So.. what happens now?

First of all, my condolences to all those involved in Australian cricket and the cricketing world as a whole. It is a very tough moment in world cricket. A great talent has been lost. I know quite a few people didn't think he had the game to get back to international cricket, but looking at Steve Smith's revival, I'd say he had every chance, and deserved to at least try. RIP Hughes.

Now, this is the second documented occurrence of a professional batter dying at the hands of a well-directed bumper in as many years. The emphasis is on the term professional, as if they can't handle the short stuff, are weekend warriors putting their lives at risk every weekend? Having played first team cricket for a few years, there's generally a chasm in ability between at least a few of the players. A paid pro could be ordered to get a few overs under his belt for the local club, a prodigious 16-year old could be making the step up. The reality is there will be a difference in playing ability between the two.

I faced Morne Morkel when I was seventeen. He was dialling it in, so he wasn't ripping it at full tilt, but he wasn't opposed to sending it past the ears every now and then. Similar story regarding a young Neil Mckenzie facing Alan Donald. First ball he got was a half tracker he duly despatched to the fence, the second one was a proper snorter which whizzed past his collar. Stories like this are common place in world cricket, it's the beauty of our game, the community being so intertwined. Joe from Manchester is never in a million years going to get a game against or with Wayne Rooney, and yet nearly everyone here probably has a story of the time they played with a player of decent fame.

Looking at it now though, are the risk of sending young players out for these types of matches too great? There are a number of reactionary people who think bumpers should now be outlawed until we get a 360 degree helmet and all sorts of things, but I don't agree. It's quite unfortunate, but we have to take the Hughes incident for what it was. A freak occurrence which 999/1000 would have ended either on the boundary, helmet or keeper. But are the risks of prodigies rubbing shoulders with hero's too high? Should we impose age restrictions on first team cricket? Is banning bouncers really the way forward? I must admit, I'm not sure I'd watch cricket if they did.

just like when riding bikes....helmets must be made compulsory to all when facing any kind of seamers or fielding close-in

the last freak death I remember was of Raman Lamba who played for India and was struck on head fielding at FwdShtLeg in a club game in Dhaka.

and the design of helmets got to be more "all encompassing" and standardized...actually more like the bikers helmet

KR, as a cricketer do you feel there could be more protection? I heard a few guys on the radio saying anymore protection at the back of the head would restrict movement but I can't see that myself. You could easily incorporate some protection much like F1 and Moto GP riders have to protect their necks from whiplash.

Sport as a whole is just now waking up to the significance of head injuries. Perhaps NFL style helmets are a better route than the more open cricket helmets of present day. Though the NFL does have a concussion problem.

seanmichaels wrote:KR, as a cricketer do you feel there could be more protection? I heard a few guys on the radio saying anymore protection at the back of the head would restrict movement but I can't see that myself. You could easily incorporate some protection much like F1 and Moto GP riders have to protect their necks from whiplash.

Not sure a F1 helmet is really sensible. They largely remain stationary within the car and require a limited range of head movement while the helmets actually of any use. A cricket helmet needs mobility, and hindering vision/head movement is probably more dangerous

It's a tragic accident - you can never mitigate against all risks. You say 999/1000 this wouldn't happen, but this is more like a one in a million or even billion accident.

I think the most important outcome is something is done as a long-term mark of respect - I saw the suggestion on cricinfo to rename the Sheffield Shield to the Phil Hughes trophy, I think that's a great tribute personally.

No, I don't think so Sean. Reality is, like I said, unfortunate as it was, Hughes' death really was a freak incident. No one in the international game has ever died from a hit on the neck, and given the state of pitches and protection until forty years ago, it shows how remarkable it really was. I can't imagine wearing a F1 style helmet, I don't even wear an elbow guard, and I've actually been cracked there before. I don't even wear helmets in net sessions. I absolutely insist my u16s do, but I've always felt helmets are as much of a reason for players getting hit so often. They create a blind spot, as well as weird grid vision. Can't see too many batters picking them up. I wouldn't.

Slightly away from what Raf had in mind in his opening article but a couple of points which I consider relevant.

This may be a generational thing but was I the only person to find continual showings this week on British tv of the ball hitting Phil Hughes somewhat distasteful? I remember almost forty years ago when Ewen Chatfield was struck and his life put in doubt from a ball by Peter Lever in the 1975 Auckland Test. The match was being shown live on New Zealand tv but coverage stopped as soon as the seriousness of Chatfield's condition was realised and the incident was not replayed. In my view that was and remains the right decision. I understand we are now in an era of expected instant news but there are some things that I believe national broadcasters should leave to the likes of youtube.

