Phillip Hughes death inquest

Remove this Banner Ad

bananatigz said:
Correct me if i'm wrong here but I was under the assumption that Phillip was pretty much gone before he hit the ground, and no level of medical intervention could have saved him? .
Click to expand...

talking to some medical people that kind of injury would be fatal even if it happened in the middle of the emergency ward.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

How do the family get any money out of it?

To me it looks like that out of grief they misguidedly want someone or something to be accountable for or explain their sons death.
 
freddy mercury said:
Anyone get the feeling the family are trying to make a buck out of this? Please I really hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

The following line from his sister gave me this impression:

“If there are mishaps that have happened we need to settle this and hopefully receive an end result that will help us progress through life without our dearly beloved son and brother.”
 
The inquest is not about apportioning blame but examining the circumstances and conditions which led to the death of a 26 year old man at his work place.

In which case the Coroner has every right to examine the circumstances, climate and conditions that led to the events that transpired.

I know it is part of the game but a projectile is regularly thrown at batsmen's heads at 150km+ an hour giving them less then a second to react and has led to someone's death. Of course that will be questioned vigorously.

While no culpability should be assigned to Sean Abbot the circumstances which bouncers and intimidating bowling are used in the future should definitely be examined. Apart from boxing in what other sport can an opponent legitimately take someone out?

The Hughes Family have every right to question exactly what happened. They simply view him as Phillip not a Test Opener.

Personally (while not in this case) I think bouncers are a legitimate tactic in the sport. But the way the way they have sometimes been used (i.e. Johnson targeting Anderson 2013 when the game was won/ Lee on Tudor KO 2002) is simply bullshit and should absolutely be stamped out.
 
Even with the way the inquest has been conducted, still find it incredibly difficult to say anything bad about the family, even if their actions might seem pretty classless and offensive to his teammates.

People dying, especially in such awful and unexpected circumstances does some funny things to the mind. Hearing that opposition players were sledging him (even if it is commonplace) in the manner Bollinger apparently was, couldn't be easy to hear either.

Sadly, these type of things and anything involving lawyers has the potential to make things ugly, and create division amongst people who were once friends, loved family members or whatever. Anger should be directed at the lawyers and whoever is running this thing for constantly looking at things that really had no impact on what happened to Hughes.
 
DamoESP said:
Also, surely this is just plain wrong....



http://www.news.com.au/sport/cricke...t/news-story/6bc4c5d3018a175a661ef79430a69b1b

I'm sorry, but since when has Abbott ever bowled that fast?
Click to expand...
Not only that but the recorded speeds of deliveries are as it leaves the bowlers hand. By the time it reaches the batsman after a bounce the impact speed would probably be closer to 110 or so(I do recall some years ago seeing a video where they tracked the speed of the ball for the whole delivery. Hope I have not remembered that wrong).

EDIT: Looks like someone already addressed that point.
 
BORK said:
Not only that but the recorded speeds of deliveries are as it leaves the bowlers hand. By the time it reaches the batsman after a bounce the impact speed would probably be closer to 110 or so(I do recall some years ago seeing a video where they tracked the speed of the ball for the whole delivery. Hope I have not remembered that wrong).

EDIT: Looks like someone already addressed that point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they also addressed it in the opening statement to the coroner (that the estimated speed of the delivery was around 140kmph, and that it wasn't the speed of the ball at time of impact because of all the above reasons)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Adelaide Hawk said:
Ridiculous question. How many cricketers are tackled (often head high) and driven into the ground like Aussie Rules, Rugby, etc? Legitimately "take someone out". Give me strength. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How come the umpires in this match haven't given evidence? They were right there all day.
 
Adelaide Hawk said:
Ridiculous question. How many cricketers are tackled (often head high) and driven into the ground like Aussie Rules, Rugby, etc? Legitimately "take someone out". Give me strength. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I meant that you are legally entitled to bowl at someone's head. In footy you can't tackle someone round the head (even thou it does happen). I know the bouncer is a legitimate form of cricket delivery just like a punch to the head is in boxing (with the potential dangers associated) hence I don't see the problem with its use being examined in a court of law.
 
Run n Spread said:
I meant that you are legally entitled to bowl at someone's head. In footy you can't tackle someone round the head (even thou it does happen). I know the bouncer is a legitimate form of cricket delivery just like a punch to the head is in boxing (with the potential dangers associated) hence I don't see the problem with its use being examined in a court of law.
Click to expand...
You can kick a football at someone's head, hit a hockey puck at someone's head, throw a baseball at someone's head...doesn't mean you won't be penalised in some way if you hit them and the umpire rules it deliberate. Likewise, deliberately hitting someone with a bouncer isn't exactly legal, which is why an ump will step in if he thinks too many have been bowled.
 
footyman13 said:
How come the umpires in this match haven't given evidence? They were right there all day.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the umpires make a statement that nothing untoward took place so far as player behaviour, etc. Not sure what more the umpires could offer, unless they were experts in medical care.
 
Adelaide Hawk said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the umpires make a statement that nothing untoward took place so far as player behaviour, etc. Not sure what more the umpires could offer, unless they were experts in medical care.
Click to expand...
It's not about medical care, it's whether they heard the allegations of sledging by Bollinger etc. No ones closer to the action than the umpies.
 
It was wonderful listening to Ian Chappell last night while he was commentating the Matador Cup match. Maddison got struck trying to pull a short ball. Chappell explained how batsmen like to hook and pull off the front foot these days, and as such, don't get inside the ball, thus increasing the chances of being hit.

He added that by playing off the back foot and getting inside the line, if you mis-judge the shot you can comfortably duck away from the ball, but if you mis-play the shot off the front foot, you have nowhere to hide. Batsmen have developed a technique where they take their eyes off the ball and get hit, and batsmen are struck much more now than ever before.

I would hope this is the kind of discussion that was entertained at the inquest, not whether a bowler sledged a batsman, etc.
 
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