Phillip Hughes (1988-2014)

[Durhamfootman]

one short ball an over?

Not that I would know about these things, but if there is a limit that the umpires can apply, would that protect the employer from any liability?

And it would be nice to get rid of sledging.... that's long overdue. The kind of stuff that goes on (and probably always has) seems to be very different from the witty banter that I like to think it is whenever I'm asked to defend it

[Making_Splinters]

The Inquest has decided that there was no culpable party in, Hughes' death. What the hell was the point of this decidedly unsavoury review that at various times tried to insinuate that players were responsible when it was already established that this was not the case. Disgraceful, those involved need to take a long hard look at their moral and ethical responsibilities of their roles because the whole thing careened between vindictiveness and *modded*.

[westoelad]

The Inquest has decided that there was no culpable party in, Hughes' death. What the hell was the point of this decidedly unsavoury review that at various times tried to insinuate that players were responsible when it was already established that this was not the case. Disgraceful, those involved need to take a long hard look at their moral and ethical responsibilities of their roles because the whole thing careened between vindictiveness and *modded*.

An inquest was required because that's the legal process that has to be carried out to establish the cause of death. The verdict cleared the players. Without it, the doubt or insinuation would have remained.

[Making_Splinters]

The Inquest has decided that there was no culpable party in, Hughes' death. What the hell was the point of this decidedly unsavoury review that at various times tried to insinuate that players were responsible when it was already established that this was not the case. Disgraceful, those involved need to take a long hard look at their moral and ethical responsibilities of their roles because the whole thing careened between vindictiveness and *modded*.

An inquest was required because that's the legal process that has to be carried out to establish the cause of death. The verdict cleared the players. Without it, the doubt or insinuation would have remained.

Sorry, but I complete disagree that there was any insinuation or doubt in the first place. The entire cricketing fraternity mourned Hughes and accepted it was a tragic accident that could have happened to any player. There has never been any suggestion that players or captains involved were culpable in any way before this inquest. As for the cause of death, it's pretty damn obvious, not to be overly blunt about the whole matter, and has had measures brought in already. While I don't know the full ins and outs of the Australian legal system, I find it hard to believe there was a legal requirement for the inquest to be carried out in the way it was.

[westoelad]

The Inquest has decided that there was no culpable party in, Hughes' death. What the hell was the point of this decidedly unsavoury review that at various times tried to insinuate that players were responsible when it was already established that this was not the case. Disgraceful, those involved need to take a long hard look at their moral and ethical responsibilities of their roles because the whole thing careened between vindictiveness and *modded*.

An inquest was required because that's the legal process that has to be carried out to establish the cause of death. The verdict cleared the players. Without it, the doubt or insinuation would have remained.

Sorry, but I complete disagree that there was any insinuation or doubt in the first place. The entire cricketing fraternity mourned Hughes and accepted it was a tragic accident that could have happened to any player. There has never been any suggestion that players or captains involved were culpable in any way before this inquest. As for the cause of death, it's pretty damn obvious, not to be overly blunt about the whole matter, and has had measures brought in already. While I don't know the full ins and outs of the Australian legal system, I find it hard to believe there was a legal requirement for the inquest to be carried out in the way it was.

I'm sorry. I was merely making the point that an inquest is a legal requirement to establish the exact circumstances in which the fatality occurred- the post mortem established the cause of death.Inevitably then some pertinent questions need to be asked to establish perfect clarity on the events leading up to the tragedy.It will be hurtful for those involved naturally but unavoidable. Hughes' family surely have the right to the legal procedure if they're ever to gain closure.

[sussexpob]

I am not sure inquests into deaths are actually mandatory, only when someone raises a concern that their is a possible suspicion? Or thats my understanding.

[westoelad]

I am not sure inquests into deaths are actually mandatory, only when someone raises a concern that their is a possible suspicion? Or thats my understanding.

In England a coroner's officer, normally a senior police official, will examine the circumstances to decide whether an inquest is required. Hughes situation was extremely unusual which,I assume, would necessitate further investigation to establish clarity and doesn't necessarily imply suspicion. Hughes family would understandably wish for that clarity but I don't think family have the right to an inquest unconditionally.

[GarlicJam]

Young Victorian up-and-comer Will Pucovski, who was concussed in his debut match (last season) and only made it back last week, has just been struck by a bouncer and has had to retire hurt.

The ball was bowled by Sean Abbott...


Abbott has remained on the field, and according to radio reports, is visibly upset. When he started bowling again, it was quite erratic, at least to start.


I hope the pair of them are OK.

[Durhamfootman]

indeed

[andy]

Have to feel for Abbott...wonder what is in his mind, as this happened again, wonder if he will just eventually not bowl the bouncer..