Hawkmoon77

OK, ice hockey ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ice_hockey_players_who_died_during_their_playing_career
Pick a sport.

JamesM

Ice Hockey's head trauma issues are well publicised and also need to be addressed.

Hawkmoon77

So...skiing doesn't count as it's an "extreme sport", ice hockey doesn't count as ...er..it's also dangerous, but cricket, tut, tut, has to ban bouncers as 1 test player has died in the last lord knows how many years ?

Let's agree to differ on the bouncer rule, but agree on that it was tragic end to a young sportsman's life.

JamesM

Ski-ing as it stands is as safe as it can be assuming the ski-er has the common sense to get lessons, where a helmet and ski in the appropriate areas.

Ice Hockey is trying to make itself safer. Why can't cricket do the same thing with a very simple rule implementation.

It's not a hard concept.

You shouldn't have to wait for another death before a minor rule change. Prevention is better than cure.

Souvy

It seems that nobody is immune. I didn't even know people in Israel played cricket.

Israeli cricket umpire dies after being hit by ball - Telegraph

Oakvillian

But that wouldn't be a minor rule change. Removing the option of a short-pitched rising delivery would, as has been pointed out up-thread, allow batsmen to come forward to just about everything, and entirely change the nature of the mental games between bowler and batsman. Until, of course, batsmen gallop down the wicket and are hit by an overpitched full toss, or a fielder at short leg cops one clouted off full-pitched delivery clipped of the legs - in which case people will clamour for rule changes prohibiting close fielders, preventing the bowler from aiming at leg stump, or some other nonsense.

I hadn't realised until I read up on it last week that the rule changes in the 30s did not direct affect the laws around bowling, nor did they explicitly outlaw leg theory bowling. Instead, they limited the number of fielders who could be placed behind square on the on side, making leg theory a prohibitively expensive tactic to follow with limited opportunities for taking wickets. That was a masterful stroke of forethought from the then MCC rules committee: make changes that alter the consequences of an action, rather than banning the action outright.

Perhaps a similar debate could be joined now: how would you alter the fielding or scoring rules so as to make bowling bouncers less attractive, without banning them altogether? Maybe a change to the scoring of extras or the ability of the umpire to call a wide for a bouncer would be a place to start - sure, bowl a bouncer, but be prepared to give away an extra run and and extra ball... But that may have the opposite effect: batsmen learn not to expect bouncers, which would lead them to be less able to deal with one when it comes down the track, making them actually more vulnerable to serious injury.

Oink

Or they could just use a tennis ball.

Oakvillian

Yeah, and why not have each batsman equipped with a big round bat with strings across it, and have a net in the middle instead of stumps at each end, and make the boundary a rectangle, and do away with the bowlers and fielders altogether...

Oink

Six and out if it goes over the neighbours fence.

JamesM

In high school we'd use a tennis ball and the wicket would be a dustbin. Playing on concrete of course.

Oink

At university my sub-continent mates taught me the game of tape ball cricket, which is a tennis ball wrapped in electrical tape so it didn't bounce too much. It was a lot of fun.