AS one would expect the tragic death of cricketer Phillip Hughes has led to some introspection among local players – with many at senior grades admitting they don’t wear helmets.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Not that wearing a helmet did enough to prevent the tragic outcome for Phillip Hughes; as many observers have said, he was the victim of a freak accident.
That said, helmets would in most cases prevent disastrous collisions between a ball that is travelling at speed and the heads of batsmen. That’s why juniors and school cricketers all have to wear them. When a risk can be minimised, why wouldn’t you take precautions?
One local cricketer’s answer was that he struggled to see out of them. Another, who does wear a helmet, said it was a force of habit after being required to wear one from an early age. The answer then seems to lie in getting players accustomed to headgear from an early age.
The other issue on cricketers’ lips is the bouncer. One confirmed it was a form of intimidation but insisted the bowler who delivered the fatal blow would in no way have intended it. The consensus seemed to be that it should not be banned. This begs a question, though. Many tactics employed on the football field that have been found to carry too much risk of injury have been banned, with sanctions applied if they are used. If the bouncer, now permitted once per over, is intimidating and dangerous, shouldn’t it too be reviewed?
These are questions cricketers the length and breadth of the land will no doubt be having in the days ahead. It’s conversation certainly worth having in the wake of such a tragedy.
