Cricket Helmets

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=94231.msg601726#msg601726 date=1417186930]
Seems like a busted Testicle is more protected than a busted Neck  >
[/quote]

.... and even when men get whacked in the 'carrot and onions' area  ;D ... players and spectators can't help but buss out a laff   ;D

[quote author=mapoui link=topic=94231.msg601671#msg601671 date=1417112748]
great input guys.....

but I suspect the manufactures of helmets are profiteering at the expense of the players.  those helmets are quite insufficient design ridiculous.

take a look at the baseball batting helmets.  they try to protect the whole side of the head facing the pitcher.  so baseball helmets are constructed for both left and right handed hitters.  nothing of the kind is done with cricket helmets

cricket helmets appear too soft to protect against the ball at 90 mph..and too short to protect the hole side of the head facing the bowler.  and the visor keeps nothing out so the ball can still smash a face with the helmet

looks to me like a hole game of fraud here.  the makes of helmets should be sued
[/quote]

Exactly mapoui.Only now are we talking of this.never in the past has there been a situation like this that has resulted in death.
Cricket has been a game like this for years now but its time we start looking at security in a much better way

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=94231.msg601501#msg601501 date=1417025236]
                     
[/quote]
IF Hughesy was using a baseball Helmet , according to Mapoui : Area of Impact , covered  :-\

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=94231.msg601756#msg601756 date=1417195427]
IF Hughesy was using a baseball Helmet , according to Mapoui : Area of Impact , covered  :-\

[/quote]
It has happened,but at least from now we should start thinking of alternatives.
I am out of words but i really hope some action is taken at least in the near future.

Certainly gonna have to redesign the helmets.  Other than that, the best advice remains: if one's comin' at you between the eyes, DUCK, never turn your head.

in the old days west indies used the bouncer much more than they came to use it under Lloyd and Richards

Chester Watson was Major for that.  Griff had a killer bouncer but I don know if he actually used it much.  as far as I use of the bouncer was much more prevalent in regional cricket than by the west indies in at test level.

I know that in 1976 was it that west indian pace laced into India at Sabina..a pace mans wicket.  that was very unfortunate but the circumstances as it developed encouraged something like that.

but as many commentators have attested with all the pace west indies had they used intimidatory bowling far less that the Oz for example..and the english when they had great pace

[size=12pt]In defense of eliminating the bouncer I posted this next door[/size]

Quote:I have come to appreciate fast bowling concentrated around the wicket, full length bowling calculated to defeat batsmen by skill and brains... not intimidation

the greatest feats of fast bowling I have seen never contained bouncers. the top feats... Micheal Holding twice..at the Oval in england in 1976..and at Kensington against Boycott in 1980-81.

they were both full pitched bowling, very, very fast but so skillful that the great Boycott at Kensington was utterly defeated and bowled....twice

the great west indian pacemen were judicious in their use of short-pitched bowling. they never used it much.

they were so good, so consistent, that every innings against them was a comprehensive test of skill, concentration and energy/endurance. they wore out the emotional capabilities of batsmen. those who made fifty slept well the night... from physical/emotional exhaustion

those west indian pacemen could hit any batsman at will. I saw Malcolm Marshall hit the Oz Lawson. I thought Marshall did it deliberately, in retaliation for Lawson's own aggression against west indian batsmen. but that was not par for the west indian course.

many commentators have noted this lack of intimidation from west indian pace greats. their mode of attack was organized around the wicket, based on skill and smarts, great fitness, which ensured all they threw at batsmen was at great pace, making their attack consistent and comprehensively challenging on mental/emotional level

so if the bouncer is discarded I would not mind at all, in light of the west indian tradition of great fast bowling.

imagine if at the Oval in 1976 Holding was intimidatory. there would have been a few dead bodies on that field we can be sure of. Holding achieved great, great pace, fast like lightening, defeated some english batsmen with straight balls of sheer pace, they had no time to get their bats on

who were not clean bowled were LBW.

just imagine what it would have been like had Holding bowled bouncers. the english batsmen would not have been able to cope

"I have come to appreciate fast bowling concentrated around the wicket, full length bowling calculated to defeat batsmen by skill and brains... not intimidation"


Tough call for any Umpire to differentiate the 2 !

thanks ketchim..bala.  thats the idea..the baseball helmet adapted for cricket.

side-on for both handers..prolly a chin-strap to keep it in place and a metal front frame/grill to keep the ball from the face. one more rung is needed more than the current grill, higher up towards the eyes but not impeding sight.. to ensure that the ball has no chance of forcing its way through space between grill and rim of the helmet

if they insist on keeping the bouncer/intimidation in the game then a proper helmet is of great and urgent need

[quote author=ketchim link=topic=94231.msg601774#msg601774 date=1417199450]
"I have come to appreciate fast bowling concentrated around the wicket, full length bowling calculated to defeat batsmen by skill and brains... not intimidation"


Tough call for any Umpire to differentiate the 2 !
[/quote]

should not be a problem.  we all know what intimidation is..and when bowlers are out to intimidate batsmen. 

we cant protect from all injury anyway....injury is part of sport.  but the things we do directly, have control over..or a great measure of control over, should result in death...should not have the potenatial to cause death.  we should eliminate those aspects of the any game.

I used to love boxing..heavyweight boxing in particular.  everybody loved that and the stars of that sport as well, at all weights...Ali, Frazier, Foreman, until  now.  those stars are still loved yet the boxing game is slowly slipping away.  Good!  a very good thing indeed. the heavyweight division is all but dead.  and apart from Mayweather and Pac Man no boxer makes ripples

I can foresee a day when boxing will be gone forever, a murderous sport done.

if the bouncer is eliminated and the pacer so restricted he yet retains the freedom to explore all possibilities in attack focused around the wicket. I look forward to some real forced creativity if that happens