Print

[WalkingWicket37]

Yes, but Stuart B is more high  profile. We shouldnt be comparing the helmet to an old Masuri as this didnt meet the new standards.

Joe Public will not hear about the accidents in county cricket as they don't get the coverage, they will hear about Stuart Broad wearing "one of those funky new helmets" and how he had to go to hospital. Result - little Johnny doesn't want one, and his parents don't want to buy him one!

After not hitting a ball off the square all season while wearing my Ayrtek (clearly not my fault) I changed back to my old masuri (must've been the helmets fault...)
This wasn't long after the Stuart Broad incident, something my teammates were quite quick to point out "Broad got hit wearing one of those cycling helmets and got injured, and you stop wearing yours!"
When I said Keiswetter had been hit in an old masuri and suffered a worse injury none of them knew about it. Someone even asked if he still played as they hadn't seen him on telly when england were playing.

Think that proves your point haha

[TangoWhiskey]

Given how the Masuri peak flexes, don't underestimate how much energy was removed from the ball by the damage caused to the material of the peak. Had you been wearing the Masuri, the pace on the ball would have been a lot greater than that from the Ayrtek as it impacted your nose!

You're missing the point. One of the key marketing aspects used is how much safer these are than a Masuri. No one has any way of determining how much damage would have been caused to Broad's face had he been wearing a Masuri. It was marketed in a way that the ball cannot get through the gap, but it can. Until as Cam pointed out we can work out how to exactly replicate two 'accidents' and see the difference in damage, as far as I'm concerned a cricket ball to the face is a cricket ball to the face. Saying 'we're happy that his face only got smashed up a little bit' doesn't really cut the mustard for me when it was advertised that his face shouldn't have been smashed at all.

[tim2000s]

You're missing the point. One of the key marketing aspects used is how much safer these are than a Masuri. No one has any way of determining how much damage would have been caused to Broad's face had he been wearing a Masuri. It was marketed in a way that the ball cannot get through the gap, but it can. Until as Cam pointed out we can work out how to exactly replicate two 'accidents' and see the difference in damage, as far as I'm concerned a cricket ball to the face is a cricket ball to the face. Saying 'we're happy that his face only got smashed up a little bit' doesn't really cut the mustard for me when it was advertised that his face shouldn't have been smashed at all.

In which case you shouldn't bother wearing a helmet. It was never the case that the ball will never mash up the wearer's face. It has never been the case on any helmet. If this is your concern don't bother and take it as it comes. At the level of cricket most of us play, the ball from the bowler's hand is never anywhere near the pace it was bowled at Broad, and therefore the chance of getting it to a pace above which testing has been done is very low.

The reality is that in non-First Class cricket it would be very unlikely that the ball would mash you in the face (and I'm sure Tom has done the research to check how it relates to other helmets), however, saying you thought that the ball would never have smashed his face isn't what was ever advertised. If that is what you believe then no helmet will ever fulfil your requirements, unless you put a Hockey Goalkeeper's guard on one and sacrifice the visibility. 

[WalkingWicket37]

Tim - do you genuinely believe nobody would get mashed in the face? If so our club must be very unlucky!

I've seen (and received) a few nasty knocks from the ball.
2 plastic Albions have had a ball go through the gap between the grille and the peak, one from a seamer resulting 2 black eyes and a sore nose, and one from a spinner which resulted in one black eye.
Our keeper was stood up wearing an old Masuri, the batsman edged one and bang, broken nose through the grille!
I've seen 2 broken noses in the nets from medium pace bowlers being top edged into faces, and myself top edged an incrediball (remember these are so soft colts face them with no pads!) into my lip and split it during a training session.

As for fielding I've been hit on the head twice, once resulting in blood and a bruised skull! Also seen 2 split foreheads and a fractured cheekbone from fielding, so should we wear a helmet at all times on the cricket pitch?


I guess my point is if you chose to wear a lid or not is up to you, but in a game with a hard ball travelling at high speeds incidents are always going to happen.

[TangoWhiskey]

In which case you shouldn't bother wearing a helmet. It was never the case that the ball will never mash up the wearer's face. It has never been the case on any helmet. If this is your concern don't bother and take it as it comes. At the level of cricket most of us play, the ball from the bowler's hand is never anywhere near the pace it was bowled at Broad, and therefore the chance of getting it to a pace above which testing has been done is very low.

The reality is that in non-First Class cricket it would be very unlikely that the ball would mash you in the face (and I'm sure Tom has done the research to check how it relates to other helmets), however, saying you thought that the ball would never have smashed his face isn't what was ever advertised. If that is what you believe then no helmet will ever fulfil your requirements, unless you put a Hockey Goalkeeper's guard on one and sacrifice the visibility.