Lest I be accused of glorifying the past, one aspect of this tragedy at least shows how far the world has improved in the intervening years. I refer to the huge understanding and support that Sean Abbott has received and contrast that with the barracking that Lever then received.

guildfordbat wrote:This may be a generational thing but was I the only person to find continual showings this week on British tv of the ball hitting Phil Hughes somewhat distasteful?.

Absolutely not - I agree entirely and I am very much of the internet generation. There is a paper thin argument to say it was ok as these videos were being shown before the full tragic outcome was known, but the prognosis was always touch and go, so I feel they should have waited as it's clear what the video could (and sadly now does) show.

It is haunting, though. Given the fact that he never came back, the video is in essence, a rather graphic display of his last moments on earth (at least consciously).

Does anyone else feel this makes certain incidents look slightly different retrospectively? Two incidents come to mind for me. The first being the Marlon Samuels incident two years back, when he was hit on the eye by the Malinga bouncer and only one Melbourne player thought to have a look at his condition. Even while he was bleeding. The other, more immediate, was the vile abuse the English team got for their fear of Mitchell Johnson. Of course, I don't think anyone expects to die from a bouncer, but the feeling of knowing what's coming at you, and not having a clue of how stop it is actually scary, as Mike Hussey can attest

Just looked at baseball batter helmets on line and these seem to provide more protection than traditional cricket helmets - come down lower on the side and back of the head. Not saying a baseball-style helmet would have prevented this awful tragedy buy maybe worth looking at. They don't seem to prevent batters racing between the bases after they hit the ball so the comfort argument mightn't apply.

That said, this is a horrible day for Phil Hughes's family, his team mates and for Ryan Abbott who must going through the most appalling anguish.

we can't blame the helmet...as a helmet wouldn't have protected him in this case...it's a tragic event it really is, but we can't blame the helmet or outlaw the bouncer, otherwise the game will die..

I didn't actually mean an all round F1 style helmet. If you look at this photo I refer to the neck brace addition which could be modified and added as an (optional) extra to the helmet should players wish. Obviously the pictures here would be totally unsuitable but could be designed in a similar way to the old school ice hockey goalkeeper helmets which hung loose but protected the neck.

Spoiler:

I suppose the neck thing brace be added. But I think something a lot of people do miss when discussing cricketer safety is that these guys aren't afraid of getting hit (as a rule). And I don't mean that in the cocky, they don't think they'll get tagged sense, I mean they don't mind getting hit every now and then. I'm pretty convinced that until this week the majority of all cricketers would prefer to bat with no helmet.

Maybe introduce the neck brace in the younger leagues, and get them used to it? I don't know, there's only been 12 deaths on a cricket field in the last 140 odd years of cricket, and three of them of them have come in the last eighteen months. All from bouncers. What's changed?

The problem with something round the neck whilst batting, is that the batsmen needs to be able to move....he needs to move duck, and move his head quickly..

kingraf wrote:I suppose the neck thing brace be added. But I think something a lot of people do miss when discussing cricketer safety is that these guys aren't afraid of getting hit (as a rule). And I don't mean that in the cocky, they don't think they'll get tagged sense, I mean they don't mind getting hit every now and then. I'm pretty convinced that until this week the majority of all cricketers would prefer to bat with no helmet.

Maybe introduce the neck brace in the younger leagues, and get them used to it? I don't know, there's only been 12 deaths on a cricket field in the last 140 odd years of cricket, and three of them of them have come in the last eighteen months. All from bouncers. What's changed?

I don't think there is anything that's changed really barring maybe, without wishing to sound too Boycott here, batsmen in the olden days without helmets played the short ball with more respect whereas nowadays with improved safety and helmets they don't (and I'm not for a second saying we should go back to no helmets etc)

What happened with Hughes, is just a freak accident. I don't see what could've been dome from a safety standpoint to stop it. Its one in a ten million type thing, and so so sadly Hughes was that one.

As a groundsman I can confidently say pitches have got slower and more true. Have bowlers got taller and faster? I don't know. The cricket helmet is a bit village though. Should just be options for people out there. It isn't rocket science. Knowing cricket companies though, they'll develop something relatively simple and charge the earth for it.

Need is the mother of invention....

Not enough attention and research has been put in evolving the cricket helmet...because the current levels have been deemed adequate.....batsmen have had a few shocks and jars on the head.....an occasional bruised face when it sneaks through the grill.
Fatalities or even near fatalities have been rare....Phil's sad demise was also declared a freak 1 in billion type event.

I would like to see through following  evolution:

1)  some kind of cushion / padding around the nape, not quite the hard helmet material...but more like the leg padding material extension covering the nape.
that would have been enough to save Phil and wouldn't restrict  the movement of the batters.

