Former Australian fast bowler Doug Bollinger says he can’t recall saying words like “I’m going to kill youse” before Phillip Hughes was fatally struck with a ball almost two years ago.
Bollinger was giving evidence at the inquest into the 25-year-old cricketer’s death, which occurred two days after he was struck on the side of the neck by a short-pitched delivery from pace bowler Sean Abbott during a Sheffield Shield match on November 25, 2014.
Counsel for Hughes’ family Greg Melick SC suggested Bollinger said words to the effect of “I’m going to kill you” or “I’m going to kill youse” to Hughes or his batting partner Tom Cooper before the fatal incident.
” I don’t recall saying that,” Bollinger said at the Downing Centre on Monday.
“I may have but I don’t think so.”
Earlier Bollinger had completely denied making the comments.
In a written statement partly read to the court, he said he didn’t remember sledging Hughes at all but said it’s possible he may have said something to Cooper.
The court has heard that numerous cricketers due to give evidence have requested not to view disturbing footage of Hughes’ fatal incident in preparation for the inquest.
Some of the cricketer’s family members walked out of court before it was played to the coroner.
Retired Australian wicketkeeper Brad Haddin said he saw Hughes get hit but didn’t know which part of his body had been struck.
“He looked OK for a second then it was something like I’ve never witnessed before in my life,” he said.
“It was the noise that he let out. The groan and the way he fell … straight down motionless.”
State Coroner Michael Barnes will look at whether the nature of play contributed to risk, the response to Hughes’ injury and whether different equipment could make players safer.
Haddin said he didn’t think concerns from Hughes’ family that the batsman had been unfairly targeted by short balls from the NSW bowlers were justified.
Haddin said he had no recollection of Bollinger “mouthing off” and that he only talked to the team’s coach about changing field positions during the lunch break to slow the scoring rate.
But Mr Mellick SC, said David Warner’s statement indicated there was a plan to bowl at or over leg stump to move Hughes backward.
Haddin and Bollinger both said they had no recollection of such a plan.
Mr Barnes started the inquest by offering his condolences to the Hughes family, saying the cricketer was “before anything else, a son and a brother”.
Outside court, Hughes’ manager James Henderson and Cricket Australia boss James Sutherland both said they hoped something positive would come out of the week.
Mr Henderson said it was a “very, very difficult” time for Hughes’ family.
It’s not yet known whether Mr Barnes will hand down findings at the end of the week or a later date.
Australian Test and one-day vice captain David Warner, who is in South Africa, is expected to give his evidence via audio visual link.
The inquest continues.
delbeato
Roar Guru
Jeffrey - interesting, thanks. JohnB - spot on. There are real risks for governing officials of discarding coronial recommendations.
JohnB
Guest
The coronial inquest isn't put on for the exclusive benefit of the Hughes family so I'd dispute that they have a right to bring up anything they want to. The issue with beamers in cricket or baseball and why they are dangerous is that the ball isn't where the batsman/batter is looking for it and so it takes a fraction longer to pick up than a ball which is in the general area it is expected to be. The batsman is looking for the ball to bounce. Yes the batsman may be surprised by extra bounce or deviation but it's at least coming from where he's looking. If bench clearing brawls were actual brawls rather than everyone striking poses, and if players did use their bats as weapons, that would be outside the rules of the game, dangerous and potentially criminal, as the assaults committed wouldn't be protected by the consent to the risks involved in the playing of the game according to its rules implied by participation in the game. Hard to see how the cricket governing body has been negligent here.
JohnB
Guest
Bush, the Coroner can't directly dictate changes to the Laws. He could however make recommendations. And cricket law making bodies could then think that if they failed to follow the recommendations they were leaving themselves open to liability the next time someone got injured. They might also wonder about possible risks of voiding insurances from not following the recommendations, and they might come under pressure from other cricket bodies which employ players, and were concerned about safe system of work type issues.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"These are 150 km/h balls aimed at batsmen’s heads." Bollinger and Abbot are not express pace bowlers. They are both fast medium at best, their speeds would be well down on true express pace. Fast medium bowlers bowling bouncers at a test opener who is well set on a flat deck would not normally be regarded as life threatening.
