Let's have no blame games with Phil Hughes' tragic accident

No one was going to DL.

Baseballs have to go within a range, true - the strike zone. That is not a plane, it's a cuboid. The ball has to come in over the plate, which is not a line but a five-sided, well, plate, so that's the two dimensions - width and depth. Also, the ball has to arrive between the bottom of the knees and, more or less, mid chest. That's the third dimension, height. The ball can't bounce , but it can come in straight or curve down, or slide left or right. And let's not forget that baseballs come in slightly faster than cricket balls. Baseball batters do not spend long hours out there hitting balls. They're in, they're out, in relatively short periods. But they deal with more variety than you suggest, and they are using an arguably more difficult bat with which to hit the ball. And they do get "beaned" from time to time, so there are risks as well. The two games are different, and I'd be the last to argue that. But that doesn't mean the two games can't learn from each other. I was looking at a picture of the latest version of a baseball catcher's helmet, and it seems to me, they have modeled those helmets to some extent on ice hockey goalies' helmets. If baseball can learn from ice hockey, maybe cricket can learn from baseball.

This isn't a p! $$ing contest. Someone is in ICU, FFS. All I said above was: A lot of sports have significant physical challenges and we applaud the courage of participants. Baseball, Ice Hockey, most Winter skiing races, Cycling, Horse racing, etc. and I stand by it.

there has been some silly comments on the roar...but seriously comparing a cricket ball versus a baseball is laughable. batters know DAMM well where the basebal has to go to...easy to pull away or take a body hit and walk and the shot is through one plane.a batsman is unsure if Yorker or full toss and what about the bounce...low bounce or bowlers foot marks. as I said a silly comparison. and a baseball helmet provides protection in one area only..left or right side of head...cause that's only area to get head.

There are many baseball helmets that protect both sides of the head. A lot of baseball players are switch hitters, after all.

I realize that baseball and cricket are different games and what works for one won't necessarily work for the other. That said, I think maybe there's a bit of resistance to learning anything from another sport. If you look at a whole range of baseball helmets, the modern ones cover both sides of the head, and appear to have better protection around the lower part of the head, around the ears, and neck, which is exactly where Hughes was hit. Perhaps there's something to be learned there after all. It's always possible to develop a better helmet. (And some baseball helmets do have grills).

+1

Laura, nobody is blindly resisting change, saying that we shouldn't do anything to make things safer, simply pointing out that the completely different game that is baseball isn't necessarily a good example of what will work for cricket. You initially point to a baseball batting helmet, and then the catchers face protection, two completely different things that are nothing alike. In fact, if Phil Hughes was wearing a baseball helmet, he'd possibly have been in more trouble, as he was playing a pull shot, where the body rotates, and the ball hit him on the side of the head that faces away from the bowler in the batting stance, which would have no protection at all in a baseball helmet. There have been developments in cricket helmets over the years, some very noticeable, some quite subtle. If there was an easier way to make a cricket helmet a lot safer without imparing batting ability, then I'm pretty sure the manufacturers would be doing it, they don't have some vested interest in people getting seriously injured.

Sorry, but that doesn't mean the pitchers are allowed to pitch at the bodies at all Laura! It means they aren't allowed to! The 1st base rule exists as punishment for breaking the rule. Its pretty standard crime v punishment stuff there. Just cause they do, doesn’t mean that they are allowed to! Foolish.

"pitchers arent allowed to throw at bodies of the batter" Oh yes they can and do. There is even a rule to accommodate for it. If the pitcher hits the batter the batter gets to take 1st base.

Ok, a better analogy may be the catcher’s helmet in Baseball. They get the ball after it strikes the ground, they need to be extremely mobile, moving all around for long periods in the heat/rain etc. If you look a modern catchers helmet it’s way more robust and protective than the Baseball batter’s helmet, let alone the Cricket helmet. It covers the face, chin and side of the neck/head. This helmet has evolved due to faster pitchers in the game resulting in increased catcher injuries, thus the need for better equipment. My point being maybe it’s time to re-visit the design before someone else gets hurt. I don't understand the resistance/lack of interest to this particular piece of safety equipment, after all it was introduced due to serious injuries. On the other hand (no pun) the testicular guard (Box) seems to be taken seriously without question... ;)

Phil Hughes was wearing older model helmet, says manufacturer.... the ball used in baseball is lighter and pitchers arent allowed to throw at bodies of the batter

It wasn't hard to find examples of baseballers getting hit in the face, but no sign of a protective grill. Apples and oranges.

Comparing to baseball is problematic. In baseball the batter is in a very set position and really only plays one shot to a ball in a very specific zone. They don't have to deal with the ball anywhere from their toes to their head, bouncing off the ground and coming at all sorts of different angles, close to the body or far away. The batsman in cricket needs to move and change body position a lot more than a batter in baseball. They need to be able to wear the helmet all day in hot conditions, running between wickets and all that. A baseball helmet covers the area in question, but only covers one ear and has nothing covering the face or jaw. They put it on, face a few pitches and then take it off again. So it may be possible to change the design a bit to provide more protection, but it's not necessarily just as simple as making it more like a baseball helmet.

You are relying on a study conducted 11 years ago. It is likely it has little relevance now.

I agree this is a terrible accident, but if he had a Baseball helmet on, I don’t think he would have been injured. In American Baseball they hurl a ball at about 100 mph, but the helmet is much better designed. See image below. http://postimg.org/image/7eyy9rr31/ Also this study in 2003 that compared Cricket Helmets to Baseball and Ice Hockey helmets republished in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Quote “Cricket helmet performance is satisfactory for low speed impacts, but not for impacts at higher, more realistic, speed.” http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/37/4/325.full#sec-11 Blame game or not, the helmet design is flawed for the protection is meant for.

A lot of sports have significant physical challenges and we applaud the courage of participants. Baseball, Ice Hockey, most Winter skiing races, Cycling, Horse racing, etc.

Definitely a tragic accident. At the same time, cricket is the only sport I can think of where we applaud hurling a rock-hard object at 150kmph towards somebodies head.

I agree about the 'no blame' part - tragic accidents happen everyday. An awful part of life. I'd imagine riding a bike is far more statistically unsafe than batting with a helmet on. Best wishes to PH, family and friends.