2) the grill is badly designed and should be improvised...I have seen so many time a fast delivery sneaks through the grill and hurts the face.
The old fashioned visor was more reliable.

A few jumbled up thoughts from me...

Firstly I agree completely and utterly with guildford about the ghoulishness of media outlays repeatedly showing the footage. I do fear that we are becoming somewhat insensitive to violence. I remember after 9-11 being shocked at the amount of footage of the burning towers where you could see people clearly plummeting to their deaths having jumped; I remember thinking that it was one thing showing the impact, but that nobody needed to see footage of people jumping to their deaths.

Even more than media outlets showing the footage, I have been disturbed by the number of people sharing it via social media (FB and Twitter mainly). This strikes me as a whole new level of perversity. I have been somewhat comforted by the fact that most of my friends and acquaintances have been as shocked as I am by this trend, and have asked people not to share.

With comments on society's evolution out of the way...

I agree with KPF that we will probably see helmets be made compulsory for batsmen (possibly against all types of bowling) and close-in fielders (possibly including wicket-keepers when standing up). Whilst this may seem ironic given that Hughes was of course wearing a helmet, it strikes me as a natural common-sense evolution, like cycling went through (in cycling too it took a death, that of Andrei Kivilev, to set things into motion).

Designs will naturally be looked into, and new ones suggested. Beyond that I'm fairly sure what we will see are much more stringent regulations to standardise models across all makes and brands. Things like minimum resistance, minimum surface cover, maximum space between grill and visor, etc. may well be introduced and for good reason. There will be some scientific studies carried out, and designs with better protection will soon become compulsory.

As for under-age players playing senior cricket... not so sure. Different countries manage this is different ways and for different sports. For example, in France you can only play senior cricket from the age of 16 (or 15 if you are a member of an international squad); for fencing you can compete in a senior competition from the age of 13 (which has always struck me as wrong). I'm not so sure age is as big a factor as standards, and mis-matches. And there are not many ways to factor for that.

Nothing should happen IMHO. Certainly not with regard to the laws of the game.
While Hughes' death is tragic it was the result of a set of circumstances that have, as far as is known, occured only twice in the entire history of cricket. I don't know how many people have died as a result of being hit by a bouncer in cricket, but I would hazard a guess that more have died due to collapsing scrums in Rugby, or even due to excessive exercise.
While, of course, safety equipment should be upgraded, if possible, I don't see why helmets should be made compulsory (let's face it, virtually everyone where's one now anyway), or that any further restrictions should be placed on bouncers.
While this was a tragic accident, it was precisely that, an ACCIDENT. A million to one series of events which are unlikely to repeat themselves any time soon (if ever). You can't legislate against every eventuality, and neither should you attempt to.

Darryn Randall, an acquaintance of mine I met as an aspiring cricketer died last year having been hit on the head by a bouncer. Which is the issue, not total amount of deaths, but the recent record. A Pakistani cricketer died eighteen months ago having been hit in the chest by a bumper. Three bouncer related deaths in 18 months is excessive.

The other thing with Hughes death though, is that while the actual cause of death was a freak occurrence, I'd say cricket's been flirting with disaster this year. Michael Clarke got hit very close to there in the Newlands test. Mitchell Johnson hit Ryan Mclaren even closer (I can't think it's more than two inches from Hughes' point of impact). Ahmed Shahzad got lucky with a pretty close call.

Fair enough. I agree that such deaths should be adressed, if possible. And if helmets can be designed that would lessen the chances of this happening again then that would be great. My point is though, that we shouldn't fundamentally alter the nature of the game in some knee-jerk attempt to eradicate all risk. There are risks involved in all physical activity. People die because they are running about. We wouldn't ban running about. We should, of course be aware of the risks and should do everything possible to minimalise them as much as possible, but any changes to the rules should be carefully, calmly and thoroughly thought through.

Could I also suggest (and this is merely a suggestion as I have no evidence either way), that people are being hit more today, and are therefore in more danger from bouncers, BECAUSE of helmets or, at least, because of being brought up wearing them? (I accept that there may be more bouncers bowled today than in the very early days of cricket, but there may be something in what I'm saying).

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Nothing should happen IMHO. Certainly not with regard to the laws of the game.
While Hughes' death is tragic it was the result of a set of circumstances that have, as far as is known, occured only twice in the entire history of cricket. I don't know how many people have died as a result of being hit by a bouncer in cricket, but I would hazard a guess that more have died due to collapsing scrums in Rugby, or even due to excessive exercise.
While, of course, safety equipment should be upgraded, if possible, I don't see why helmets should be made compulsory (let's face it, virtually everyone where's one now anyway), or that any further restrictions should be placed on bouncers.
While this was a tragic accident, it was precisely that, an ACCIDENT. A million to one series of events which are unlikely to repeat themselves any time soon (if ever). You can't legislate against every eventuality, and neither should you attempt to.

