Helmets

[Smoooothy]

Quick discussion on helmets

Do modern helmets do enough to protect the base of the skull?

In my opinion, i don't know if they can be extended further down the skull without impeding movement of the head

edit - this could be intepreted as a reactionary thread, it's not my intention. lets have an open ad frank discussion on the topic

 

[fantasyunit]

Quick discussion on helmets

Do modern helmets do enough to protect the base of the skull?

In my opinion, i don't know if they can be extended further down the skull without impeding movement of the head

edit - this could be intepreted as a reactionary thread, it's not my intention. lets have an open ad frank discussion on the topic

Might be worth looking at having some kind of extension, no idea if it's feasible though. Certainly that's the only type of change that should be considered, nothing regarding bouncers etc.

 

[frankrizzo]

Modern batsmen seem to get hit in the head a lot more than in the past that for sure and that worries me the most, without having the technical expertise i can only assume companies are always trying to make the safest helmets they possibly can as it can't be good business to have customers get seriously hurt or killed.

Catch 22 i guess you want safe helmets but safe helmets have lead to players maybe not fearing blows to the head the same way they did in the past so technical flaws in their game develop making it more likely they will be struck.

I don't know how or if that problem can be changed.

 

[FRUMPY]

Im sure there will be fair debate with helmet companies after this and there will be some sort of improvement.

But there are limits on what you can change to not impede player movement. There will always be a chance of injuries when a cricket ball is bowled at you at decent speed.

Like most things it takes an injury to work out weaknesses in things like this.

 

[Power Raid]

Quick discussion on helmets

Do modern helmets do enough to protect the base of the skull?

In my opinion, i don't know if they can be extended further down the skull without impeding movement of the head

edit - this could be intepreted as a reactionary thread, it's not my intention. lets have an open ad frank discussion on the topic

The reality is, it will need to be reviewed. Better options my no come overnight but I'm sure they will.

 

[Ashton Agar]

I've never been one to duck the short ball. If it's at my head I pull/hook. In fact I've never ducked I don't think. I'm not even an aggressive batsman, I'm quite defensive, but just if you bowl at my head, you get punished.

I usually get onto them but I've worn a couple in the head over the years, yet I've always been able to bat on. My helmet has served me fine so far, so I never even thought about it until now. You can't make it impede on players movement, as that would just further the problem, making in harder for the batsman to get out of the way. An interesting debate.

 

[The Passenger]

Modern batsmen seem to get hit in the head a lot more than in the past that for sure and that worries me the most, without having the technical expertise i can only assume companies are always trying to make the safest helmets they possibly can as it can't be good business to have customers get seriously hurt or killed.

Catch 22 i guess you want safe helmets but safe helmets have lead to players maybe not fearing blows to the head the same way they did in the past so technical flaws in their game develop making it more likely they will be struck.

I don't know how or if that problem can be changed.

This is a very good point, and whilst the introduction of helmets have generally been a great advancements like everything there is always some unintended consequence and no doubt batsmen do get hit in the head more often than prior to helmets. Older guys I talk to always tell me how much emphasis was placed on short ball technique back in the day. On top of that, you've got players who aren't afraid to get hit in the head. They do offer a lot of protection there are still some helmet hits that are going to cause damage, and we've seen that happen many times before.

Another unintended consequence is that bowlers are more likely to bowl bouncers at tailenders now. Back prior to helmets there was an unspoken rule that you didn't bowl bouncers at the tail, particularly in grade cricket where there was some real bunnies. It obviously wasn't always adhered too.

I also mentioned in another thread that you get the one in a thousand helmet hit where the helmet causes more damage by compressing metal and other bits into the head - especially around the edges of the helmet at the base, or one game I was playing years ago where part of the metal grill snapped off and sliced the guys face up. But this is very rare, and obviously on the balance of things you are far better off with helmets. And it's hard to quantify what damage would have been done without a helmet as you're really just making an educated guess.

As for the OP i've been reading talk of new helmets which provide some protection at the base of the neck but not sure how far they extend or how they restrict mobility. I think probably the most effective protection might be some sort of extension to the helmet, that is like a thigh pad or chest pad material.

Another thing is guys like Jordan Silk. I know a few on here have a bit of a laugh about his long neck, but having a long neck is going to leave a good bit of extra area unprotected.

I don't think the aftermath to the Hughes incident should (or will) see any massive changes. It's such a freak incident, and you can't really legislate against it. Whilst batting might not be an activity which has the high rate of injuries we see in other sports, or even within cricket (fast bowling), it does tend to be that batting injuries are often quite major incidents. That is just the nature of it.