JL
Guest
New Zealanders = Australians. No. They are the most similar nation to Australia though, in many many ways. And no, this does not therefore mean Baseball = Cricket. But, Baseball is the most similar of all available sports to compare Cricket to. The comparison between the sports and the welfare of the players is clearly relevant, and in a court of law would be used as an example of one governing body of a bat and ball sport taking the duty of care to protect its players seriously vs another that in your view limits bouncers but in another view encourages up to a third of deliveries to be dangerous They aren’t protecting their players, because bouncers just aren’t necessary, just like an illegal tackle in Union/League isn’t necessary to stop your opponent or even intimidate them. An intimidating tackle can be made legally. Just like a 150kmph delivery to the ribs can intimidate the batsman – the risk/reward for the bowler being getting it right and forcing a nervy top edge, or getting it wrong by going above the shoulders for a wide. Encouraging a number of deliveries aimed specifically at the head is negligent “You seem to think a neck guard added to helmets is going to mean players don’t care about bouncers and will happily wear a cricket ball on the grille without a care in the world.” No. I raised a hypothetical, arguing that increasing safety, negates the use of a bouncer – so why keep it legal. I always thought Yorkers were just as intimidating – much more chance of a broken toe, far more positive attacking method to gain a wicket, and ultimately not lethal (no matter how small the chances are of a ball to the head) Not on the subject of bouncers, but you raise a good point about the safety of fielders/bowlers/umpires….how about spectators, or even security staff with their backs turned to the action?
Paul D
Roar Guru
I’m struggling to work out how to even begin replying to that. Between you trying to prove New Zealanders = Australians therefore baseball = cricket, and your claim that cricket is a blood sport that does nothing to protect its players I really don’t know where to start. But I'll have a go. Cricket players wear far more protective equipment when batting. There are laws specifically limiting bouncers and outlawing beamers. So I can’t see how you can claim with a straight face cricket does not protect its players. Your comment about it being a blood sport reveals a limited understanding of the game and the intent of those playing. Balls delivered on the bounce that pass over head height are not no balls – they are wides. You seem to think a neck guard added to helmets is going to mean players don’t care about bouncers and will happily wear a cricket ball on the grille without a care in the world. Frankly I don’t buy a word of what you are saying.
JL
Guest
New Zealanders are the closest thing to Australians though - culturally, geographically, age as a nation, common beliefs, ethnic make-up, coming together as nations to fight a common enemy....not to mention the flag The link between Baseball and Cricket is relevant. One sport chooses to protect its players from having a hard object propelled towards them in a deliberate manner at great speeds, and the other does not - therefore Cricket is a blood sport living in ancient times. A blood sport that will soon be forced to change it's rules by threat of litigation. NFL players are protected by a helmet but the governing body changed the rules after class action suits were raised (and more from cases of brain damage leading to deaths, not instant death). Our legal system certainly wouldn't dismiss the comparison as not being the same I love the bouncer, it's one of the most exciting elements of test cricket (no place in shortened formats of course under the current rules, as no pace bowler can accurately say they can place a ball between shoulder and head height consistently enough to risk a no ball from being over head height....a no ball that is never called by umpires....cue additional negligence), but it's days are numbered because lawyer aren't going to like the bouncer. I love Boxing/MMA too, but it's less likely we'll see any litigation being brought against those sports where participants are acutely aware that the sole intention is to target the head. If the ability to target the head is taken away, then cricket rolls on If the change that happens is better protective equipment, then what the point of a bouncer? No risk of injury means no intimidation factor
Paul D
Roar Guru
Not the worst suggestion – maybe there’s a way they could manage it without affecting the game too much. I’m a little concerned for fielders, bowlers and umpires too – particular in 20/20 and night-time test cricket, visibility is not as great and they don’t have the benefit of protective equipment or a sightscreen behind the ball. I’d like to see changes to the ball regardless – if they made cricket balls have more seam, do more off the pitch and indeed be more responsive in the bowlers hands you might see less short-pitched bowling by default since bowlers wouldn’t have to resort to bouncing a batsman as much to try and get him out.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Sean Abbott - Kyle Abbott is a south african fast bowler.
