Sadly, the Phillip Hughes coronial inquest has become something it was never meant to be.
It should have been simply about safety levels in cricket. Unfortunately, it descended into an inquest about Phillip Hughes.
As a result, there has been angst, anger and unnecessary comments aired.
Hughes died as a result of a freak accident.
That was confirmed yesterday when long-time Australian team physio Alex Kountouris was called to give evidence.
Kountouris, who based his PhD on injuries in cricket, stated there has only been one other known case of a batsman being killed as a result of vertebral artery being severed – the injury that Hughes suffered.
It occurred in Melbourne in 1993.
Unfortunately, the questioning than deviated into other areas.
Kountouris was asked whether in the preparation of his report he had been made aware of concerns that were raised by the Hughes family in regard to the period of play leading to the fateful delivery.
His response was an emphatic, “no”.
That drew an audible response from Hughes’ father, Greg who said, “lying, lying”.
It was not the first time that the concerns of the Hughes family with the way the game was being played were aired in the Coroner’s Court.
They were first raised earlier in the hearing when New South Wales paceman Doug Bollinger was quizzed about his comments on the field that day.
Hughes’ brother, Jason, had informed investigators that he had been told that Bollinger had sledged Hughes and his South Australian batting partner, Tom Cooper, saying “I’m going to kill you”.
None of the players called to provide evidence – including Cooper – nor the umpires could substantiate the allegation.
Bollinger himself said, “I know in my own heart I didn’t say that”.
Hughes’ father tabled a written submission to the inquiry. He said that after the lunch break on the day in question there was a significant increase in the number of short balls that were delivered, most notably at his son.
“The umpires did not call them ‘no balls’ under the Sheffield Shield cricket laws. Those laws are different to the MCC rules. By those balls not getting pulled up, of course this kept the bowlers continuing to target my son in an ungentlemanly way.”
Former international umpire Simon Taufel, now a consultant for umpiring to Cricket Australia appearing as an expert witness, explained that under the playing conditions for the Sheffield Shield, the basic rule for a batsman of Hughes’s ability was a limit of two bouncers an over. These deliveries are assessed as to whether or not they go above the batsman’s shoulder.
The Hughes’ legal counsel alleged that Hughes faced nine consecutive short balls from Sean Abbott, including three that could have been considered bouncers in the over prior to the one in which he struck Hughes.
The umpire ruled only one of the short balls to be a bouncer and Taufel supported the umpire’s assessment.
Taufel stated that of the 23 bouncers bowled that day, 20 were directed at Hughes, but not all of them were over the shoulder and the cluster in any particular over did not warrant sanction from the umpires.
Taufel testified he thought the bowling on the day was fair and didn’t breach regulations with respect to “dangerous or unfair bowling”.
Greg Hughes said in his submission, “Sledging is part of the game,” but “(the alleged comments) were more abusive and intimidating than sledging … and the use of illegal deliveries in my eyes lead to a very unsafe workplace.”
Sadly, the nature of the inquiry has focused very much on the way play unfolded that day.
It is understandable that the family is still grieving and at pains with Phillip’s death but nothing that unfolded that day can be seen as something that precipitated his death.
NSW Coroner Michael Barnes said as much at the outset of proceedings.
He said the purpose of the hearing was “not to lay blame. (Hughes) death was a terrible accident, but it does not mean cricket cannot be made safer”.
The game could perhaps be made safer but universally that could only occur if a tried and tested new form of helmet could be developed that would alleviate the injury Hughes sustained. Presently, tests carried out on modified helmets have not proven them to be conclusively safer.
Aside from that, the game itself cannot be made safer without the banning of short-pitched bowling which is something no cricketer or administrator would ever wish to see happen.
Phillip Hughes, as a professional cricketer, was operating in a workplace.
However, thousands of cricketers play the game on suburban grounds each week during the summer months without the presence of doctors or physios, people that are present at all first-class grounds in Australia.
Since the Hughes incident defibrillators have been installed at all first-class grounds. They are not in place at minor venues around the country.
At grade cricket grounds down through the years young and inexperienced batsmen have been forced to endure the wrath of fast bowlers of the ilk of Ray Lindwall, Jeff Thomson, Brett Lee and Mitchell Johnson.
At any time, a serious injury could occur. Bruises are commonplace. Broken bones less so. Fatalities, however, are extremely rare.
On 25 November 2014, one such tragedy occurred.
