Terrible day for cricket
Discussion
hstewie said:hidetheelephants said:
RIP. I know nowt about cricket, so could cricketheads comment; why do balls end up at head/neck height? Would a baseball-style 'high ball' rule make any difference? In my ignorance I'm confused as the bales and stumps are at knee height, so why are balls arriving so high?
It could be to just unsettle the batsman, and maybe into fending off the ball with the hope that it will be caught behind or in the slips. Or they might have placed a fielder close to the boundary with the hope that the batsman will take a swing at it and be caught by said fielder.Guys, this is an incredible fluke.
Trying to legislate for it is like banning paper aeroplanes, lest a paper cut become septic.
Precautions are taken. Batsmen and close field wear pads and helmets that protect against 99% of problems.
Cricket is a safe game, just like airliners are a safe way to travel. Safe, but not entirely without dangers.
Trying to legislate for it is like banning paper aeroplanes, lest a paper cut become septic.
Precautions are taken. Batsmen and close field wear pads and helmets that protect against 99% of problems.
Cricket is a safe game, just like airliners are a safe way to travel. Safe, but not entirely without dangers.
hidetheelephants said:
RIP. I know nowt about cricket, so could cricketheads comment; why do balls end up at head/neck height? Would a baseball-style 'high ball' rule make any difference? In my ignorance I'm confused as the bales and stumps are at knee height, so why are balls arriving so high?
Knocking the bails off is only one way to get a batsman out. Tempting him or forcing him into playing a high ball in an uncontrolled way that gets him caught by a fielder is another.
Hitting a high ball down into the ground (after which it can't be caught) isn't easy. And hitting a ball that's coming close to your head is harder to control than a ball at arms length, and harder still if you're combining trying to hit it with getting your head out of the way at the same time.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When I was at school I refused to have anything to do with cricket.....because the ball was too hard, and it looked like it would bloody hurt.
I got called a coward, which I didn't mind because I was, but I'm still alive to tell the tale.
A terrible shame that a decent young man has lost his life playing this daft game.
I have read some ridiculous things on this site but that is right up there.I got called a coward, which I didn't mind because I was, but I'm still alive to tell the tale.
A terrible shame that a decent young man has lost his life playing this daft game.
Freak accidents can happen in any sport. Have a look on youtube for a clip of a freak accident in a football match where a player hit their head on the advertising board for example.
You are the sole reason I don't find myself in the Chelsea thread anymore, which is a shame as I'm a huge fan. An ignore feature on the site would make it a better place for us all.
RIP
SMcP114 said:
I have read some ridiculous things on this site but that is right up there.
Freak accidents can happen in any sport. Have a look on youtube for a clip of a freak accident in a football match where a player hit their head on the advertising board for example.
You are the sole reason I don't find myself in the Chelsea thread anymore, which is a shame as I'm a huge fan. An ignore feature on the site would make it a better place for us all.
RIP
There is one. Freak accidents can happen in any sport. Have a look on youtube for a clip of a freak accident in a football match where a player hit their head on the advertising board for example.
You are the sole reason I don't find myself in the Chelsea thread anymore, which is a shame as I'm a huge fan. An ignore feature on the site would make it a better place for us all.
RIP
Lets not beat up on twig, a normally rational poster. cricket strirs the passions like few sports do, and obviously lovers of the game are shocked at people that have never watched bodily line or know who Douglas Jardine is.
Sad times for cricket and a much loved player (for a crim obvs) shouldn't detract from something which is a total aberration in the sport. Roughly akin to a Javelin killing an umpire at a major tournament.
If the 1 out of these 100 tyes of fatality happened to this cricketer, and thinking about the total number of balls delivered ever then as a sport this is a significantly rare occurrence.
Ultimately one of the reasons I stopped playing was because I faced deliveries that I knew I didn't have the skills to deal with. If you have never faced deliveries at speeds approach fast then you cannot comprehend the skills require to either hit the ball or simply stop it hitting you.
As others have said every now and then you may miss time it and get struck about the helmet, arm, chest etc, but you would never expect this to happen.
I think there will be an initial review of helmet design with perhaps a modification, but the game will go on.
Ultimately one of the reasons I stopped playing was because I faced deliveries that I knew I didn't have the skills to deal with. If you have never faced deliveries at speeds approach fast then you cannot comprehend the skills require to either hit the ball or simply stop it hitting you.
As others have said every now and then you may miss time it and get struck about the helmet, arm, chest etc, but you would never expect this to happen.
I think there will be an initial review of helmet design with perhaps a modification, but the game will go on.
I feel sorry for the bowler Abbot, but perhaps from now on fast bowlers should ask themselves if they are prepared to take responsibility for any possible consequence of deliberately aiming to hit a batsman on the head?
