November 14:46
I can't add any more than VC has in my agreement that no knee-jerk reaction should be made to fundamentally change the sport for safety reasons.
Edited by Legend83 on Thursday 27th November 15:05
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff