The inquest into Phillip Hughes’ death is a necessary evil. Necessary because, under New South Wales law, an inquest must be held to examine any sudden, violent or unexpected death. Evil because no good will come of it.
The inquest’s purpose is to determine the cause and manner of Hughes’ death, including whether or not anything could have been done to save the young man’s life.
For any cricket fan who followed the tragedy when it occurred, the answer to that seems obvious: no.
There isn’t a piece of headgear which could have protected Hughes while still allowing him the range of movement required to bat. A quicker response from emergency services would have been futile.
No doubt the Hughes family is seeking some kind of closure from these proceedings. There is even less doubt they deserve some.
But it is hard to see where that will come from.
Would an admission from a New South Wales Blues player that Hughes was the target of short-pitched bowling provide any?
Accounts from the inquest state the Hughes family were unimpressed with NSW skipper Brad Haddin’s assertation that there wasn’t a plan to persist with short bowling to Hughes, so maybe that’s what they were seeking.
It has also been reported the family believed Doug Bollinger directed an unsavoury sledge towards Hughes and his batting partner, Tom Cooper, one which has been rendered far more callous and inappropriate by what happened later that day.
“I am going to kill you,” is the alleged sledge.
One can understand if Hughes’ family are looking for something out of the ordinary to point to as the cause of Phillip’s death; they have had a horrendous situation thrust upon them and are well within their rights to seek answers. It’s unlikely anything abnormal actually exists, though.
Bollinger has denied making the sledge, and Cooper said he was confident it never happened.
The fact of the matter is, despite its moniker as the ‘gentleman’s game,’ cricket can be a brutal and ferocious contest.
Hughes was neither the first nor the last batsman to be struck by a bouncer, nor was he the first or last to be sledged. The risk of being hit by the ball and the verbal jousting and intimidation which is directed towards batsmen is part of playing the game.
Was Hughes unduly targetted with bouncers? Simon Taufel – surely the finest cricket umpire in recent memory – analysed the day’s play for the inquest and found that, of 23 bouncers delivered in that session and a bit of cricket, 20 were bowled to Hughes. That’s obviously a disproportionate ratio, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Keep in mind that, less than 12 months before Hughes died, Mitchell Johnson had been lauded as a national hero for his brutally fast and ferocious short-pitched bowling which decimated England during the Ashes.
It was dangerous, but nothing more than a form of softening up batsmen to ripen their wicket for the taking.
Bowling fast and short was good cricket. It was Australian cricket.
What happened to Phil Hughes was a freak occurrence, an abhorrent accident, but nothing more sinister than that.
That point must be kept in the forefront of everyone’s minds during this week.
It will come as no solace to Hughes’ family, whose wounds have no doubt been torn open once again by the inquest. They are the ones who want and deserve answers from these proceedings more than anyone else.
Unfortunately, they may well be left with the most unsatisfactory of explanations: it was an accident.
A different finding might provide more closure, but finding fault in the way that game of cricket was played would be to open up a new world of hurt for the Blues players involved in the game, many of whom were teammates of Hughes when he made his first-class debut.
Both Cricket Australia CEO James Sutherland and Hughes’ manager, James Henderson, said they hoped for something positive to emerge from this five-day inquest.
The only positive note is we will finally get to move on from this tragedy, and have it removed from the public eye for good.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
There is a difference between a short ball and a bouncer. A short ball is generally accepted as being between the waist and shoulders with a bouncer being over the shoulders.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Yeah everything is crime of the century with you, you must spend a lot of time hyperventilating
Paul D
Roar Guru
Wrong, as usual. Most of the short balls were aimed at the body/chest. Perfectly legal under the rules as they stand.
anon
Guest
Wow, I never realised Hughes had 9 short deliveries in a row bowled at his head. Just wow. I don't think that's in the spirit of the game.
anon
Guest
No excuses for these guys. This is an inquest into how a man died a horrific, needless death, and these NSW players have treated the proceedings with utter contempt by lying under oath.
Bobbo7
Guest
That is the concern. It would be ludicrous if any legal action was taken against the players for doing what has been done forever in cricket. Looking in to what happened and emergency response, better gear etc is very good and should happen, albeit that it appears nothing could have been done in this case. But I am concerned people who perhaps haven't played the game or understand the grain of salt with which most trash talking is given by players will be making recommendations which might change the laws of the game.
Bobbo7
Guest
Yes if any of them has lied that is poor. But the words themselves are irrelevant as he clearly did not mean it. I'm sure they all feel bad enough about what happened.
tyrone
Guest
A coroner can also make a recommendation for the DPP to prosecute any offences that may be detected during an inquiry. I would hazard to guess that if a player did make an alleged threat and then an injury or death occurs then it may be possible for legal action to proceed. Of particular interest is whether a manslaughter charge would be considered. I would not be surprised if the recommendations from this inquiry include less or no bouncers being allowed in cricket.
Bobbo7
Guest
Agree with this article. It was a tragic accident and that was it. Whether Bollinger said "I'm going to kill you" is irrelevant. If he did he clearly did not mean for Hughes to die. Anyone who has played the game understands the crap talking that takes place. You get the odd tool but nobody takes it too seriously. I've no doubt most batsman at that level would be used to that type of trash talk. Hughes was very gifted player with the skills to handle the short bowling. Sadly, from time to time rare accidents happen. If they can make it safer with better helmets or with the new neck pads that is good. But I would not like to see more restrictions n bowling or sledging from this event.
GD66
Guest
Disgraceful ? Hardly. Leaving Phil Hughes' personal life aside, I am not implying it was his "fault" at all, but it is important that we learn from this sad case the importance of keeping your eye on the ball, and his playing through the shot early is something we have seen televised a number of times since, I hope the message is not lost and I repeat I hope coaches at all levels continue to sheet this home. It is very important that Abbott is afforded all the help we can give here, I found it surprising that he said today is the first time since then (nearly two years) that he has recorded his memories of the match. He should not shoulder any guilt and so you would hope he can be assisted to rationalise his memories of that unfortunate afternoon.
Cantab
Guest
Oh man this is starting to get a bit crazy now. I really hope these guys havnt been lying on the stand.
Cantab
Guest
There were 9 'short balls' in a row. The 9th being the one which struck him on the head.
Maggie
Guest
Some disgraceful comments here. You don't wish to appear cynical? That is exactly what you are. And what are you trying to imply with your slur that Phillip Hughes was "no saint"? You are wrong in your casual implication that it was Hughes' fault because he had poor technique against short-pitched balls. Hughes had faced 19 bouncers in his innings, predominantly fast vicious head-high balls from Starc and Bollinger, before the ball that hit him. He played them all impeccably. He was hit by the Abbott bouncer not because he took his eye off the ball but because he misjudged the pace of the ball off the pitch and it came on to him much more slowly than he was expecting. As a result he was through his shot too early. Abbott has said as much in his statement. While I had thought it was a deliberate slow bouncer, Abbott has said he thinks that the wicket might have slowed down the ball, something he said happens at the SCG. Yes Hughes mistimed his shot, something that all batsmen however good sometimes do, and yes it was a tragic accident. But to casually dismiss it as Hughes' own fault is both callous and unhelpful. There may be nothing to be learned from this inquest that would improve the safety of the game of cricket but that in itself would be a positive outcome; that is if it is concluded it was a tragic accident not attributable to the game itself or the way it was played on the day. I am confident however there will be learnings about improvements that could be made to responses to serious sporting accidents and training that might be required to achieve those best responses.
anon
Guest
So it looks like Bollinger did threaten to kill Hughes after all. Shame on the NSW players who have lied at this inquest.
GD66
Guest
Nice work Daniel, it's all very sad for those closest to have this brought up again. If lawyers are propelling the family towards the possibility of suing, even sadder. The unfortunate "he said she said" to-and-froing doesn't really move things along either. As outlined, it will be a positive result if the post-mortem of medical responses is analysed and improved, but I fail to see that much more will come from this inquiry. I am from a lifelong background in motorcycle sport, so am much more used to loss than many sporting codes will be, and without wishing to appear cynical I was a little surprised at the level of sorrow and grief displayed nationwide for so long after the event : pretty much no cricket was played nationwide the following weekend. Hughes, no doubt much-loved by his peers, was much-lamented which is fair enough, but to me the reasons (won't go into them here, but they are widely-acknowledged) for his lack of selection and subsequent departure from NSW never came into the equation, so although he was clearly well-thought of he was no saint. If anything I hope the overall outcome from this enquiry cements home what has been ignored or overlooked throughout : Hughes' accident was not helped by a momentary flaw in his technique, failing to adhere to a basic but crucial requirement of batting against short-pitched bowling, and that is to KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL ! Hopefully the message has been picked up by coaches at all levels of the game and the stark consequence of neglecting this essential process exemplified, sadly, for all to see.
Mitcher
Guest
Andy, I don't entirely understand your comment so will have to hold a response. I did realise I didn't phrase my own comment very well tho. What I'm saying is that whether the sledge "I'll kill you" or whatever is alleged was said or not really doesn't have any impact on the tragic events that followed. That the likes of Bollinger are up there seemingly having to defend themselves is an absolute disgrace. And I feel this process is not doing anything positive for a clearly distraught family either.
Paul D
Roar Guru
You're not missing anything. Believe me. If you've read one anon post on a subject you've read them all. The content never changes, just the order of the words.
Andy
Guest
I dont understand why you are concerned that the Hughes family will go thru new or more pain. They lost their son, they are already in hell and will be for many many years constantly. Cricket is not an inherently dangerous game, the fact that this inquest is even happening is evidence of that. As your article explained the inquest is only being held because this is such a freak occurrence and so should be examined in minute detail.
Andy
Guest
You cant blame the coroner, its the law this has to happen.
Andy
Guest
I dont like that his comments were moderated though and removed. I think his comments were partly aimed at getting a response but were what he thinks so shouldnt be moderated.