As others say to, spare a thought for Sean Abbot, God knows what he's feeling now. This whole situation is just catastrophic.
RIP .. Phil Hughes .. a really tragic accident .. and for Sean Abbot, let's hope that this episode does not affect him too deeply for the rest of his life
Surprised that no one has said that the whole idea of short pitched bowling should be looked into -the game has evolved in a way where it has become acceptable to intimidate batsmen rather than bowling at the stumps which is what was originally intended.
Bodyline bowling was effective (in getting wickets) but was outlawed as it was deemed unsporting - what is the difference between that and delivering bumpers aimed to rough batsmen up and unsettle them?
If deliveries were made illegal over shoulder height say then it would definitely change the game - but would it really be for the worse? You would need to adopt more guile as a bowler and it would encourage more spin and medium pace / swing to give you a chance when the pitches didn't suit the quickies.
There is very little variety in bowling attacks nowadays and a change like this may actually make the game more interesting.
Surprised that no one has said that the whole idea of short pitched bowling should be looked into -the game has evolved in a way where it has become acceptable to intimidate batsmen rather than bowling at the stumps which is what was originally intended.
Bodyline bowling was effective (in getting wickets) but was outlawed as it was deemed unsporting - what is the difference between that and delivering bumpers aimed to rough batsmen up and unsettle them?
If deliveries were made illegal over shoulder height say then it would definitely change the game - but would it really be for the worse? You would need to adopt more guile as a bowler and it would encourage more spin and medium pace / swing to give you a chance when the pitches didn't suit the quickies.
There is very little variety in bowling attacks nowadays and a change like this may actually make the game more interesting.
It is all a bit vague though and left to the umpire's discretion - only balls over head height are no balls. It may be that umpires will be given new guidance after this but who knows?
The reality is that any half recognised batsman can expect short stuff from a quickie and the bowler will only be pulled up on it if he bowls an inordinate amount of them.
A blanket ban on short stuff over shoulder height would be a different thing.
There's nothing wrong with the occasional short ball, part of the excitement of cricket is a genuine contest between bat and ball. The modern game is already skewed towards the batsmen, with flat pitches and short boundaries.
And a short ball being hooked into the crowd is a great shot to watch. I suspect a few more players now will decide to duck or sway out of the way now :-(
It is all a bit vague though and left to the umpire's discretion - only balls over head height are no balls. It may be that umpires will be given new guidance after this but who knows?
The reality is that any half recognised batsman can expect short stuff from a quickie and the bowler will only be pulled up on it if he bowls an inordinate amount of them.
A blanket ban on short stuff over shoulder height would be a different thing.
i dont think that's what should happen. Another look at equipment like helmets but i don't think they should change the laws. Hughesy wouldn't like that i'm sure.
Agree about the contest between bat and ball but short stuff is really just intimidation - It may have been used in the past to 'keep batsmen straight' who were getting on to the front foot early but now it has become a different thing - its cricket not a gladiatorial spectacle! good point by killerandflash though that game is skewed too much in batsmans favour at the moment - different pitch preparation, less use of covers etc could help rebalance that perhaps. Woud be less of a TV spectacle though (maybe better for purists) so would never get the support of any of the cricketing authorities desperate for the TV income
I like that cartoon. I suspect that would be the sentiment Hughes would want to express about Abbott who is just as innocent a victim in this tragedy. I rarely contribute to RIP threads, but I felt a need to today. Rest in Peace Phillip. Live in Peace Sean.
A terrible day for a wonderful sport - RIP Phil Hughes.
It's an understandable reaction to demand even safer helmets, but in the long run players are safer if their first reaction is 'duck' not 'hook' when facing a bouncer. If players feel invincible (when by definition they can't be), then injuries would be more not less likely. The balance today seems about right.
The use of the short ball is much more controlled than in previous years, I remember Lillee and Thompson and the West Indies quartets using the short pitched ball with little restriction. Many batsmen were put in hospital before the use of helmets. Brearley was the first to use any head protection and was derided for it. I can remember Peter Leaver putting a batsman in hospital in New Zealand (I think). If you are going to throw a solid ball like a cricket ball around then damage is always a possibility. Unfortunately for PH, this was a tragic against the odds accident, if he had been hit a short distance either side he would still be with us today, a bit battered and a bit bruised.
Sean Abbot, reportedly, is already having counselling and I hope that it works for him, nobody should carry the burden he will from playing sport.
Can you really call it an accident when you are deliberately bowling short? Be interesting what a lawyer would make of it but if there is a weak spot in the helmet bowl enough balls and it will get found out. Surely the point is that it could be legislated out of the game and any more such 'accidents' made much less likely. Rules can be changed - The beamer was a legal delivery too not that long ago - now you can bounce the ball at a guy's head at 90mph but not bowl it on the full. A pretty subtle distinction.
Can you really call it an accident when you are deliberately bowling short? Be interesting what a lawyer would make of it but if there is a weak spot in the helmet bowl enough balls and it will get found out.
Yes I think you can call it an accident.
OED definition of accident (noun):
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury:
I am sure that he meant the guy no harm but my point was that 'accidents' like this are much more likely to happen if bumpers are legal than not - anyway I will get back in my box now for another year!
I don't care whether this becomes an official part of the game or not, but the next cricket match I go to, when one of the players reaches 63 not out, I am going to stand up, close my eyes and think of a belligerent, talented Australian cricketer, who lost his life playing the game that millions love.