As said making changes can lead to other unintended consequences. Banning the bouncer would mean a guy like Dave Warner who is a little vulnerable to the short ball (not as much as he used to be) can now get on the front foot with confidence and swing through the line. With that confidence how long till he collects a bowler on their run through or an umpire? It's already something that is a danger and to be honest I can't believe we haven't seen a major incident since the introduction of T20.

 

[Black Diamond]

Helmets are probably not as robust as they used to be. They are lighter and more ventilated but from a purely protective aspect aren't as good.

However, this is not about helmets. This is about batting. I can't ever recall seeing a batsman getting hit for no reason other than bad luck. Think about some of the recent ones: Johnson hitting Abbott and Amla, Ntini hitting Langer, Harmison hitting Ponting, Lee hitting Kallis. Every time the batsman either didn't watch the ball properly and/or played a poor shot.

Harsh, but true. I wish Hughes all the best because what happened is awful, but this is not about helmets.

It's also interesting that tail enders don't seem to get hit in the head as often as batsmen. Sometimes this is because they have backed away to square leg, but it's also because they fear for their safety and actually watch the ball as a result.

 

[Bucking Beads]

The trouble with adding more protection to run down part of the neck is will it be comfortable and flexible enough to not impede on the players. I don't think it matters how much more protection they add there will always be a freak incident on the odd occasion that will see a ball hit a part of the body that it shouldn't. A review should certainly take place on helmets though. If the game can be made safer we should always look to make that happen.

 

[nick1408]

I've never been one to duck the short ball. If it's at my head I pull/hook. In fact I've never ducked I don't think. I'm not even an aggressive batsman, I'm quite defensive, but just if you bowl at my head, you get punished.

I usually get onto them but I've worn a couple in the head over the years, yet I've always been able to bat on. My helmet has served me fine so far, so I never even thought about it until now. You can't make it impede on players movement, as that would just further the problem, making in harder for the batsman to get out of the way. An interesting debate.

Funny you say that - I am a defensive batsman as well and duck the short ball more often than not. The difference between you and me? I don't wear a helmet

 

[frankrizzo]

The trouble with adding more protection to run down part of the neck is will it be comfortable and flexible enough to not impede on the players. I don't think it matters how much more protection they add there will always be a freak incident on the odd occasion that will see a ball hit a part of the body that it shouldn't. A review should certainly take place on helmets though. If the game can be made safer we should always look to make that happen.

I assume you would need to actually change the laws and force batsmen to only use these new helmets as well, given a choice between slightly more protection in an area like the neck or more comfort playing shots i get the feeling many top batsmen would simply go with the older style.

 

[madmug]

The thing about helmets is that it gives batsmen a greater feeling of safety. Maybe todays players are more game to play risky shots because they have a helmet? If protective equipment becomes 'better' then wont batsmen just play more 'risky' shots? I think the current helmets are generally fine. Players need to take less risks when playing short balls or 'ramp' shots etc. Once apon a time you were told to move 'inside' the ball if it was short. It looked to me that he didnt get across & was thus in line with the ball.
Is that what anyone sees?
Anyway wish him a full recovery. Just sad day for cricket to see a young lad hurt like that.

 

[the_interloper]

The thing about helmets is that it gives batsmen a greater feeling of safety. Maybe todays players are more game to play risky shots because they have a helmet? If protective equipment becomes 'better' then wont batsmen just play more 'risky' shots? I think the current helmets are generally fine. Players need to take less risks when playing short balls or 'ramp' shots etc. Once apon a time you were told to move 'inside' the ball if it was short. It looked to me that he didnt get across & was thus in line with the ball.
Is that what anyone sees?
Anyway wish him a full recovery. Just sad day for cricket to see a young lad hurt like that.

I agree with this post, players do not play the short ball anywhere near as well these days. How many times do you see guys get hit when they play a short pill by turning away from the ball? I was always taught to keep your eye on it the whole way and if it's going for your head you'll get out the way, even if you instinctively fall over or something. But like you say, well inside or well outside and you won't get hit.

 

[Power Raid]

The trouble with adding more protection to run down part of the neck is will it be comfortable and flexible enough to not impede on the players. I don't think it matters how much more protection they add there will always be a freak incident on the odd occasion that will see a ball hit a part of the body that it shouldn't. A review should certainly take place on helmets though. If the game can be made safer we should always look to make that happen.

