I recently wrote an article about the risk of a fast bowler being struck by the ball in his follow through. This risk has been greatly heightened by the development of the modern cricket bat.
But this is not the only area of risk. We need to look beyond the fence to see another potential for injury. Never in cricket’s history has a cricket ball travelled so often and so quickly over the cricket fences of the world in all forms of the game.
The power of the modern bat provides players with the ability to clear the fence on a miss-hit. A timed shot hitting the sweet spot and swung with reasonable bat speed results in a carry of 90 metres or more.
But perhaps the long, high six is not the worst-case scenario. The flat-batted shot, on the full or on the bounce, enters the crowd at significant velocity and is potentially more dangerous. Therefore, we need to add some flat-batted boundary fours into the risk assessment.
The BBL averages about ten sixes per match – potentially ten opportunities for someone in the crowd to be injured. Add say another three flat-batted fours hurdling the fence and we get unlucky 13 every T20 match.
(AAP Image/David Mariuz)
With all risks, the likelihood of the disaster scenario will start reaching the odds of a dead certainty as the number of instances increases. At some time in the foreseeable future, someone in the crowd will be taking a trip to hospital rather than going home with friends after the match.
What’s this scenario? The most likely vision, which will come with a graphic viewing warning, will occur in the first five or six rows from the fence, when the ball is coming in flat and fast.
Most of those in the danger zone will see it coming and because it has become a symbol of Australian masculinity to catch one of these missiles regardless of where you are positioned, about ten people will be moving towards the line of flight.
What could possibly go wrong? The over-eager, marginally athletic and intoxicated 40-year-old dives from four seats away only to get a finger on the ball.
Unfortunately, this is the fickle finger of fate for the ten-year-old girl who has overestimated her ability but has lined up the catch well.
The finger deflection means that instead of her hands, the ball strikes her and injures her. Use your imagination to create your very own horror story.
Perhaps the story is of the 70-year-old pensioner who is looking up at the screen at the time and doesn’t see anything coming, including the ambulance.
Am I exaggerating things? I hope so, but I’m sure that these scenarios or something similar will happen.
In baseball there are nets behind the batter to stop the hard-hit fly foul from hitting those most vulnerable patrons. Why aren’t nets provided at the fence line for cricket? Surely that’s not too much to ask.
Doesn’t the venue owner have a duty of care to provide as safe an environment as reasonably practicable? Having a net at the fence would be a reasonable and obvious safety precaution given the repeated evidence of the ball being hit directly at patrons.
The net may not be high enough to collect everything, but a high percentage of balls would be stopped.
Can we please have something done before we have an accident?
RowiE
Roar Rookie
SR1, it is probability fundamentals, I absolutely agree. What you refuse to accept is that you have only the most minimal understanding and you have , because of your lack of knowledge, applied the wrong principle to this scenario. Not once did you use correct terminology and not once did you, by using probability theory, argue my points. You just keep saying the same thing. You're WRONG. I tried desperately to let you down easy, knowing from your first comment that you were wrong, but no, you wouldn't give up. SR1 Rules of life 1. SR1 is never wrong, 2. When SR1 is wrong, refer to Rule 1. This has not been fun, this is exasperating. Good bye.
SR1
Roar Pro
It's probability fundamentals I'm talking here, so it should make perfect sense. But maybe I'm just not phrasing it correctly for everyone to understand. It doesn't really matter anymore anyway. Sorry for the fuss over the past few days. It's been fun arguing with you. Maybe we'll unexpectedly bump into each other some day.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Sorry SR1, you just stated that you agree with my previous comment and then directly contradict yourself. If you really understood what I wrote you can't agree and disagree at the same time. Just admit you don't understand, because I know you don't. At least that's the end, cheers.
SR1
Roar Pro
Yes, I understand this. I do agree with it. All my argument was based upon was your reasoning for why we should be more careful with wayward boundaries. You were saying that the more something doesn’t happen, the more likely the event becomes which IS against fundamentals of probability. I mentioned earlier that each boundary was an independent event, which is why I used coins as an example. That’s all I’m saying. I hope we can get over this and be in agreement. I’ve nearly had enough of this but it’s been good talking with you while it’s lasted.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Interesting, I won’t bother to enquire further I don’t have the time, my comment on your lack of use of appropriate terminology still stands. I did years of data analysis and never used probability, in the sense we are discussing here. You seem to be fixated on the gamblers fallacy when you should be looking at the Law of Large Numbers LLN. You also don’t seem to accept the reality where we have a finite space and an infinite number of attempts and a known ratio ie effectively the probability of being struck or not, that probability approaches 1.
