This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes has died two days after being struck on the head by a short delivery during a Sheffield Shield match [he was] a very modern batsman who was heading for greatness.
Such sad news, he was only 25.
His obituary: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/27/phillip-hughes-obituary
Such sad news, he was only 25.
His obituary: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/nov/27/phillip-hughes-obituary
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Truly tragic, RIP Phil Hughes.
As you can imagine, the whole cricket community here is in shock.
Truly tragic, RIP Phil Hughes.
As you can imagine, the whole cricket community here is in shock.
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Sad news for all, including the bowler who must be absolutely devastated.
Sad news for all, including the bowler who must be absolutely devastated.
In reply to mypyrex:
Yes, Sean Abbott must be going through hell right now. Not his fault at all, but it will live with him all his life, and I believe he's fairly young as well.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sean-abbott-messages-of-support-fl...
Yes, Sean Abbott must be going through hell right now. Not his fault at all, but it will live with him all his life, and I believe he's fairly young as well.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/sean-abbott-messages-of-support-fl...
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Proper tragic news. Sean Abbott must be feeling awful
Proper tragic news. Sean Abbott must be feeling awful
Post edited at 09:29
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Desperately sad news.
Just read Boycott in the Telegraph - http://tinyurl.com/mvzca63 - he really should have kept his trap shut, just for once.
Desperately sad news.
Just read Boycott in the Telegraph - http://tinyurl.com/mvzca63 - he really should have kept his trap shut, just for once.
In reply to 999thAndy:
I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't think there was anything particularly inflammatory or even insensitive about the article. It's also clear that it was written and published before Phil Hughes died and with an end-note that wishes him well and hopes he pulls through. It's a perspective from someone who was used to cricket before helmets were common and an point of view about how the dangers could be masked by protective equipment.
I openend the link expecting some crass comments from Boycott but to be fair it was nothing of the sort.
Truly tragic incident that is thankfully rare and I feel for him, his family, friends, colleagues and fellow cricketers.
I'm not sure what your point is here. I don't think there was anything particularly inflammatory or even insensitive about the article. It's also clear that it was written and published before Phil Hughes died and with an end-note that wishes him well and hopes he pulls through. It's a perspective from someone who was used to cricket before helmets were common and an point of view about how the dangers could be masked by protective equipment.
I openend the link expecting some crass comments from Boycott but to be fair it was nothing of the sort.
Truly tragic incident that is thankfully rare and I feel for him, his family, friends, colleagues and fellow cricketers.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Indeed.
In fairness to GB, that article was penned yesterday.
"I am very sad for Phil Hughes because nobody likes to see a young man in hospital in a critical condition, and we can only hope that he pulls through and makes a full recovery."
> Desperately sad news.
Indeed.
> Just read Boycott in the Telegraph - http://tinyurl.com/mvzca63 - he really should have kept his trap shut, just for once.
In fairness to GB, that article was penned yesterday.
"I am very sad for Phil Hughes because nobody likes to see a young man in hospital in a critical condition, and we can only hope that he pulls through and makes a full recovery."
In reply to 999thAndy:
Terrible news
In fairness to Boycott, he wrote the article before the death was announced and he does make a valid point, and one that applies not just in cricket, but in other sports such as cycling, skiing and climbing where helmets are used.
Maybe it's too soon, but lessons can and should be learned from a tragedy such as this.
Terrible news
In fairness to Boycott, he wrote the article before the death was announced and he does make a valid point, and one that applies not just in cricket, but in other sports such as cycling, skiing and climbing where helmets are used.
Maybe it's too soon, but lessons can and should be learned from a tragedy such as this.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Agreed. This is a time for condolences not for a debate about helmets and perceived risk
As a side note, the telegraph seems to have been hacked by the Syrian electronic army. Or my hudl has, but avast can't find anything.
Edit. Before I'm jumped on I should state I didn't read the article fully before shutting WiFi down and running scans.
> Desperately sad news.
> Just read Boycott in the Telegraph - http://tinyurl.com/mvzca63 - he really should have kept his trap shut, just for once.
Agreed. This is a time for condolences not for a debate about helmets and perceived risk
As a side note, the telegraph seems to have been hacked by the Syrian electronic army. Or my hudl has, but avast can't find anything.
Edit. Before I'm jumped on I should state I didn't read the article fully before shutting WiFi down and running scans.
