• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Cricket Thread

kb 1984 said:
They were not put in the dock like criminals It was an inquest paramedics, doctors, umpires, fielders, batsmen & the bowlers all gave evidence. They made some very valid points regarding medical care available at the ground & the state of the wicket at the SCG on the day. As for fast bowling no one is complaining about that. what they said was 9 bouncers in a row was way over top i tend to agree.

Not one of the cricketers who played on the day have quit the game because of what happened.
Click to expand...

Why are the bowlers even being questioned on comments made then? What a bowler may have said or not said has no bearing on Hughes death, I feel it was unnecessary. As for the bouncers, England bounced Hughes out in many games, he was not great under the short ball, so therefore if he was scoring at huge rates they were going to go after his weakness.
 
This is a debate that has dogged cricket since Jardine and the "Leg theory" in the 30's. There are those who believe in the spirit of the game and those who believe winning is more important. They will never agree. The more I watch professional "sport" I see less sportsmanship and little respect for opponents, this is driven a lot by the media who are just looking for a story and conflict is always a draw for the plebs.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Why are the bowlers even being questioned on comments made then? What a bowler may have said or not said has no bearing on Hughes death, I feel it was unnecessary. As for the bouncers, England bounced Hughes out in many games, he was not great under the short ball, so therefore if he was scoring at huge rates they were going to go after his weakness.
Click to expand...

They were being questioned because they allegedly said i'm going to kill you followed by 9 bouncers the final one killing him. The Hughes family fully understand it was an accident & have not asked for anyone to face criminal charges they just want the truth re the sledging, the wicket, & the medical care available. is that really to much to ask.

I think Michael Clarke was right when he said it doesn't matter what the cricket fraternity want what matters is Philip Hughes family get closure so let it all come out good or bad let's not forget they lost a son on a cricket pitch.
 
kb 1984 said:
They were being questioned because they allegedly said i'm going to kill you followed by 9 bouncers the final one killing him. The Hughes family fully understand it was an accident & have not asked for anyone to face criminal charges they just want the truth re the sledging, the wicket, & the medical care available. is that really to much to ask.

I think Michael Clarke was right when he said it doesn't matter what the cricket fraternity want what matters is Philip Hughes family get closure so let it all come out good or bad let's not forget they lost a son on a cricket pitch.
Click to expand...

But I am still struggling to grasp what the family will get out of the bowlers being in the dock.

Hughes died of a fatal blow to the neck which was caused by a bouncer?
 
Grays_1890 said:
But I am still struggling to grasp what the family will get out of the bowlers being in the dock.

Hughes died of a fatal blow to the neck which was caused by a bouncer?
Click to expand...

I imagine they want someone to be held responsible for their sons death, it very easy to be reasonable and look at the "big picture" when it's not one of your family that has been taken from you and it's only human nature to want some sort of retribution. It may have been an accident that could have been avoided by intervention by the umpire or the fielding captain, only the bowler will know if he was trying to hit the batsman, but umpires and captains have a responsibility to ensure the game is played in the right way. Intentionally hit players with the ball is not in the spirit of the game. In baseball if the pitcher hit the batsmen they get a walk perhaps a 20 runs on extras might eliminate bowlers trying to hit batsmen.
 
Grays_1890 said:
But I am still struggling to grasp what the family will get out of the bowlers being in the dock.

Hughes died of a fatal blow to the neck which was caused by a bouncer?
Click to expand...

i have no idea what they get from questioning the bowlers but if it gives them some sort of closure who cares.

i find it strange that you think these guys are on trial there not. umpires, both captains, various fieldsmen & coaches gave evidence at no stage have any of them complained or objected about appearing. Brad Haddin the wk on the day & various players past & present have come out in support of the family.

over the weekend in a domestic one day game a batsman was hit on the head from a short ball & was not allowed to play on for fear of concussion.
due to recent rule changes they were substituted. at some point fast bowlers will have to realise bowling bouncers at batsmens heads over & over again is not acceptable or in the spirit of the game in my opinion. only yesterday a doctor came out & said bouncers should be banned it won't take long for others to jump on that bandwagon.
 
It would be unfortunate if the bouncer was banned from the game because of the actions of some unsporting players, perhaps if the ICC limit was to be enforced in all levels of the game it would stop this over use of the threat.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
I imagine they want someone to be held responsible for their sons death
Click to expand...

This is where I struggle, I know its going round in circles here but I don't think anyone is responsible for their sons death. He was bowled short balls because he was known for getting out to the short ball, abit like Jimmy Anderson at the end of the Sri Lanka test in the UK when he was out with only minutes of the test remaining. This was proven unfortunately in the fact Hughes missed the bouncer, the fact it hit him where it did was unfortunate, beyond words, but I lay my house on them looking for a top edge not to kill the guy.

You watch any of the cricket archive programs on Sky and the reference to "a bowler that could take your head off" is in every program, its not about trying to kill someone, its about trying to develop something out of nothing, look at the score Hughes was on, if they had said "I am gonna kill you" bounced him, top edge to third man, out, no question, like 1000s of games world wide.