SR1
Roar Pro
I interpret and analyse statistical data and compile associated reports.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Ok, What sort of work do you do that requires probability? I didn't jump to any conclusion, I looked at the language you used in your comments and not once did you use the terminology associated with probability. I think that is a fair conclusion, but I'm only too happy to be proved wrong. So please let me know what work you do all the time. Can't wait to hear. Cheers
SR1
Roar Pro
I have studied probability! I work with it all the time. You just must be that type of person that just jumps straight to conclusions without caring of any details or factors involved.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
SR1, at least we agree on one thing and that is the topic of my article revolves around risk. However I can tell by the terminology you use that you have never studied probability, or if you have, it was so long ago that you've forgotten. My request that you research was my polite effort to say, go look up some text books on probability. I repeat, I have agreed to disagree. It seems you haven't. So, cheers, good luck and good bye on this matter.
SR1
Roar Pro
Probability, the chance, the odds - it doesn't matter which, is directly linked to this topic of whether protective measures should be installed to help this issue. These decision-making for these measures would have considered whether it is in fact needed by looking at the chances and statistics. So by writing about Factual statistical probability, I am thinking in a realistic sense to the situation in question. All my evidence has already been said so there's no need for additional information from research.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
SR1, I have agreed to disagree. You have rewritten statistical probability 101. Please, please do some research.
elvis
Roar Rookie
That's not the nanny state. That's normal government. At least do some basic research into the concept before contributing. And as for "subsidised private school" the rich pay most of the tax, so not only do they pay their own subsidies out of their taxes, plus their school fees, their taxes pay for the bottom half of earners kids to go to school as well. Having a snark at the rich is like punching the guy shouting free drinks.
SR1
Roar Pro
If you read what I typed below, that 'no hit in the future' logic is purely statistical while also displaying that maybe there shouldn't be too much concern about the issue at this time. Statistically, it would never happen, but in real life it may happen occasionally though nothing yet. I'm just saying that the likelihood isn't increasing because it hasn't happened yet. That is true regardless if you are talking statistically or in a real life situation. Hope you understand.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
'There are many patrons that cannot evaluate the danger and risk to them and family when attending a cricket match....' I can put a name to the nanny industry now. Lets spend millions putting up fences with small enough mesh to stop the projectile and ruin the view for everyone who is watching. By the way, when a surf life club is running a day at the beach where they have spectators at a carnival they expect those that go swimming to pay attention so they don't end up in a rip or swimming in the designated surfing area. It happens though. So under your protection they need barriers to save those people from themselves who stay after the supervised activity or they are negligent to those people they encouraged to the beach for the carnival. What a sad fearful world you live in.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
SR1 you are confusing a single event with multiple events. In your world the chances of tossing ten straight heads is the same as the single event which is 50/50. Ten straight heads odds is 1/1024. Please let's talk about safety in cricket. But I think that is not the issue with our different view. You stated that your position is predicated on the event not necessarily happening. Therefore you are saying that, in this case, our ten year old can stand at the fence and NEVER be hit regardless of how many matches he or she goes to. Put another way, his or her risk of being struck is zero. This is patently not true. But you believe, so we can leave it and agree to disagree.
SR1
Roar Pro
No, no. As mentioned directly below, Nothing gets more and more likely just because it hasn't happened yet. That is a fundamental of chance, odds and likelihood here which is what this whole article is about. In your example, for each of the 10000 times you threw the dart, you would have an equal chance of hitting the bulls-eye because throwing a dart for the first time and throwing a dart for the ten-thousandth time is the same in terms of probability. All that's changed is the number - nothing else. I can understand how you think this because it is a very common mistake. But this logic of the chance increasing as you miss more times can only be correctly applied if it is certain to happen in the future, which it isn't in this case. I'm just trying to help you out here, no hard feelings please.
David
Guest
Have you ever driven on a publicly funded road, sought care for yourself or family at a publicly funded hospital or been educated at a public school or publicly subsidised private school? You've benefitted. We all have.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
I don't understand your position. You seem to treat a coin toss with a random outcome scenario. My logic is that if you stand in front of a dart board with your eyes closed and randomly throw darts, sooner or later you'll hit a bulls eye. It might be first dart it might be 10,000, but as the number of throws increases so does the likelihood of a bullseye. You can toss a 10 cent coin as often as you like, the odds on any give toss on the two only possible outcomes is 50/50. If you don't agree, fine. I am no longer interested.
Paul D
Roar Rookie
More likely to be cleaned up by someone competing for the ball. I remember a bloke dived into about 3 people in the row in front of him to take a hanger on the upper deck at Etihad, one of the craziest things I've ever seen in the crowd on TV https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/big-bash-league-is-this-crowd-catch-the-greatest-of-all-time-in-bbl-history/news-story/53e6f894d6509445dd70ccba5c0741be
SR1
Roar Pro
"as near misses increase in number, the likelihood of a hit increases. If you disagree with that, you're disagreeing with risk analysis, theory and logic" Look, I can understand where you're coming from with possible injuries but your justification here is totally out. This isn't correct use of logic. Read my other comment for more.