Phillip Hughes death inquest

Remove this Banner Ad

This is such an awkward, delicate situation and am pretty sceptical that much good can come of all this analysis of sledging tactics. Regardless of the intent of the inquest, it's putting the players involved in the uncomfortable situation where its making them feel as though blame has been apportioned to them. FWIW I'm tending to believe that attacking Hughes with short bowling was a tactic and Bollinger had made the supposed sledge. But the way these things are being put to the players involved has put the players who were out there on the defensive and they feel that what happened out there should stay there. There's just all these inconsistencies coming out with the tactics (Haddin and Warner), the sledge which has even resulted in silly comments now coming out how sledging doesn't happen in shield cricket. It's unedifying and I don't think they should be put in this situation which has the potential to put divisions between mates. Everyone and their dog knows that no individual intended to cause any harm to Hughes, but the way the inquest seems to be conducted so naively without regard to thought of the inevitable sensationalist headlines in the media makes me think it's gone down the wrong track.

I think that the tragedy has been handled extremely well by the cricketing world - see the reforms to helmet design by the manufacturers, player consideration of their own safety (this has definitely trickled down into the grassroots with 40-50 year old veterans wearing head protection for the first time in the aftermath) and the general attitude. What I feel this inquest should be quietly focused upon is how we can prepare the conditions at professional level to minimise the chances of this ever happening again (ie. ambulance presence, player first aid training, facilities at venues etc)
 
Doss said:
It's the sense that any blame is trying to be apportioned to any of the players out there on that horrible day that makes me sick. They have to live with the memory of it for the rest of their lives as is.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw the news tonight, and apparently in this "inquest" they were asking questions about sledging, as if the bowler was out to deliberately kill the batsman or something. The trouble is, too many people who know SFA about cricket are involved, and I really cannot stand non-cricket people discussing the game with authority.
 
Adelaide Hawk said:
Yes, I saw the news tonight, and apparently in this "inquest" they were asking questions about sledging, as if the bowler was out to deliberately kill the batsman or something. The trouble is, too many people who know SFA about cricket are involved, and I really cannot stand non-cricket people discussing the game with authority.
Click to expand...

Imagine doctors feel the same about healthcare, police about law enforcement and teachers about education - have seen all of them front up for questioning under similarly tragic circumstances after accidental deaths.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

big_e said:
I'd encourage people to read this link. It's the opening statement of the counsel assisting the coroner: http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Hughes Counsel Assisting Opening Final.pdf



So yes, the "nature of play" is being investigated.

However, the statement also includes discussion of a report by Simon Taufel, who mentions the umpires had a good control of the game and basically nothing untoward was going on.

It's all going to come down to the emergency response and suitability of protective equipment. And that can only be a positive.
Click to expand...
That's as it should be.

So why is there any discussion at all about a supposed sledge?
 
Adelaide Hawk said:
Yes, I saw the news tonight, and apparently in this "inquest" they were asking questions about sledging, as if the bowler was out to deliberately kill the batsman or something. The trouble is, too many people who know SFA about cricket are involved, and I really cannot stand non-cricket people discussing the game with authority.
Click to expand...

I think in some respects that having people external to cricket review the incident is actually a good thing as it might help find innovative solutions or areas for improvement that people with an intimate perspective of cricket might overlook (or come back with the old "oh we've always done it this way") like with helmet design. But really there's nothing to be gained from them delving into the actual tactics or way the players compete on the field - all that can come of it is misrepresentation of the context, and sadly it looks like exactly that has happened.
 
Doss said:
That's as it should be.

So why is there any discussion at all about a supposed sledge?
Click to expand...
I think the inquest is fine, but the reporting is all wrong. Clickbait, sensationalist headlines with no thought given to the bigger picture of what the inquest is about.
 
Gough said:
I was a very early adoptee of the helmet, back in the day when your sexuality was questioned if you turned up the crease wearing one, because I'd been hit on the head a couple of times already, and as a card carrying number 11, it gave me more confidence to get inside the ball.
Click to expand...

Is that post meant to be a setup? ;)
 
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
 
hahahahaha i know right. it would have been totally totally bizarre if there wasn't an inquest. some dude could have died going down the stairs of the members stand that day and there'd be an inquiry into it. and yes some uncomfortable things are being said but that's life you cant just open it up and say 'welp it was an accident' and shut it down.

funnily enough, this is almost the only time where the usual BigFooty thing of just blaming the media would actually almost be valid, as the live tweeting probably doesn't need to be happening, and only creates the blame game
 
Peter Doherty said:
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...

Are so many people saying an inquest shouldn't be held? I think it's more a real sense of unease with the line of questioning about the bowling.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doss said:
Exactly.

And yes, the emergency response is worth looking at; but honestly, the incident was so freaky that I think his death was completely inevitable from the moment he was hit. Nothing could be done, I doubt it would have mattered how quickly they were there to take him to hospital.