Ok. I'll release a helmet and say it's impregnable. When one of my sponsored pro's ends up in hospital I'll just say "well he isn't dead is he?". Obviously I'm being facetious, but my point is that this is the Aditek press release:  

Which looks a hell of a lot different to this:

Which in turn doesn't look much different to this:

and the result wasn't too dissimilar to this:

Infact if I'm not mistaken I believe Brendon got away with fairly similar injuries to Broad if not even less severe ones.

[tim2000s]

If the discussion is about public perception, then all three incidents look very similar and that's how the public will see them and thus will draw conclusions from that. Public perception is always difficult.

If the discussion is about the technicalities of what happened amongst an informed group, then the Broad incident is technically due to many factors.

And excuse me if I missed something in the press release, but I don't believe it says that the  Ayrtek/Adidas helmet is impregnable.

[WalkingWicket37]

If the discussion is about public perception, then all three incidents look very similar and that's how the public will see them and thus will draw conclusions from that. Public perception is always difficult.

If the discussion is about the technicalities of what happened amongst an informed group, then the Broad incident is technically due to many factors.

And excuse me if I missed something in the press release, but I don't believe it says that the  Ayrtek/Adidas helmet is impregnable.

Going on public perception alone, by the player reactions Bredan McCullum was the only one left standing after the impact. Would that not lead them to beleive that the oldest model masuri is safest as he came out "best off"??

[tim2000s]

Going on public perception alone, by the player reactions Bredan McCullum was the only one left standing after the impact. Would that not lead them to beleive that the oldest model masuri is safest as he came out "best off"??

I was going to make some comment about Brendon McCullum being the most hard headed.....

[WalkingWicket37]

I was going to make some comment about Brendon McCullum being the most hard headed.....

 

All joking aside did Kieswetter top edge his delivery?

Having seen the McCullum incident I think his just went straight through the grille, whereas Broad top edged his to change the angle.

Also notice the difference is grille settings between each incident.
They may look similar at first, but there are so many variables it really is difficult to accuracy compare these incidents.

[jamielsn15]

You could argue that, given the high amount of variables that lead to a player being hit, each incident should be viewed purely in isolation and on its own individual merits.

I'm certainly of the mind that a top edge cannot be compared to being hit without deviation.  Stuart Broad's occurrence hasn't affected my trust in my Ayrtek in any sense.  It is absolutely fit for purpose in my eyes.

[tim2000s]

All joking aside did Kieswetter top edge his delivery?

Having seen the McCullum incident I think his just went straight through the grille, whereas Broad top edged his to change the angle.

Also notice the difference is grille settings between each incident.
They may look similar at first, but there are so many variables it really is difficult to accuracy compare these incidents.

I was trying to determine that.

The best that I could get was, from looking at the various videos, McCullum's came off a bouncer that he didn't touch and appears to have hit the grill slightly before going through. Kieswetter's you can't tell if there was a top edge. It isn't clear, and finally Broad's had an obvious top edge.

[Alvaro]

Keiswetter did not top edge it. Straight through him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0XlFPcPyDo

[TangoWhiskey]

It doesn't. I said I was being facetious. What it does show is a helmet looking not dissimilar to a Masuri being about as useful as a chocolate teapot compared to the Aditek.

You have pointed out that Broads injuries were less severe than Kieswetters. Kieswetter had the gap far too wide, so the helmet would have barely done anything to stop the ball. That comparison is therefore irrelevant to us as he may as well have not been wearing a lid.

I'd imagine Brendon McCullum being the nutter that he is probably had the gap as wide as it goes too, yet he only had a broken nose, same as Broad.

Basically I'd suggest that saying that Broad would have come off worse wearing something else is an incorrect assumption.

I'm not out after Ayrteks blood or anything, it would just be nice if we got a bit more objectivity. An admission that the Premtek wasn't up for the job Broad tried to use it for and that it has passed the BSI tests asked off it, but perhaps without trying to discredit other products.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember reading (possibly on that this type of incident was why Ayrtek was founded as they wanted to produce a helmet that would stop it happening and as far as they were concerned they had found the solution with the Ayrtek design.

[WalkingWicket37]

If the incident was caused, as some have speculated, by the grille being set further back than the peak, would a design where the grille was set ahead of the peak prevent this?

Also I keep asking this, but nobody has actually answered me yet. Would a Masuri fielding grille style design work for a batting helmet, so they have the ordinary grille design, with an extra bar against the peak of the helmet? Surely that's a much more simple solution?

[tim2000s]

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember reading (possibly on that this type of incident was why Ayrtek was founded as they wanted to produce a helmet that would stop it happening and as far as they were concerned they had found the solution with the Ayrtek design.

All the quotes I've seen state that the design would "reduce the likelihood of the ball passing between the grill and visor". I don't think I've seen "eliminate" used.