I agree and I disagree.

I agree that you can't legislate against every eventuality. As I posted on the tribute thread, many sports have to balance the ability to perform with the safety of the environment they are played in - this goes for sports as varied as martial arts, cricket, rugby, motorsport etc.

On the other hand measures like making helmets compulsory, and introducing more stringent minimal safety standards across the board are not really attempts to legislate against every eventuality but rather to minimise the risk and impact of someone getting hit in the head by a cricket ball, which is a relatively common occurrence.

It's interesting you mention collapsed scrums in rugby. I'm sure you're aware of the various changes to the engagement sequence part of whose objective was to reduce the likelihood of collapsed scrums. Equally we're all aware of how rugby (and football, and other sports) are still lagging miles behind with respect to allowing possibly concussed players to the playing field, and the measures which they are gradually introducing to reduce the associated risks - this campaign also started with a tragic death, albeit not quite as high profile as that of Hughes. Cycling as I say has made helmets compulsory. Formula 1 went through its transformation in the 60s and 70s. Etc. Fencing for example has extremely clear minimum safety standards with its protective equipment, and this is upgraded regularly (usually in response to an incident or a series of incidents).  

I don't believe it is hard to imagine compulsory helmets. In fact I fail to see any real downsides to it - as Hoggy says pretty much everyone wears them nowadays anyway (keepers certainly much more so; in the 90s it was decidedly unusual to see a keeper wear a helmet, now it is commonplace.

I agree that changing the nature of the game by further reducing the number of bouncers or other methods is neither necessary nor desirable.

As for helmets making players more likely to be hit, possibly. It would be an interesting study. That of course doesn't make players more in danger from bouncers though. I would still suggest the overall value of helmets has made the game significantly safer. You may be slightly more at risk of being hit, but once hit you are much much better protected.

Good post Mike. Maybe the points I was making earlier were a little too 'broad' and I may have been reacting more to suggestions I've seen on other sites (probably made by non cricket fans), ranging from limiting the speed of bowlers to banning bouncers altogether. Certainly I agree that we should always try to improve basic safety standards and, perhaps I was a little too quick to dismiss the idea of compulsory helmets (especially as, as I say, almost everyone wears one these days anyway). It would be a little ridiculous to force batsmen to wear a helmet (if they didn't want to) on a boiling hot day while facing two slow spin bowlers though, do you not think? Perhaps the umpires should be given the option whether to enforce the rule or not?

Im sure this tragedy will raise a number of questions pertaining to batter safety, and in the fullness of time those questions will be asked.

I just dont think that time has come yet, perhaps a funeral should take priority?.....Just saying.

my thought wanders the courage of batsmen before helmets came along and when the quality of protective gear was primitive compared to their modern cousins.

when charlie griffith hit Nari contrcator in 1960......and the latter was saved after a brain surgery and 2 days in coma.......there were no helmets.

By the time Gatting was hit by Marshall........the helmet had appeared minus the grill.

The point here sub-conscious self evasion and instincts also play a role in protecting oneself......and these scale themselves to the amount of protection available in an era.

you see batsmen in certain situations charge down these days even to Steyn....
I doubt if batsmen in 60s and 70s ever attempted this to Thomson or Trueman's bowling

I don't think batsmen are getting hit more now than ever. If they are, it's likely negligible. If you look at the big decisions taken in cricket in the last forty years, I'd say batter's remorse has been responsible for most of it. Look at the Windies team of the 70s, what was the catalyst for their uprising? Clive Lloyd was tired of his players getting hit by Lilee and Thomson. Sunil Gavaskar's India nearly refused to continue tourin get the Windies once because they were tired getting hit. Even the two bouncer rule was brought forth because... batters where getting hit. I do think past players tend to gloss over this detail, and adjust it as necessary, ie, when questioning the techniques of modern players "The helmets have taught them the wrong way to duck, that's why they are getting hit more than we used to". When questioning the bravery of modern players "The helmets protect them more, we used to accept we'd get hit when playing, were hit more etc"

I do agree that helmets are to blame for a lot of the hits. The human vision is stereoscopic, but it isn't meant to be distracted by paraphernalia like grilles

My condolences to Cricket Australia and the family of Hughes.

Helmets or not, professional sport is dangerous to personal health and pushes the human body to its limits and makes it even more fragile.

One death in the field, is one too many (paraphrasing someone else).

If helmets provide a false sense of security, bowlers also need to recognize that the goal is to hit the wicket and bails, not the person holding the bat.