Helmets in cricket

[uvelocity]

in close is the place where you most want a helmet, moreso than batting even

 

[Lillian Thomson]

in close is the place where you most want a helmet, moreso than batting even

Of course it is, But it allows a fielder to stand much closer and intimidate the batsman more. An artificial advantage which I wouldn't allow.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Of course it is, But it allows a fielder to stand much closer and intimidate the batsman more. An artificial advantage which I wouldn't allow.

Would you also forbid a short leg fielder a box and leg guards?

They have to pay health insurance premiums too, you know.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Would you also forbid a short leg fielder a box and leg guards?

They have to pay health insurance premiums too, you know.

For protection in an established normal fielding position yes. If it enables them to stand closer than they normally would, no.

 

[stumpski]

I don't have a problem with keepers wearing a helmet but I wouldn't allow a close fielder to wear one. If you don't feel safe don't stand so close.

The fielder has to go where his captain puts him doesn't he? He might not be happy about it, especially when the spinner bowls a long-hop or two.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The fielder has to go where his captain puts him doesn't he? He might not be happy about it, especially when the spinner bowls a long-hop or two.

Whoever is setting the field has nothing to do with it. The principal is the same.

 

[sledger]

Bowlers should wear helmets imo

 

[Goughy]

I don't have a problem with keepers wearing a helmet but I wouldn't allow a close fielder to wear one. If you don't feel safe don't stand so close.

Surely that is the same logic for keepers? They dont have to stand up to the spinners. You see at low levels of keepers standing 3 yards back when the spinner is bowling as they are not good enough or confident enough to stand up to the stumps to pressure the batsman.

 

[uvelocity]

Of course it is, But it allows a fielder to stand much closer and intimidate the batsman more. An artificial advantage which I wouldn't allow.

well surely you couldn't allow the batsman protective equipment either?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

well surely you couldn't allow the batsman protective equipment either?

The batsman is just doing what he's always done. He's not gaining an advantage in the way the fielder is. You could argue the helmet has changed a batsman's approach to hooking or ducking but the advantages of that are debatable.

 

[uvelocity]

fielders are doing what they've always done too. i go in there short without calling for any protective stuff, just to keep things moving but if I was a test match short leg specialist it would be ridiculous not to use all the protection available.

and of course better protection and not just helmets make it easier for batsmen and gives them an advantage

 

[Migara]

Lara was hit quite a few times. Even by 'Lightening' John Morris see 2:55 Brian Lara 501* vs Durham 1994 - highest first class innings - YouTube

As for Viv being the only one to hook balls bateen their eyes *ahem*

http://www.google.com.my/url?sa=t&r...LCPVJmQYgX6o_nSDfWwrgrA&bvm=bv.45645796,d.bmk

Cough cough, talking of isolated incidents rather than the norm.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

fielders are doing what they've always done too. i go in there short without calling for any protective stuff, just to keep things moving but if I was a test match short leg specialist it would be ridiculous not to use all the protection available.

and of course better protection and not just helmets make it easier for batsmen and gives them an advantage

Fielders admit that the helmet enables them to stand closer to the batsman - therefore they're not doing what they've always done. People like Close, Greig and Solkar would stand there anyway, which is fair enough.

Anyway this isn't really a debate worth having as it's impossible now to say who would stand where unless you ban the helmet for the current crop of fielders - and that certainly has no chance of happening.

 

[sledger]

Who cares?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Who cares?

No one. Trying to ban helmets for fielders would be like trying to ban sledger from this forum - it ain't gonna happen.

 

[uvelocity]

Fielders admit that the helmet enables them to stand closer to the batsman - therefore they're not doing what they've always done. People like Close, Greig and Solkar would stand there anyway, which is fair enough.

Anyway this isn't really a debate worth having as it's impossible now to say who would stand where unless you ban the helmet for the current crop of fielders - and that certainly has no chance of happening.

bollocks

 

[sledger]

No one. Trying to ban helmets for fielders would be like trying to ban sledger from this forum - it ain't gonna happen.

But that's not a satisfactory conclusion for anyone. Especially everyone other than me.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

So helmets somehow make fielders field differently but batsmen bat exactly the same? Riight.

sup brah

 

[Lillian Thomson]

bollocks

What exactly is that supposed to prove? There's always been short-leg fielders. The helmet gives them the confidence to stand closer. That's an indisputable fact. The only question is whether standing closer is giving them an unfair advantage. If anyone disagrees that it does then yippee.

 

[uvelocity]

i really don't know what you're talking about now. boon is standing there as close as you want to get to have a chance of catching the ball. standing any closer than that to a quick bowler is a disadvantage. albi's pic is a good one too.