But you've nailed it. We see people get hit on the head in cricket all the time. Most of us who've played cricket have copped a blow on the noggin at some point. You never imagine it's going to end like it did with Hughes.

It's the sense that any blame is trying to be apportioned to any of the players out there on that horrible day that makes me sick. They have to live with the memory of it for the rest of their lives as is.
Click to expand...
As horrible as Bodyline was, nobody died because of it. There was obviously a degree of luck involved (eg when Larwood hit Oldfield in the head), but thankfully everybody lived through it.

The circumstances of Hughes' death may never be repeated. It's such a tragedy that it happened to such a fantastic young player, who had the world at his feet.
 
philreich said:
As horrible as Bodyline was, nobody died because of it. There was obviously a degree of luck involved (eg when Larwood hit Oldfield in the head), but thankfully everybody lived through it.

The circumstances of Hughes' death may never be repeated. It's such a tragedy that it happened to such a fantastic young player, who had the world at his feet.
Click to expand...

Larwood wasn't bowling bodyline when he hit Oldfield
 
Peter Doherty said:
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...

Well, aren't you the brilliant one eh? Nobody entitled to an opinion except yours? We'll all wait for your approval in future before passing comment.
 
Peter Doherty said:
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...
All commentary has essentially been removed. On cricinfo at least
 
The_Reaper said:
Larwood wasn't bowling bodyline when he hit Oldfield
Click to expand...
Yeah fair enough. But I'm talking about the sheer randomness of such incidents. Apart from Oldfield, there's things like:

* Geoff Lawson felled during a Test in Perth.
* David Hookes felled during World Series Cricket.
* Rick McCosker felled during the Centenary Test.

etc

And yet none of those unfortunate incidents were fatal - maybe each of those guys were a bit lucky.

Which all proves that the Hughes incident was one in a million. We'll (hopefully) never see it again.
 
Last edited:
damochandler said:
Can't find anything else on the game. As in commentary
Click to expand...

Cricket Australia should have it.

Peter Doherty said:
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...

But what good can possibly come of it (other than sensationalist headlines for clickbait)? So what if NSW had a plan to bowl short? So what if Bollinger was dribbling rubbish to batsmen to try and put them off? What can actually change in bringing this stuff up in the public domain? These things are part and parcel of sport, let alone cricket.

An inquest into the equipment, facilities, processes and procedures etc. is something we all can agree on. My concern is that focusing on irrelevant things like sledging turns it into a soap opera for the benefit of the media.
 
damochandler said:
The main sticking points that should come out. Why wasn't the ground adequately equipped with the right Medical equipment and players helmets
Click to expand...

I am not sure about point one but point two with the helmets, isn't this a decision of the player to use the back neck protectors or weren't they even designed for use yet?
 
Peter Doherty said:
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...

Show me one post where someone is saying that it shouldn't be investigated.
 
Peter Doherty said:
Wow.

I am staggered at this whole thread, dumbstruck by all the dumbshit comments, all bar Big_e and Freo Big Fella who are the only ones who can comprehend what this is about.

'Oh, what about the players' feelings??'

Seriously?

When someone dies at work it's going to be investigated and hard questions will be asked.

Imagine your brother or son dying at work and everyone saying, 'it was an accident, lets stop talking about it'. That's disgusting, not the inquest.

At the time of the incident I was at work and was following the ball by ball commentary. One of cricket.com.au or cricinfo mentioned not long after Hughes was hit that he had been receiving quite a lot of short balls (they normally keep the ball by ball commentary online, be interesting to look it up and see if they have removed that comment. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere since, no one has wanted to touch it. It's good thing media have not run with this angle previously, the inquest is where it needs to be investigated.
Click to expand...
The only thing that's dumbshit here is your playing down of the mental impact.

Imagine being those players? Forcing them to relive it like this cannot be good for them.

This was not something that could be planned for. Hughes was effectively dead the minute he was hit; the medical response, as valid as it is to investigate that, would not have made a difference given what the injury was. The fact someone uttered "I'm going to kill you" in a throwaway, stupid manner didn't make a difference.

Unless the end game here is basically banning short pitch bowling full stop, there is simply no point to putting the players under the microscope. Do every bit of forensic and bio-mechanical work possible to lead to improvements in helmet design, yes absolutely. Look at the emergency response if they wish; if nothing else, if an improvement in that area leads to someone slightly less severely injured than Hughes' life being saved down the track, then it has served its purpose.

But if you remove the bouncer, then you may as well kiss goodbye to cricket as we know it. My feeling is that we need to simply accept that it was a horrible, tragic accident so unlikely to ever occur that there is no practical way of planning against it happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Daniel Hughes
Replies
9
Views
806
Belnakor
Belnakor

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top