Basic HTML Version
back of the head and neck as newer models issued by Masuri,”
they said a statement to The Independent.
It is pretty clear that this was an unfortunate accident that could
not really have been avoided. But it seems to have had an effect
on how players protect themselves.
Helmets were not introduced to the game until the 1970s, and
they are still not mandatory. Cricket Australia has commissioned
an independent inquiry into Hughes’ death but from the outset
seem to be against radical changes to the rules given the freakish
nature of the injury. That said, rarely do players face the faster
bowlers without a helmet, and most even wear them when facing
spin.
The Telegraph reported in December, less than a month after
Hughes’s injury, that helmet sales had spiked around Australia.
Amateur and weekend crickets were rightly spooked and sales
went up by a reported 70%.
But despite the prevalence of helmet use in cricket, the old ways
die hard. Innovation in helmets comes slow. Many grade cricket-
ers feel slightly shy about wearing a helmet. Even in international
matches, newer and perhaps safer styles have been rejected be-
cause of entrenched ideas of how they should look. Bryce McGain,
a former Australia player, tried out a helmet designed by Albion
Sports Pty Ltd in 2009. The helmet offered improved safety but
looked radically different from the dome of the time.
But a strange sort of peer-pressure killed the helmet. “The com-
mentators had a go, saying ‘He looks like Darth Vader’, ‘He looks
like Robocop’,” McGain says. “It didn’t bother me too much, but
only a couple of other players wore it and if you don’t have the
players at the top, the ones on TV, wearing them, they don’t sell.”
This latent prejudice can be further seen in comments from for-
mer English player Geoff Boycott. Always a source of tasty quotes,
he claims that helmets have made players too brave. They feel
more confident taking risky shots, which actually endanger them.
It is unlikely that any helmet would have saved Hughes, and his
aggression in the shot was typical of the modern player. But that
doesn’t mean helmets can’t be developed that will protect the
neck and the back of the head. While tradition means innovation
in cricket is swimming upstream, there is also to issue of function-
ality.
In an interview with The Conversation, a senior lecturer in sports
technology said that safety equipment is in a constant trade off.
Andy Harland of Loughborough University explains that safety,
performance and comfort are in competition when designing
helmets. Technically, players could be vastly better protected, but
this would mean heavier helmets with less visibility. In a game
where fractions of seconds are key, Dr. Harland says most players
will let the design slide on the protective side of the triangle. Hel-
mets, it seems, will never be as good as they could be.
However, even before November 2015, helmets were under
scrutiny. The previous year saw English batsman Stuart Broad cop
a broken nose as a ball delivered at pace broke through between
his face grill and the helmet. This promoted a review and gradual-
ly titanium has been replacing the traditional steel grills.
Cricket can be conservative and reactive by nature. But the death
of Phillip Hughes has had a deeply psychological effect on his
team mates. There have been reports of Mitchell Johnson losing
some pace in his bowling and Shane Watson being rattled after
being struck by a bouncer in the nets. Players are facing the
reality that they could be killed playing this sport, and regardless
of how small the risk, they are reacting. It would be surprising if
this tragedy does not result in the loosening of prejudice against
innovations in protection.
TOUCHLINE
ISSUE 21 | AUGUST 2015 |
39