1 question I would throw back, Doug Bolliger is proven to say "I am gonna kill you" and the other lad gets proven to have sledged, what will the outcome be? They were responsible? They intentionally killed him? Thats a genuine question, what verdict will give closure? These guys wont be convicted of murder or manslaughter? So what closure do the parents get? If someones held responsible to what level?
 
Grays_1890 said:
This is where I struggle, I know its going round in circles here but I don't think anyone is responsible for their sons death. He was bowled short balls because he was known for getting out to the short ball, abit like Jimmy Anderson at the end of the Sri Lanka test in the UK when he was out with only minutes of the test remaining. This was proven unfortunately in the fact Hughes missed the bouncer, the fact it hit him where it did was unfortunate, beyond words, but I lay my house on them looking for a top edge not to kill the guy.

You watch any of the cricket archive programs on Sky and the reference to "a bowler that could take your head off" is in every program, its not about trying to kill someone, its about trying to develop something out of nothing, look at the score Hughes was on, if they had said "I am gonna kill you" bounced him, top edge to third man, out, no question, like 1000s of games world wide.

1 question I would throw back, Doug Bolliger is proven to say "I am gonna kill you" and the other lad gets proven to have sledged, what will the outcome be? They were responsible? They intentionally killed him? Thats a genuine question, what verdict will give closure? These guys wont be convicted of murder or manslaughter? So what closure do the parents get? If someones held responsible to what level?
Click to expand...

I think one of the issues the number of short balls bowled, there are limits in international cricket but as far as I'm aware the rest is left to "local" rules. In the laws of the game the umpire can call a no ball for dangerous bowling. I've not seen the actual number bowled in the "Hughes" incident but 9 has been mentioned, what frequency was I do not know, 9 in a 6 or 7 over period would seem reasonable but in 2 or 3 overs would be pure intimidation, and to my mind unsporting (oh how very Victorian of me).
 
Its a fine line, Atherton versus Donald could be retrospectively pulled up as he was not aiming to get Atherton out, he wanted to kill him :)
 
Anyone else remember Brian Close standing up against the West Indies bowlers without any protection, and then saying do your worse.
 
Grays_1890 said:
This is where I struggle, I know its going round in circles here but I don't think anyone is responsible for their sons death. He was bowled short balls because he was known for getting out to the short ball, abit like Jimmy Anderson at the end of the Sri Lanka test in the UK when he was out with only minutes of the test remaining. This was proven unfortunately in the fact Hughes missed the bouncer, the fact it hit him where it did was unfortunate, beyond words, but I lay my house on them looking for a top edge not to kill the guy.

You watch any of the cricket archive programs on Sky and the reference to "a bowler that could take your head off" is in every program, its not about trying to kill someone, its about trying to develop something out of nothing, look at the score Hughes was on, if they had said "I am gonna kill you" bounced him, top edge to third man, out, no question, like 1000s of games world wide.

1 question I would throw back, Doug Bolliger is proven to say "I am gonna kill you" and the other lad gets proven to have sledged, what will the outcome be? They were responsible? They intentionally killed him? Thats a genuine question, what verdict will give closure? These guys wont be convicted of murder or manslaughter? So what closure do the parents get? If someones held responsible to what level?
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% re them not wanting to hurt him in anyway not a chance.

closure is different for everybody. maybe hearing every detail is exactly what the Hughes family want & need. i have not read or seen anything that suggests the Hughes family blame any players & no one in oz is even suggesting criminal charges. on that basis alone i don't think any players will face charges. i truly hope this is the case

They have said Cricket Australia have some explaining to do re the pitch & medical facilities
The inquest spent a lot of time going through that stuff

Now back to the cricket i can't wait for South Africa to tear the aussies apart next week. The aussies look short in so many areas.
 
Last edited:
thought some of you might be interested in this

Cricket Australia (CA) is throwing its support behind a radical plan to restructure the scheduling of international one-day and T20 matches to address concerns over the number of matches players are required to play.

Under the proposal floated earlier this year, a 13-team league would replace current scheduling, with each country playing a total of 12 matches per year in each format.

CA chief James Sutherland said the move would create more certainty around the amount of cricket being played.

"That means you play six one-day matches away, six one-day matches at home every year," Sutherland said.

"It doesn't seem to any point playing any more than that because they're the matches that count."

It would mean the Australian cricket team would play less cricket on an annual basis, while other countries would play more frequently than is currently scheduled.

"I think that will be something that will be very beneficial for world cricket, not just in terms of putting those limits in place, but also creating third party interest and making sure there's real relevance to every single match," he said.

It comes after some former Australian players criticised the tight scheduling of matches and the heavy workload placed on players.

Next February, Australia is due to play a Test match in India the day after a T20 international against Sri Lanka in Adelaide.

Test cricket is also under the microscope, with concepts being explored around splitting the Test playing nations into two conferences with the champion team from each conference playing off over a two-year cycle.

Sutherland said any change would not affect the prestige of series such as the Ashes.

"It's got great history, great tradition but there are other series between countries, countries that we play against as well that could do with that extra context as part of a league structure and we see it as a real positive," he said.

It is envisaged new formats would be implemented within five years.

"There's a little bit of a lead time involved because of pre-existing contracts and things like that, but certainly the planning is very heavily focussed on a line in the sand in and around the World Cup in 2019," Sutherland said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back