Ball Dodging Bullsheet

[Victor Ian]

Watching the cricket recently, I was noticing how often the guy fielding at 'silly whatever' turns his back to the shot as it unfolds. WTF, was my immediate reaction. The fielder is wearing a box. He is wearing a helmet. Why would he turn his back on the shot? What possible advantage is there? If he stayed facing the ball, it might hit him on the front of his body and then he would be ready to take a catch. I am not aware of the front body muscles hurting more than the back muscles, so I think it would make more sense to stay facing the batsman, and to try to take that amazing catch. If you are not able to take the catch, at least by watching the shot you can get out of it's way better. Should this tendency to turn one's back to the shot be something that is trained out of fielders. I can not see any reason for it that makes sense. I accept that only the mad humans would not try and avoid a full blown shot from that kind of distance, though turning one's back to the shot seems the worst way to avoid the shot. It's not like your back is a smaller target.

 

[mr_mister]

Silly topic. Natural human reaction

 

[cnerd123]

More likely to crack a rib taking the ball on your 'front muscles'.

Plus yea ducking is a natural reflex. A cricket ball is ****ing hard. If a batsman smashes it at you duck. 75% of your body isn't padded. Its not worth the injury.

 

[honestbharani]

do we realistically see a day when they invent so much padding that the fielders there in the close in positions legitimately start trying to face the ball or even catch the ball when power strokes are played in their direction?


Feel that is a better question to ponder..

 

[Compton]

This is the strangest way to criticise a fielder. Those fielders aren't there to take catches off the middle of the bat.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Let me smash a ball right at you and see how many times you can catch it.

 

[cnerd123]

Let me smash a ball right at you and see how many times you can catch it.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Having fielded at short leg reasonably often, I'd rather wear the ball on my nicely padded buttox then in my groin regardless of whether I'm wearing a box or not. Plus, being hit on the sternum is incredibly dangerous and has killed a number of close-in fielders, so protecting that area is a necessity. If the bowler has been unkind enough to deliver a pie which you know if going to be smashed in your direction then self-preservation is a strong force to resist.

 

[Son Of Coco]

If the guy fielding in close has spent enough time developing expert control of his sphincter muscle, he is still in a position to snaffle a catch with his back turned.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

^ Can confirm this.

 

[Daemon]

strange thread. infract for avoiding swear filter as punishment imo.

 

[Victor Ian]

Sorry. I wasn't trying to take a dig at the fielders. I completely understand the natural reflex is to turn and duck. However, I found from watching that it was rather pointless. Sure, I might take a broken rib. Front or back, they will break as easily and both put me out of the game. The Back exposes some kidneys too! The back exposes the funny bone of the arms (OUCH!). The unprotected part of a helmet. I'f I'm completely wrong about being hit on the front being more dangerous, then I have no point, but I don't see it that way. It seems, at best, equally dangerous, more likely less so as two vulnerable areas are protected and the rest is just like the back. So, danger wise, the front is better to be hit on. One can reduce the risk of a hit further by watching the ball hit themselves. Why turn and take a surprise shot. You may as well face it and see it coming. You may have a chance to move just enough to avoid it. You may have a chance to do whatever you do when being hit to repel the shot a bit, perhaps fold around the ball, move backwards with it, slap it away....whatever. I really don't expect anyone to take a catch from a full on slug at this range*, but I think training people to stand there and face the ball is the safest method. Do, I have a point? Or is this all just a bit of bull?

*In Under 11s once, a big bloke smashed the ball straight at silly whatever who was our teams worst fielder. Somehow it got smashed into his hand so hard it stuck. He didn't try to catch it, he just put his hand there to try and fend the ball away from hitting the rest of himself.

 

[Hurricane]

I once didn't flinch at silly point and got smoked in the chest, the batsman had hit me on purpose in an effort to get me out of that position. I wanted to stay in close, but the captain took me out of there for my safety when he realised what the bat was up to. It did hurt quite a bit. That was when I was 20 and fearless. In my teenage years I would stand at short forward square leg without a helmet and try to catch on drives as they sped past me.

These days I won't even go in close.

Speaking of close. I think it was Brian Close who was reknowned for fielding without a helmet and just not flinching. Caught a few on the noggin too and he still wouldn't flinch.

Look my view is that if you have nerves of steel like I used to a long time ago, then do whatever turns you on. If I were captain I would just be happy to have anyone who was willing to stand in close to the bat and certainly wouldn't berate them for flinching or turning their back.

To the OP if this is a pet idea of yours then you do it. In the next game of cricket you play you go in close and don't turn around. If you manage to do that for 2-3 games in a row then I think you can legitimately make this point. But unless you are willing to literally walk the walk then I wouldn't be making your point.

 

[Daemon]

Lokesh Rahul has been reading CW

 

[Burner]

If that disturbs you, you should watch footballers flinch when a ball considerable bigger and softer than a cricket ball is striked hard in their vicinity...

 

[Burner]

That was not intended to tease footballers but to demonstrate the human tendency to evade something arriving at great speeds. I believe it has a lot to do with ancient humans flinching for evading asteroids, and rocks thrown by other apes and stuff. It had less to do with avoiding injury and more to do with preserving the aesthetics at the front of the body in order to attract the females. Also, getting hit at the back had the serendipitious outcome of swelling up of one's buttocks which was always welcome even then. Those same instincts passed onto the modern man and is what you now see in flinching sportsmen.

 

[Victor Ian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYyd0dvNNXU

Don't wear a protector and face forwards and other, more preferred, things might swell.

Once again, I am not calling players who turn their backs weak. I just thought there would be a better chance of evading balls facing them than with a back turned. In my world, all other things were equal.

 

[cnerd123]

If that disturbs you, you should watch footballers flinch when a ball considerable bigger and softer than a cricket ball is striked hard in their vicinity...

I'm always the goalie when we play football because all the other ****s are too scared of the ball. No jokes.

 

[Daemon]

i think it's time to stop playing with the local u9s team *****

 

[cnerd123]

But the U-13s are mean to me