Print

[eukaryote76]

You could get hit a tile falling from a roof while out walking the dog. Why not just wear one 24/7?

Healthy debate is a good sign; sarcasm is not. You must make you're own decision but respect others. I for one where a helmet first and foremost for top edges, unintentional beamers and over-zealous throw-ins rather than bouncers. It's my belief the less your ability/ grade the more likely an injury, albeit not from a bouncer. Just my 10 penneth/ cents-worth.

[Bats_Entertainment]

Club cricket was played for hundreds of years before helmets were invented. I don't remember my grandfather telling me how dangerous playing cricket was in his day.

[eukaryote76]

Additionally, I believe the helmet 'skirt/ apron' idea might work, or an inflatable collar affair as previously suggested; not saying I'd be an early adopter however. Akin to the what the postmen wear on the motorcycle helmets in Australia. It would have to be made of something like what George at strettonfox uses.

[cleanbowled]

Club cricket was played for hundreds of years before helmets were invented. I don't remember my grandfather telling me how dangerous playing cricket was in his day.

In general I think cricket is not for the most part, which is part of the reason why this comes as such a shock.

But there is always the potential for serious injury. Another example is Raman Lamba who was hit fatally while fielding without a helmet in 1998 at short leg. So it is not the first time someone has died on the cricket pitch. The video posted a few posts before by tugga is an example where the fielder was pretty lucky nothing happened. Lamba was not so lucky.

[smokem]

Club cricket was played for hundreds of years before helmets were invented. I don't remember my grandfather telling me how dangerous playing cricket was in his day.

You could say that for lots of other sports too - baseball, motorsport, ice hockey, grid iron, etc, etc. We learn over time and as technology advances we try our best to come up with solutions where we increase safety without over compromising on enjoyment for the sport. Just because we didn't know something was dangerous doesn't mean it wasn't dangerous...

I don't think banning bouncers in junior cricket is the answer either. How else could you prepare yourself for bouncers in the senior ranks if you don't get exposed to them prior to that?

[felix]

Grown men wearing helmets in 5th XI cricket looks ridiculous.

Sorry no. As someone who's opened at "5th XI" level and at slightly higher levels I've usually felt far more vulnerable in the former. Ok so the bowlers may be a few mph slower but some of the council rec pitches are downright dangerous, many a time You're having to deal with balls flying off a length. And most of the quicker bowlers at that level have no idea where they're putting it which adds to the danger. 2 of the 3 times I've been hit on the head in my life were from big top edges against long hops, you can't legislate for that.

[mad_abt_cricket]

Not sure if helmet designs can incorporate the area where Hughes was hit, it was not on the head but on the neck.
Perhaps a separate protective equipment "neck guard" is the need made from a material which is flexible and would still provide enough protection from direct impact.

[Sam]

You could get hit a tile falling from a roof while out walking the dog. Why not just wear one 24/7?

Because tiles don't get intentionally bowled at people up to 600 times every game?

[Come in 5 and left a bit]

Before this incident I only ever wore my helmet in the nets, however, thinking about this tragic incident and what people have written on here I have decided from next season I will wear a helmet regardless.

[tim2000s]

This debate is highlighting one very important thing. How poor most people's perception of risk really is. The likelihood of sustaining an injury like the one that Phil Hughes sustained is roughly 1 in 10 million. Yes, that's on a par with winning the lottery. It's really that low.

The likelihood of actually sustaining serious damage playing cricket is also extremely low, and you participate knowing that you are having a cricket ball chucked at you, hit in your direction and generally that there is an element of getting injured possible. When you participate in any sport that either involves physical contact or throwing things at each other you know there is always a possibility that you will get hurt. It's actually a part of what makes it attractive to many people.

When I was 20, the fellow opening bowler on my team bounced a guy who didn't play it well. It hit his ear. He collapsed and was taken off in an ambulance. He was in hospital for 2 months and died of a brain haemorrhage. He wasn't wearing a lid and it would have saved his life. He was 18. I have bounced people and caused broken noses because they haven't played it well enough, and weren't wearing helmets. In playing cricket for 25 years I have damaged people like this three times. I have bowled a lot of bouncers. I have never seen anyone else hit in the head and die from their injuries. These things happen in amateur cricket too.

The reality is that in test matches, ODIs and T20s, the bouncer won't disappear. The crowd will react slightly differently, treating the bowler as a pantomime villain, but they want to see fast, aggressive bowling. It's part of what brings people to the game. Much like motorsport, where there are crashes and deaths, but they are what everyone watches over and over on YouTube. People go to watch something vaguely dangerous because that's what they want to see. In many respects it's like watching roman gladiators. 