Post edited at 12:43
In reply to 999thAndy:
Can't see anything wrong with Boycott's piece. Firstly it was writen before Hughes died and secondly it's true. Improved gear makes people feel safer and so they are tempted to accept more risk. Boycott is merely pointing out that helmets have changed the way batsmen approach short balls but they need to be aware that there are no guarantees.
Can't see anything wrong with Boycott's piece. Firstly it was writen before Hughes died and secondly it's true. Improved gear makes people feel safer and so they are tempted to accept more risk. Boycott is merely pointing out that helmets have changed the way batsmen approach short balls but they need to be aware that there are no guarantees.
1
In reply to Clauso:
Didn't spot that, however given the man has died you'd think the Telegraph could pull the article from the website.
Didn't spot that, however given the man has died you'd think the Telegraph could pull the article from the website.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Maybe it's just me then, but I think the tone of the article was pretty much about how much better Geoff's technique was than Hughes' with an undertone of victim blaming. Maybe there is a time for a discussion on safety in cricket, but I'd have thought we could wait until after the funeral.
Maybe it's just me then, but I think the tone of the article was pretty much about how much better Geoff's technique was than Hughes' with an undertone of victim blaming. Maybe there is a time for a discussion on safety in cricket, but I'd have thought we could wait until after the funeral.
1
In reply to 999thAndy:
Why? The comments were appropriate and respectful when they were written and are no different now. I see no reason why they should be pulled.
> Didn't spot that, however given the man has died you'd think the Telegraph could pull the article from the website.
Why? The comments were appropriate and respectful when they were written and are no different now. I see no reason why they should be pulled.
In reply to Ffion Blethyn:
A sign of our times, 'I've no idea why I'm offended but I've seen two words together and assumed it must be bad. I'm so upset'
> Edit. Before I'm jumped on I should state I didn't read the article fully before shutting WiFi down and running scans.
A sign of our times, 'I've no idea why I'm offended but I've seen two words together and assumed it must be bad. I'm so upset'
In reply to Tyler:
Eh? I saw a virus warning and took action, I didn't reach for the hankies.
Out of curiosity which two words did you mean?
> A sign of our times, 'I've no idea why I'm offended but I've seen two words together and assumed it must be bad. I'm so upset'
Eh? I saw a virus warning and took action, I didn't reach for the hankies.
Out of curiosity which two words did you mean?
In reply to Ffion Blethyn:
Regardless of anything that has been written the most likely cause of death may negate any previous discussion:
If as reported the ball hit the neck causing an vertebral artery dissection, headwear or not is a nugatory argument.
Nobody's fault and protective headwear in sport is a fascinating topic but not relevant here?
Regardless of anything that has been written the most likely cause of death may negate any previous discussion:
If as reported the ball hit the neck causing an vertebral artery dissection, headwear or not is a nugatory argument.
Nobody's fault and protective headwear in sport is a fascinating topic but not relevant here?
In reply to James Gordon:
A sad event for all involved, and as you say, a helmet didn't help.
(Maybe a helmetless GB would have ducked?)
Very much so, especially in climbing. Perhaps worthy of another thread.
> Regardless of anything that has been written the most likely cause of death may negate any previous discussion:
> If as reported the ball hit the neck causing an vertebral artery dissection, headwear or not is a nugatory argument.
A sad event for all involved, and as you say, a helmet didn't help.
(Maybe a helmetless GB would have ducked?)
> ... protective headwear in sport is a fascinating topic but not relevant here?
Very much so, especially in climbing. Perhaps worthy of another thread.
In reply to Ffion Blethyn:
I was reflecting on this with a colleague who played first class cricket. We did not recall batsmen being hit on the head much in the old days pre-helmets. Brian Close was battered by short pitch balls but hit on the body rather than head - he moved his head out of the way. Similarly ,the Bodyline tour saw hostile bowling but I don't think heads were cracked. We thought that despite modern protection, the cavalier approach to shot-making encouraged by T20 cricket, can make batsmen more vulnerable.
I was reflecting on this with a colleague who played first class cricket. We did not recall batsmen being hit on the head much in the old days pre-helmets. Brian Close was battered by short pitch balls but hit on the body rather than head - he moved his head out of the way. Similarly ,the Bodyline tour saw hostile bowling but I don't think heads were cracked. We thought that despite modern protection, the cavalier approach to shot-making encouraged by T20 cricket, can make batsmen more vulnerable.
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Tragic news, the world of cricket is sat on the metaphorical couch with its head in its hands. Any kind of clear thinking about the implications, whys and wherefores is a way off yet.