A fifty's nice. And I will always clap a century. But for me, for now, for ever, 63 is the number to mark. I will spare a thought for the little man, when someone reaches that score.
Get the feeling that cricket may never be the same - bowlers might not have the same desire to try to 'knock someones head-off' - its going to be a tough few days for the teams playing overseas, like England. Feel so sad for Hughes family and also Abbott. All those times when Garner and Marshall and Croft and Holding and all the others bowling close to 100 mph were bowling to batsmen with no helmets - just makes me shudder. I always remember Nick Knights comments when he faced the very first 100mph delivery from the Rawalpindi Express that 'he didnt even see it' - scary. And they say that cricket is played by wimps .
A very sad incident but cricket is not going to change because of it and nor should it. Emotions are understandably running high in light of this tragedy but awful things happen in all walks of life.
Get the feeling that cricket may never be the same - bowlers might not have the same desire to try to 'knock someones head-off' - its going to be a tough few days for the teams playing overseas, like England. Feel so sad for Hughes family and also Abbott. All those times when Garner and Marshall and Croft and Holding and all the others bowling close to 100 mph were bowling to batsmen with no helmets - just makes me shudder. I always remember Nick Knights comments when he faced the very first 100mph delivery from the Rawalpindi Express that 'he didnt even see it' - scary. And they say that cricket is played by wimps .
That delivery that Knight got from Akhtar was a strange one, it was clocked at 100mph+ but Knight played it quite comfortably into the leg side, that was in the 2003 World Cup.
Comments
Absolute tradgedy to all those involved and close to him.
Bodyline bowling was effective (in getting wickets) but was outlawed as it was deemed unsporting - what is the difference between that and delivering bumpers aimed to rough batsmen up and unsettle them?
If deliveries were made illegal over shoulder height say then it would definitely change the game - but would it really be for the worse? You would need to adopt more guile as a bowler and it would encourage more spin and medium pace / swing to give you a chance when the pitches didn't suit the quickies.
There is very little variety in bowling attacks nowadays and a change like this may actually make the game more interesting.
Just a thought
http://www.lords.org/mcc/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-42-fair-and-unfair-play/ (6a and 7a)
The reality is that any half recognised batsman can expect short stuff from a quickie and the bowler will only be pulled up on it if he bowls an inordinate amount of them.
A blanket ban on short stuff over shoulder height would be a different thing.
And a short ball being hooked into the crowd is a great shot to watch. I suspect a few more players now will decide to duck or sway out of the way now :-(
It brings back memories of a chap on the local club cricket circuit, uncle of a good friend of mine, who tragically died in similar circumstances.
RIP
Not sure it's the time for cartoons either, whatever the content.
good point by killerandflash though that game is skewed too much in batsmans favour at the moment - different pitch preparation, less use of covers etc could help rebalance that perhaps.
Woud be less of a TV spectacle though (maybe better for purists) so would never get the support of any of the cricketing authorities desperate for the TV income
I rarely contribute to RIP threads, but I felt a need to today.
Rest in Peace Phillip.
Live in Peace Sean.
It's an understandable reaction to demand even safer helmets, but in the long run players are safer if their first reaction is 'duck' not 'hook' when facing a bouncer. If players feel invincible (when by definition they can't be), then injuries would be more not less likely. The balance today seems about right.
Also Abbot was a close friend to Hughes, the poor poor kid.
The use of the short ball is much more controlled than in previous years, I remember Lillee and Thompson and the West Indies quartets using the short pitched ball with little restriction. Many batsmen were put in hospital before the use of helmets. Brearley was the first to use any head protection and was derided for it. I can remember Peter Leaver putting a batsman in hospital in New Zealand (I think). If you are going to throw a solid ball like a cricket ball around then damage is always a possibility. Unfortunately for PH, this was a tragic against the odds accident, if he had been hit a short distance either side he would still be with us today, a bit battered and a bit bruised.
Sean Abbot, reportedly, is already having counselling and I hope that it works for him, nobody should carry the burden he will from playing sport.
Surely the point is that it could be legislated out of the game and any more such 'accidents' made much less likely. Rules can be changed - The beamer was a legal delivery too not that long ago - now you can bounce the ball at a guy's head at 90mph but not bowl it on the full. A pretty subtle distinction.
With all this controversy about concussion and long term affects how long before heading is outlawed in football or rucks/mauls in rugby.
Sport is exciting sometimes with a dangerous edge, take that away and no one will be interested.
OED definition of accident (noun):
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury:
R.I.P
completely agree with simon hughes on this
I don't care whether this becomes an official part of the game or not, but the next cricket match I go to, when one of the players reaches 63 not out, I am going to stand up, close my eyes and think of a belligerent, talented Australian cricketer, who lost his life playing the game that millions love.
A fifty's nice. And I will always clap a century. But for me, for now, for ever, 63 is the number to mark. I will spare a thought for the little man, when someone reaches that score.
RIP Hughesy
Feel so sad for Hughes family and also Abbott.
All those times when Garner and Marshall and Croft and Holding and all the others bowling close to 100 mph were bowling to batsmen with no helmets - just makes me shudder.
I always remember Nick Knights comments when he faced the very first 100mph delivery from the Rawalpindi Express that 'he didnt even see it' - scary.
And they say that cricket is played by wimps .