DJW
Guest
I am finding this inquiry and its line of questioning disgusting and unnecessary so far. Is it a coronial inquiry or are they putting players on trial? I really hope that don't take this tact with Kyle Abbot on the stand.
AREH
Roar Guru
I might be verging on the extreme side here, but what are everyone's thoughts in regards to a slightly softer cricket ball? The one used is seriously damn hard, and I can't help wonder what difference it may make and also could further encourage greater participation at junior and female level with some increased confidence about safety. It's a pretty drastic measure, but quite honestly, I'd prefer it compared to any radical talk of outlawing short-pitched bowling (despite being unlikely). And it's not just batsmen either, in fact I'd be more worried about a bowler on their follow through or an umpire being at serious risk - we saw the umpire that was killed when struck in Israel??
Paul D
Roar Guru
Saying baseball is the closest link to cricket is like saying New Zealanders are the closest thing to Australians – doesn’t mean they’re the same thing by any means. Huge fundamental differences between the two. I don’t see it as a particularly relevant comparison. Disagree totally on avoiding baseballs too. Less protection, less time, less visibility. I see cricket changing by means of having better protective equipment and concussion substitutes. This has already been flagged. Further changes that restrict the types of balls that can be bowled beyond the restrictions already in place on bouncers and short pitched bowling would I think be to the detriment of the game. Remember, there have been millions of deliveries of cricket balls and one person has died at the crease. I think you have to be careful of an overreaction. “I’m not arguing that bouncers are used solely to injure at all??” “So, stand by for the modern game to outlaw the deliberate targeting of the head in the near future, as they should – Cricket is not a blood sport” That’s how I read it.
JL
Guest
1. Perception is reality, and most would agree that Australians are the worst. Agree the link between sledge and unrelated result is tenuous, but that's not my point. the point is, if the Hughes want to play them out, the so be it 2. Baseball is clearly the closest link. Name a better one. Also, tracking a baseball on the full is arguably easier than avoiding a bouncer that has the ability to change the direction off the pitch much closer to the batsman 3. Of course this is an opinion. The point being if they wish to sue, then someone, probably the ACB, will be liable for damages. The influence on changing the rules of the game will be in the form of public pressure and more importantly pre-emptive risk assessment measures taken by the ICC - doesn't matter where that influence comes from, they will react I understand cricket very well. Do batsmen charge spin bowlers every delivery? Also, I'm not arguing that bouncers are used solely to injure at all?? The main purposes are intimidation, slowing the run rate, and then as you state keeping a batsman on the back foot and/or forcing a false shot (all in that order)
delbeato
Roar Guru
Paul and The Bush: I understand your concerns here. I'm not arguing in favour of specific rulings that would dictate how cricket is played. But the coroner has a job to do and will hand down findings. It's pretty likely some of those will cross over into how cricket is or may be played. As you noted, coronial findings are not themselves binding.