It was a freak accident where a young man, playing the game he loved, was struck by a delivery that on other occasions he would have either hit or avoided.
Hughes, as an international opening batsman, was better equipped than most cricketers to have survived that delivery.
He had done so thousands of times before in matches and in practice.
There is no blame to be apportioned towards anyone.
Phillip Hughes’ death was a tragic accident.
It will always remain so.
Ozinsa
Guest
Couple of thoughts based on my following of the inquest and tracking this thread: If Bollinger and the other players who heard him simply admitted he'd said "I'm going to kill you" any halfwit would have acknowledged that it was hyperbole he'd regret after what happened but has probably done dozens of time before. Denying it has caused it to be more of an issue. If we are viewing this process as a work place incident then sledging becomes a factor. There's no problem sledging in cricket as it has become an accepted part of the culture but it would not be acceptable at my workplace. And I assume very few others. I agree with the author though; for all the intrigue and lies and denials, this process has headed in a direction I'm sure was not intended and is sad for me to observe as a lover of the game. The players look like dickheads denying things they more likely did/said and the family do Hughes no respect by dragging a game he loved through the mud. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Don Lampard
Guest
I clearly remember the Thommo headline decades back when he said he wanted to hurt batsmen.
dynamitedave
Guest
Didn't Hughes have a perceived weakness against short pitched bowling? "Taufel stated that of the 23 bouncers bowled that day, 20 were directed at Hughes, but not all of them were over the shoulder and the cluster in any particular over did not warrant sanction from the umpires." Wouldn't there have been a direction from Cricket Australia for him to work on this. Or even from Hughes himself? Perhaps he asked for the bouncers to be bowled so he could improve.
Johnno
Guest
I asked myself not once did Phil Huhges family mention there son was a sledger like the rest of the cricket players at the elite level in OZ, how convenient of them.
Johnno
Guest
You Damo, clearly don't have the attitude of what stays on the field-stays on the field. You think if serious injury occurs resulting in death or serious injury, we can't just have the aussie bloke way of she'll be right mate and what stays on the field stays on the field. And sports fans like you are gonna make every sport way to safe and soft and sanitised rather than a blood and guts gladiatorial 1980's state of origin style it should be. Enjoy when no one is watching sport when it all the biff and violence and sledging are taken out of it. Enjoy footy turning into touch, and cricket played with tennis balls, as lawyers and insurance companies take over sport, and soccer moms and guys like Damo. Give me John Hopoate types anyway of the week over steve menzies types. oh no Hoppa is entertaining, smashing Galloway was awesome viewing but no it's deem to rough by you Damo. Once you step out on the field your cannon fodder toughen up, you would find the 89 VFL grand final was an unsafe workplace probably, Dermott Brereton getting clobbered and king hit was cheered by the masses of society, but upset so-called responsible types like you.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Nice try Maggie, but it fails because the family members and what they think and say are featured - are the context - throughout the article. In those circumstances it is near impossible to quote them "out of context". My “(Mother) Megan ..." should read "(Sister) Megan ..."
Maggie
Guest
You have quoted Megan Hughes out of the context of the rest of the article.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
I followed your suggestion, Maggie, and read Lalor's piece, curious about your:
especially so given the contradiction with your earlier: Lalor wrote in precisely the terms you described in the second quote, emotive and sensationalist. I found this little gem lurking there among description of mum's "protective instincts" and the hyperbolic "silhouetted by a setting sun", an account which is accusatory and not at all "empathetic": Lying liars all, eh? "(Mother) Megan told The Weekend Australian. “... we didn’t want anybody punished". Errr - she did just that to Cooper all by herself. Several reader comments on Lalor's effort deal with much keener accuracy and more economy of words ... and As an aside Maggie - I wonder if you are aware of the battlefield that is representative cricket from about Under 14s onwards? There are few more determined, insistent, demanding, singularly focused, subjective, learned, sanctimonious and ruthless competitors than the families of uniquely talented cricketers more deserving of selection than anyone else.Maggie
Guest
I also add that you have suggested "we have had a couple of days of this". In fact there were many other issues covered (e.g. medical reports, safety of helmets, first aid training, emergency response). However the populist media had little interest in these, sadly choosing to focus on sensationalising the family's concerns, using emotive terms such as 'storming out', 'scoffing' etc. While many here have criticised the Hughes family, in my view they have been treated poorly by the media reporting. In this regard I repeat comments I made earlier in this blog that a more empathetic understanding can be gained by reading articles by Peter Lalor and Gideon Haigh in today's 'Weekend Australian'.