Tragic news, the world of cricket is sat on the metaphorical couch with its head in its hands. Any kind of clear thinking about the implications, whys and wherefores is a way off yet.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Very sensible comments from Geoff Boycott and everybody is devasted for Phil Hughes.
> Desperately sad news.
> Just read Boycott in the Telegraph - http://tinyurl.com/mvzca63 - he really should have kept his trap shut, just for once.
Very sensible comments from Geoff Boycott and everybody is devasted for Phil Hughes.
1
In reply to Bobling:
Maybe, but the implications are pretty simple aren't they? As long as deliberately bowling at the batsman at 90+ mph is considered a legitimate tactic, there's a very small and apparently acceptable risk of seriously injuring someone. Extremely rarely, someone may be killed.
Short of imposing body armour that would make playing impossible, any reasonable level of safety equipment can't entirely eliminate the risk. If we wanted to reduce the level of risk further, we would need to change the rules on bouncers.
Jonathan Agnew yesterday compared it to boxing. On the one hand the bowler undeniably gets satisfaction from containing, intimidating and occasionally hurting the batsman. On the other, obviously the last thing he wants is to seriously injure anyone. Agnew was clear that he thought aggressive, intimidatory bowling was, within limits, not only legitimate but an essential part of the game, and wouldn't want to see it banned.
> (In reply to Tony the Blade)
>
> Any kind of clear thinking about the implications, whys and wherefores is a way off yet.
>
> Any kind of clear thinking about the implications, whys and wherefores is a way off yet.
Maybe, but the implications are pretty simple aren't they? As long as deliberately bowling at the batsman at 90+ mph is considered a legitimate tactic, there's a very small and apparently acceptable risk of seriously injuring someone. Extremely rarely, someone may be killed.
Short of imposing body armour that would make playing impossible, any reasonable level of safety equipment can't entirely eliminate the risk. If we wanted to reduce the level of risk further, we would need to change the rules on bouncers.
Jonathan Agnew yesterday compared it to boxing. On the one hand the bowler undeniably gets satisfaction from containing, intimidating and occasionally hurting the batsman. On the other, obviously the last thing he wants is to seriously injure anyone. Agnew was clear that he thought aggressive, intimidatory bowling was, within limits, not only legitimate but an essential part of the game, and wouldn't want to see it banned.
In reply to Rampikino:
Worth sparing a thought for the batsman at the other end who, as I understand, was Hughes's flatmate.
Worth sparing a thought for the batsman at the other end who, as I understand, was Hughes's flatmate.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Cricket has always tried to balance the battle between batsmen and bowlers. Intimidatory bowling came of age in the 30s in an attempt to counter Bradman's supremacy - the rules were changed. Laws were also changed in the 70's when the Windies were rampant, but relaxed as batsmen started wearing helmets and learned to deal with bouncers. It used to be illegal, or at least bad form, to bowl a bouncer to a tail-ender - now you expect them to be able to deal with it. Admittedly no-one is rivalling Bradman's stats, but you do get the feeling that batsmen still have the upper hand.
I'd also be worried that a change in the law might make Sean Abbott's plight even worse - in a way it would make what he did wrong.
What I think we'll see is minor modifications to helmet design - possibly incorporating d3o, who knows
Cricket has always tried to balance the battle between batsmen and bowlers. Intimidatory bowling came of age in the 30s in an attempt to counter Bradman's supremacy - the rules were changed. Laws were also changed in the 70's when the Windies were rampant, but relaxed as batsmen started wearing helmets and learned to deal with bouncers. It used to be illegal, or at least bad form, to bowl a bouncer to a tail-ender - now you expect them to be able to deal with it. Admittedly no-one is rivalling Bradman's stats, but you do get the feeling that batsmen still have the upper hand.
I'd also be worried that a change in the law might make Sean Abbott's plight even worse - in a way it would make what he did wrong.
What I think we'll see is minor modifications to helmet design - possibly incorporating d3o, who knows
In reply to Tony the Blade:
He;'s being given a NSW state funeral, I have no problems with that.
Google Australia joined in the "put your bat out" campaign, which was thoughtful.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/28/141715...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/cricket-fans-around-the-world-put-out...
He;'s being given a NSW state funeral, I have no problems with that.
Google Australia joined in the "put your bat out" campaign, which was thoughtful.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/11/28/141715...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/cricket-fans-around-the-world-put-out...
In reply to stroppygob:
I awoke, earlier on this morning, to be greeted with the Guardian headline alert, on my tablet, of "Batman's Funeral on Wednesday".