Paul D
Roar Guru
1. Pure opinion. Both on your views of sledging and who the worst perpetrators are. I agree that the family has the right to bring it up and have it played out, but the attempt to link the words “I’m going to kill you” with the death of Phil Hughes and the circumstances in which it eventuated is ludicrous. No reasonable person would agree that there was a deliberate attempt to kill Phil Hughes. Make him uncomfortable with short pitched bowling though, leading to (hopefully) his dismissal – certainly. Which leads me on to point two. 2. The boxing link is just silly. Boxers/MMA wrestlers don’t wear Masuri helmets with neckguards. Baseball is not a great link either because it’s a different sport – the ball is smaller, is thrown on the full – thrown, not bounced, there’s no sightscreen behind the pitcher. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There are penalties for bowling beamers in cricket. If someone was deliberately bowling beamers they would be suspended from the bowling attack after 2 in an innings and if it persisted would probably find themselves out of the game in short order. Your link to bench clearing brawls and allow the batsman to throw his bat at the bowler makes no sense so I won’t address that. 3. More opinion. The Hughes family will not sue the ACB in my view. You also overlook that a NSW state government coroner has no power to enforce recommendations in what is an international sport or indeed in other states. I get the impression you do not understand cricket much either – if you banned the deliberate targeting of the head the game would rapidly descend into farce as batsmen would feel free to advance down the crease knowing they won’t be getting one aimed at their chin. The bouncer is used at top level to either force a bad shot or force a batsman back onto his heels, setting him up for a wicket taking delivery – the idea that you think bouncers are solely used to try and injure players is not my experience of the game.
JL
Guest
A few points to make here 1. Like it or not, sledging is a stain on the game's image, and the worst perpetrators are Australian. Even worse in this instance is that it was between Australian teammates....sickening. Does it have any relevance to this inquest? Not really - worse things have been said, and it obviously would have had no actual intent. It's also no different to any other low-brow comment that is allowed on the pitch, and it has only come to the fore because of the end result. However, if the heartbroken brother and/or family wants bring it the fore, then so be it - that is their aggrieved right to have it played out, and no-one else has the right to an opinion on it. 2. Cricket is the only sport where players are encouraged to attack the head of the opposition player for an advantage, other than Boxing/MMA. Read that again and question whether Cricket should be viewed on the same spectrum as Boxing/MMA. I wont reference Union/League as an example just yet, because there are clearly higher percentage risks in those sports to Cricket. However, the closest sport to Cricket you can reference is Baseball. In Baseball, targeting the head or even body is not tolerated by the laws of the game, and is met with an instant penalty to the offender in a "walk". The usual reaction to a batter being hit by a pitcher is for him to rush the pitcher, and/or leading to both benches being cleared for an all in brawl. Seems a logical human response to being physically attacked with a solid object (weapon?). So, if we allow bowlers to target the head of batsmen, why don't we allow batsmen to run down the pitch and hurl their bat (weapon?) at the bowler....he has sporting chance to avoid being hit as well doesn't he? 3. When the Hughes' family sues the Australian Cricket Board (and they will when this inquest doesn't give them any closure), they will be successful, and the ACB will pay out. This is why the NRL moved to help the MacKinnon family with financial assistance so swiftly and took measures to put the onus and penalties on the players in order to take care of opponents. So, stand by for the modern game to outlaw the deliberate targeting of the head in the near future, as they should - Cricket is not a blood sport.
spruce moose
Guest
Look no further than the NRL with Alex MacKinnon. It was viewed for what is was...a horrendously unfortunate accident. No inquiry is now questioning whether Jordan McLean was out to intimidate MacKinnon or any other Knights that night.
JoM
Guest
It must be really difficult for the players sitting up there and seeing the family shaking their heads and scoffing at every answer you give. It was Jason Hughes who has given a list of every balled bowled at his brother and most of this seems to be coming from him and I'm at a bit of a loss as to why.
Damo
Guest
If this line of questioning continues, I fear we'll head into territory where someone will end up producing a video of all the successful pull and hook shots Phil has played in his career, then show the fatal delivery and in front of all his family and friends, have to say 'Phil played a poor and technically unsound shot'.
Paul D
Roar Guru
The only time Sean Abbott has gone 150km/h is when Travis Head was flogging him out of the park during the big bash. I maintain that this inquiry is fatally flawed from the start because you have people with seemingly no comprehension of the code amongst professional sportspeople, trying to impose workplace health and safety conditions. Imagine if this was AFL and they were trying to dictate how players approach tackles and their technique after someone was paralysed or rendered quadriplegic as a result of a tackle. They’d be laughed out of court. This is fast becoming a fiasco.