I see the solution to this coming from the back up rather than the helmet down

The motor bike back guard is to rigid and locks the back but imagine something the fits on the back, allows the shoulder blades and back to move freely. Then add upward shield rising to protect the neck and back of the head, with an appropriate distance to allow head free range of movement.

 

[nick1408]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/nov/25/cricket-helmets-complacency-phil-hughes

This opinion piece may add something to the argument

 

[madmug]

I agree with this post, players do not play the short ball anywhere near as well these days. How many times do you see guys get hit when they play a short pill by turning away from the ball? I was always taught to keep your eye on it the whole way and if it's going for your head you'll get out the way, even if you instinctively fall over or something. But like you say, well inside or well outside and you won't get hit.

Helmets were really designed for the ball which jumped off a length, or come off a bat or glove. turning ones head without moving out of the line of the ball is a no no. Batsmen should first be looking at their technique rather beefing up helmets etc

 

[nick1408]

I see the solution to this coming from the back up rather than the helmet down

The motor bike back guard is to rigid and locks the back but imagine something the fits on the back, allows the shoulder blades and back to move freely. Then add upward shield rising to protect the neck and back of the head, with an appropriate distance to allow head free range of movement.

Is this not going too far? To my knowledge this type of incident has happened once. Do we really need to change the world based on once incident?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I agree with this post, players do not play the short ball anywhere near as well these days. How many times do you see guys get hit when they play a short pill by turning away from the ball? I was always taught to keep your eye on it the whole way and if it's going for your head you'll get out the way, even if you instinctively fall over or something. But like you say, well inside or well outside and you won't get hit.

Yes, it's a point I've been making for quite some time. At no stage am I suggesting we shouldn't have helmets, but since they were introduced back in the late 70s, batsmen have been developing the most bizaar ways of dealing with the shorter ball. Who will ever forget Danny Morrison head-butting a ball, something you would never have seen pre-helmet days.

I remember a kid being questioned on TV one day, asked if he was worried about getting hit by the ball. The kid said it didn't matter because he had a helmet. Wrong answer.

Since the helmet was introduced we see far more batsmen being clocked in the head than ever before, and it's because they take their eye off the ball.

 

[Power Raid]

Is this not going too far? To my knowledge this type of incident has happened once. Do we really need to change the world based on once incident?

ask OH&S, work place laws and the courts

 

[Zach Package]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/nov/25/cricket-helmets-complacency-phil-hughes

This opinion piece may add something to the argument

Helmet complacency is definitely a thing in my experience. I play every grade ranging from A to G depending on if I actually want to play or just faff around with mates and only really wear a lid in A grade, sometimes B but definitely not anything below that.

In short, I feel like I watch it closer when I bat in a terry toweling as opposed to a helmet because there is some genuine danger, as opposed to me potentially just turning away from it and letting it hit me like I remember Ntini doing to JL back in the day.

 

[Power Raid]

Greg Chappel believes if you want to improve your foot work, to play without pads. He reckons you will remain very focused and never get out lbw.

I guess the same thing can be said about the head but OH&S now drives the evolution of safety standards.

 

[The_Reaper]

Greg Chappel believes if you want to improve your foot work, to play without pads. He reckons you will remain very focused and never get out lbw.

I guess the same thing can be said about the head but OH&S now drives the evolution of safety standards.

Practice in the nets with a tennis ball and no helmet

 

[Power Raid]

Practice in the nets with a tennis ball and no helmet

soft!


Note: McGrath is a better batsmen than me

 

[ManWithNoName]

soft!


Note: McGrath is a better batsmen than me

My favourite is Ponting and Gilly's just utter looks of disbelief.

 

[nick1408]

ask OH&S, work place laws and the courts

Pretty much what I was getting at. Depending on the state (Vic and WA have different OHS laws to the rest of Australia which comes under the WHS Act) the wording is something along the lines of "as low as reasonably practicable". Basically, is it currently practicable to wear back armour? 'Practicable' does also take into account resources (i.e. funding). As no cricket association (the workplace) provides the PPE and tools of the trade (and there is probably an argument both ways that they could and could not provide it) it becomes the individual worker's responsibility to provide their PPE and tools of the trade.

Basically, all available steps were taken and I reckon any reasonable WHS Officer (as it would be in NSW) (not 'Officer' as detailed by the act) would not recommend further protection to the body or change to the workplace. When investigating incidents they can take prior events into consideration so the precedence of only Ewan Chatfield being in a similar position in the last 50 years would mean no changes need to be made.