I stared at it in genuine confusion, until my sleep-befuddled brain managed to switch the word Batman's for Batsman's!
I awoke, earlier on this morning, to be greeted with the Guardian headline alert, on my tablet, of "Batman's Funeral on Wednesday".
I stared at it in genuine confusion, until my sleep-befuddled brain managed to switch the word Batman's for Batsman's!
In reply to Tony the Blade:
Just got this in my inbox, remarkable.
Just got this in my inbox, remarkable.
> PHILLIP HUGHES FUNERAL TO TAKE PLACE ON WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER
> The Hughes family has confirmed funeral arrangements for their son Phillip.
> The funeral will take place at 2.00pm on Wednesday 3 December in the Hughes family’s home town of Macksville in northern New South Wales. It will be held in the sports hall of Macksville High School where Phillip was educated. Given the limited capacity in the hall, overflow areas will be made available for guests to watch the service via vision screens set up on the school’s two ovals. The service will be broadcast live by the Nine Network with provisions made for all other television networks. ABC Local Radio and the Fairfax Radio Network will also broadcast the service live around the country. It will also be streamed live on Cricket Australia’s website and app.
> Qantas has scheduled two additional B737 services between Sydney and Coffs Harbour on Wednesday to assist people wishing to attend the funeral. Qantas has provided these services purely on a cost recovery basis. Additional services may be scheduled in coming days. The journey from Coffs Harbour to Macksville is approximately 45 minutes by car.
> CA Chief Executive James Sutherland said: “We are grateful to the Australian community for the overwhelming show of support it has extended to the Hughes family in recent days. “The offers of assistance for Wednesday’s service have been remarkable. “While we know that people from all around the nation want to pay their respects to Phillip, there will only be limited capacity in Macksville, so the work of our broadcasters will help ensure people around the country can follow the service on TV, radio and online. Cricket Australia kindly asks that the privacy of the Hughes family and friends continue to be respected in the lead up to Wednesday’s funeral.
> The SCG Trust and Adelaide Oval will also show Phillip's funeral service live on their big screens.
> First Test will not start on Thursday 4 December.
> Cricket Australia has announced that the first Commonwealth Bank Test match between Australia and India will not start on Thursday 4 December as scheduled. Details around the Test match are still to be determined.
> Sutherland said: “These are extraordinary circumstances and we simply couldn’t or wouldn’t expect our players to be emotionally ready to start a Test match the day after farewelling one of their teammates. “Their welfare is our absolute priority. They are grieving and to expect that they could play a high-pressured, five-day Test match the following day is out of the question. “We appreciate the incredible understanding and support of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. It has been nothing short of outstanding during these difficult times. “We fully acknowledge the many groups who want to know when the Test will take place, particularly cricket fans in Queensland, Queensland Cricket and Stadiums Queensland. “We just ask the cricket community for some patience as we work through a range of scenarios in full consultation with the players, the Indian Board, the ICC and our broadcasters. “We hope to resolve all matters in the next few days and will let cricket fans and the game’s many important stakeholders know as a priority.”
> Ticket sales for the Test have been suspended.
> “We know that there are many people who have purchased tickets to the Test match who will be wondering what happens next? Once the situation has been resolved, we will advise them as a priority,” Sutherland said. “Fans should simply hold onto their tickets until further notice.”
> ACA Chief Executive Alastair Nicholson said: “After consulting with the players, we have communicated to Cricket Australia that the opportunity to farewell their team mate is the priority, and the prospect of them playing the following day is simply too big an ask. "The players are going through a grieving process and they must be afforded the opportunity to do so. As anyone can appreciate, this process doesn’t run according to a clock or a calendar. "This is a unique situation and a unique response is required. We will continue to discuss options with the players and Cricket Australia over the coming days."
> A meeting will be held early next week to discuss arrangements for round five of the Bupa Sheffield Shield which is due to start on Friday 5 December.
In reply to Tony the Blade:
This just in...
This just in...
> An umpire at a cricket match in the Israeli city of Ashdod has died after being hit by a ball, reports say. Witnesses say a fast delivery by the bowler came off the batsman's bat, striking the wicket and then the man. The incident comes just two days after Australian batsman Phillip Hughes died of a head injury caused by being struck by a ball at a match in Sydney.
> Umpires in cricket, unlike some players, do not wear helmets but such incidents are extremely rare. An umpire at a match in Wales died five years ago after a ball thrown by a fielder hit him on the head
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...