Maggie
Guest
Anyone trying to understand this inquest should start by reading the 'Opening Statement by Counsel Assisting' to the Coroner. Many of the concerns raised by people commenting here are well covered in that document. http://www.coroners.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Hughes%20Counsel%20Assisting%20Opening%20Final.pdf Early in the brief it sets out the issues to be considered by the Coroner. One of those is the manner of Phillip Hughes’ death, including 'the nature of the play' and 'whether that in any way exacerbated the risk of injury to Phillip Hughes'. It is in the context of that issue that the questions about the bowling tactics and possible sledging were legitimately raised, both by the barrister acting on behalf of the Hughes' family and by the Counsel Assisting the Coroner. (A puzzling aspect is that it seems that the Hughes family statements were taken in early 2015 not long after Phillip Hughes died but the statements from the cricketers were only taken this year around 18 months later.) According to reports about the last day of the inquest, in her concluding remarks the Counsel Assisting said that 'neither the number of short balls bowled to Hughes, nor any alleged instances of sledging, had exacerbated the risk to the batsman, and submitted that no recommendations should be made over the nature of play that day'. However it is reported that she also recommended that 'definitions of what constitutes "unfair bowling" should be clarified by cricket's lawmakers'. She also made other recommendations for the Coroner to consider including in relation to first aid training and emergency response procedures. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/1061614.html
Johnno
Guest
Brainsttust The family have to get over it, sledging and short-pitch bowling are part of cricket culture, and short pitch bowling is allowed, sledging is not in the rules of cricket but it's never sanctioned much, like the biff used to be. If the Hughes family are so passionate about sledging being eradicated from cricket they should take up there fight with the ICC, and call for a global ban on high level sledging in cricket. Oh and Phil Hughes himself was part of these teams he sledged to, let's not pretend.
JoM
Guest
The family's barrister is doing this on behalf of the family.
Jameswm
Guest
Well said. Must be the name...
Damo
Guest
I think if Paul Gallen punched someone and killed them, he would feel guilty and feel empathy towards that person he killed. Seriously mate. I get the feeling you have never played any sport in your life. Another know it all professional spectator who thinks he is tough from the armchair. Sorry, but after reading your posts it makes me angry with what society has become...and thats not hyperbole!
Andy
Guest
Can someone help me by telling me who is asking these questions? As the article says the coroner acknowledged it was an accident from the outset and for the first couple of days it was just a normal proper inquest. I understand that some of these questions have to be asked if only because the Hughes family obviously want them to be asked but we have had a couple of days of this which seems at odds with the first part of the inquest. Is it the coroner asking these questions or the Hughes families counsel? I feel that too much weight is being given to the families views in this.
Johnno
Guest
They can ask, but I don't think it did go too far. And if Phil Hughes did think it did why didn't he complain to the umps?
Maggie
Guest
No. But your comments fit the description of disgraceful. I suggest you and all the other ill-informed commentators in this blog read the articles by Gideon Haigh and Peter Lalor in today's Weekend Australian to get an empathetic understanding of what has taken place in this coronial inquest.
Mick Gold Coast QLD
Roar Guru
Slapsy
Guest
The noteable omission from this inquest seems to be the present technique used by most batsmen,today. When I started playing cricket,at junior level,we were taught to move inside the line of short pitched balls on the leg-side. Helmets had not even been thought of,at that time. Since the advent of helmets,and other protective gear,batsmen now seem to believe that they are bullet proof. As tragic as this accident was,it was clear,from my first viewing of this incident,that it was a lack of footwork which caused Hughes to be hit..Why hasn't this been a focus of the inquest?
Ches
Guest
Without the shoulder charge or real fights in NRL I think the game has become "dirtier" in many ways. Facial massages on the ground. Elbows or forearms to an attacking player that a defender uses to push themselves up of the ground before they play the ball plus the use of wrestling holds etc in the tackles. Sure that stuff was there before but now it is out of control where a referee is hamstrung to penalise for this cheap attack stuff out of fear of holding up the game. There is so much let go that would have been penalised before. Surely we don't want this in cricket? The players will come up with other ways to intimidate for sure. We don't want the game worse. Just say no to bouncer & sledging rule changes in cricket.