This will have next to no impact on the types of delivery bowled by bowlers - they are already limited by the rules as to how frequently they can intimidate the batsman. It will just add a little bit more of a reminder into the batsman that maybe swaying is better than playing.

[eukaryote76]

This debate is highlighting one very important thing. How poor most people's perception of risk really is. The likelihood of sustaining an injury like the one that Phil Hughes sustained is roughly 1 in 10 million. Yes, that's on a par with winning the lottery. It's really that low.

The likelihood of actually sustaining serious damage playing cricket is also extremely low, and you participate knowing that you are having a cricket ball chucked at you, hit in your direction and generally that there is an element of getting injured possible. When you participate in any sport that either involves physical contact or throwing things at each other you know there is always a possibility that you will get hurt. It's actually a part of what makes it attractive to many people.

When I was 20, the fellow opening bowler on my team bounced a guy who didn't play it well. It hit his ear. He collapsed and was taken off in an ambulance. He was in hospital for 2 months and died of a brain haemorrhage. He wasn't wearing a lid and it would have saved his life. He was 18. I have bounced people and caused broken noses because they haven't played it well enough, and weren't wearing helmets. In playing cricket for 25 years I have damaged people like this three times. I have bowled a lot of bouncers. I have never seen anyone else hit in the head and die from their injuries. These things happen in amateur cricket too.

The reality is that in test matches, ODIs and T20s, the bouncer won't disappear. The crowd will react slightly differently, treating the bowler as a pantomime villain, but they want to see fast, aggressive bowling. It's part of what brings people to the game. Much like motorsport, where there are crashes and deaths, but they are what everyone watches over and over on YouTube. People go to watch something vaguely dangerous because that's what they want to see. In many respects it's like watching roman gladiators. 

This will have next to no impact on the types of delivery bowled by bowlers - they are already limited by the rules as to how frequently they can intimidate the batsman. It will just add a little bit more of a reminder into the batsman that maybe swaying is better than playing.

And yet people do play the lottery - because the potential result is worth the investment - the same is true of helmets in my opinion. It's not a matter of 'poor' perception of risk, it is a measure of how risk averse one person is compared to another. The numbers don't change, only your evaluation of them does, and there is no right or wrong way to perceive them, only a personal response to what is acceptable or not to you.

This tragic incident is thankfully very very rare. By your own admission you've seen 3 people hit off your bowling. It's unlikely you've bowled millions of balls. Those on the receiving end may have wished they had helmets, and when an individual is the 1 in a million (or 1 in 10 million) person, he wouldn't turn around and say it only affected him 1/1,000,000th; it will have affected him 100% and for him the stats will be a lot less than 1 in a million - assuming there are not too many people who have faced millions of balls.

I'm not saying you have to stop bowling bouncers, that's your choice, and I doubt anybody will walk out to the crease expecting bouncers to stop either. 

[Bats_Entertainment]

Because tiles don't get intentionally bowled at people up to 600 times every game?

Nor do cricket balls. They get bowled at the stumps. Or at least they ought to.

[tim2000s]

@eukaryote76 I think perception of risk is the critical issue. There has been a lot of discussion about making people wear helmets, stopping delivery types, etc. These are classic examples of misunderstanding risk and over reliance on authority to step in where personal responsibility should play its part. Personally I wear a helmet because I am much happier without the concern that I am going to be hit in the face. Off any bowler.

On the topic of risk, how good is any of us? The likelihood of dying from a cricket ball impact is negligible. The impact of dying from the impact of a cricket ball is extreme. Is that a very high, high, medium, or low risk? How can I mitigate what happens to make the risk lower. Do I mitigate the likelihood of being hit or of the impact?

Back to wearing the helmet. In my view the impact is too high to not wear a helmet, even though I've never had a ball hit me in the head in 25 years of playing. I still prefer to get out of the way than try and hook though.

On the topic specifically, the future will be little changed and while we may see some shape changes to try and address these issues, I don't expect to see a huge amount differ.

[iand123]

I wonder if somehow the large manufacturers (particularly the helmet companies like masuri, Ayrtek etc) could collaborate to investigate options on how protection might be improved. Like many in here have said I don't know what the solution is but having the skills and expertise working together Youd think would start to help. There is enough money in this game to fund such an exercise

[ppccopener]

one thing that has only been mentioned briefly in this debate, and it's good that it's all discussed in the light of the sad events this week-is the standard of pitches we play on
I don't know about you guys but unless we have a lovely Sunday fixture, we are playing on very average uneven bounce Council prepared tracks in Middlesex.the bounce is not even

2 years back our ones played against Theo Modest on a poor wicket in Harrow and we were lucky not have any injuries....

Maybe most of this forum play on good decks but i'm sure there are Middlesex league players on here.
So the chances are you will get hit from an uneven bounce are far greater than an acutual bouncer