After all, boxers go into the ring accepting that there is a small chance of their deliberate targeting of their opponent's head leading to brain damage or death.
After all, boxers go into the ring accepting that there is a small chance of their deliberate targeting of their opponent's head leading to brain damage or death.
Edited by Get Karter on Thursday 27th November 21:04
GK I think there is a conscious thought to get the ball up around the head and intimidate, make the batter take evasive action, try for the shot (with the hope of a miss timed edge) etc but I cannot recall any team mate ever deliberately seeking to hit the head, I am sure it does happen and you are right. There will be a few bowlers now who will think twice about the short delivery and the possible outcome.
ALawson said:
GK I think there is a conscious thought to get the ball up around the head and intimidate, make the batter take evasive action, try for the shot (with the hope of a miss timed edge) etc but I cannot recall any team mate ever deliberately seeking to hit the head, I am sure it does happen and you are right. There will be a few bowlers now who will think twice about the short delivery and the possible outcome.
If you think what cricket was like 50+ years ago, you would never have seen a deliberate high ball from a bowler. It would have been unsporting and bad form. That's why they never needed head protection in those days.Grandad Gaz said:
ALawson said:
GK I think there is a conscious thought to get the ball up around the head and intimidate, make the batter take evasive action, try for the shot (with the hope of a miss timed edge) etc but I cannot recall any team mate ever deliberately seeking to hit the head, I am sure it does happen and you are right. There will be a few bowlers now who will think twice about the short delivery and the possible outcome.
If you think what cricket was like 50+ years ago, you would never have seen a deliberate high ball from a bowler. It would have been unsporting and bad form. That's why they never needed head protection in those days.Get Karter said:
I feel sorry for the bowler Abbot, but perhaps from now on fast bowlers should ask themselves if they are prepared to take responsibility for any possible consequence of deliberately aiming to hit a batsman on the head?
After all, boxers go into the ring accepting that there is a small chance of their deliberate targeting of their opponent's head leading to brain damage or death.
It's a real tough call this one. As a keen sportsman/cricketer, a bowler does not enter the field of play with the intention of hurting his opponent. A bouncer delivery is to intimidate and put a batsman off his game. Not to cause loss of life. In my winter mode I played rugby. As a prop every scrum I entered had the potential to break my neck and devastate my life and those that love me. Did I think about that? No of course not. A boxer take even more risks but the sports are different. After all, boxers go into the ring accepting that there is a small chance of their deliberate targeting of their opponent's head leading to brain damage or death.
Edited by Get Karter on Thursday 27th November 21:04
Like you I feel for Abbot. In fact I've sobbed for him today. He will never be the same. It was a million to one accident and the responsibility is not his.
hidetheelephants said:
RIP. I know nowt about cricket, so could cricketheads comment; why do balls end up at head/neck height? Would a baseball-style 'high ball' rule make any difference? In my ignorance I'm confused as the bales and stumps are at knee height, so why are balls arriving so high?
Because they're allowed to try to clout the batsman on the head, which I've always thought was a bloody stupid idea, but they've got away with it so far.Edited by PhillipM on Thursday 27th November 22:51
PhillipM said:
hidetheelephants said:
RIP. I know nowt about cricket, so could cricketheads comment; why do balls end up at head/neck height? Would a baseball-style 'high ball' rule make any difference? In my ignorance I'm confused as the bales and stumps are at knee height, so why are balls arriving so high?
Because they're allowed to try to clout the batsman on the head, which I've always thought was a bloody stupid idea.Amirhussain said:
Again, the intention is not to 'clout the batsman on the head'. Its all about trying to get the batsmen out, making him play a bad shot, getting into his head etc.
I know what it's for, but the end result is, cricket has had to switch to serious headgear because of the risk of getting clouted on the head because of it...The question is, does cricket need that risk to still be the sport it is? The only sensible answer to that - unlike boxing, etc - is, no. Because it worked just fine without it.
Personally I think both sides are going to have some work cut out with their bowlers because it's going to make them all think twice about sending a short ball in in future games.
PhillipM said:
Amirhussain said:
Again, the intention is not to 'clout the batsman on the head'. Its all about trying to get the batsmen out, making him play a bad shot, getting into his head etc.
I know what it's for, but the end result is, cricket has had to switch to serious headgear because of the risk of getting clouted on the head because of it...The question is, does cricket need that risk to still be the sport it is? The only sensible answer to that - unlike boxing, etc - is, no. Because it worked just fine without it.
Personally I think both sides are going to have some work cut out with their bowlers because it's going to make them all think twice about sending a short ball in in future games.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff