Phillip Hughes Inquest

[Jono]

I think this is one of the few occasions where the public's reaction to this enquiry is absolutely spot on. Its not blindly supporting the players jus cos, it actually is right that the line of questioning of Bollinger and others was very unwarranted and heartless, bordering on a disgrace.

I understand the family are pushing this, and I can never put myself in their shoes and understand what they are going through, but not sure the interrogation of players is doing any good at all.

 

[Burgey]

I don't think you can assume the family has necessarily pushed the manner of the questioning adopted though. It wouldn't suprise me if their barrister just got carried away. That and wanting to make a bit of press for herself. A lot of lawyers are publicity whores.

Coronials are brutal hearings, you can wade in and basically accuse people of anything you like because there's no rules of evidence. I virtually accused a bloke of topping a woman at an inquiry up at Gosford one time. Probably got a bit carried away, but he was a heartless bastard who the coroner eventually found didn't top her but had seen her body in the car after she'd suicided and hadn't done anything to help/ call attention to it. Just pulled the car cover back down and left.

Highlight was Neville Glover appearing as prosecutor assisting.

 

[the big bambino]

It's irrelevant anyway because Bollinger didn't kill him

Its relevant bcos he is sourced as the quote, not Abbott. Cooper was asked about the sledge. Haddin too if I recollect. The implication being there was some kind of planned intent to do harm which eventually led to a death to which Bollinger was a participant. Why ask the question of several participants, including the umpires, if the inquest think it irrelevant to Hughes' death?

 

[Burgey]

It's a long bow to draw that implication. Even if bollinger said it you'd need a lot more than that

 

[Jono]

I don't think you can assume the family has necessarily pushed the manner of the questioning adopted though. It wouldn't suprise me if their barrister just got carried away. That and wanting to make a bit of press for herself. A lot of lawyers are publicity whores.

Coronials are brutal hearings, you can wade in and basically accuse people of anything you like because there's no rules of evidence. I virtually accused a bloke of topping a woman at an inquiry up at Gosford one time. Probably got a bit carried away, but he was a heartless bastard who the coroner eventually found didn't top her but had seen her body in the car after she'd suicided and hadn't done anything to help/ call attention to it. Just pulled the car cover back down and left.

Highlight was Neville Glover appearing as prosecutor assisting.

True, but I thought the family are of the view that Hughes was targeted, and shook their heads etc. when receiving answers from the players.

Anyway have all the sympathy in the world so not critical. Just not sure any of this helps anyone. Its not preventing any of this happening again (i.e. what the enquiry should relate to - response time, adequacy of equipment etc.).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Just read through that thread. What an opportunity it was to have him on the forum.

Yeah, I missed that whole episode, but such a pity he left.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As for the enquiry, the tone of some of the questions has been disgraceful. They betray the fact it's more a witch hunt and less a search for answers, expecially given we already know what happened. Why get Bollinger up there and ask him if he said anything nasty to Hughes during the day's play? And why drag Haddin up to query tactics that may or may not have included bowling short at Hughes? As others here have said, it's not uncommon to bowl more short balls than normal at batsmen who have previously had issues with the short ball. The reason Hughes missed it is he was through the shot too early. Maybe due to a misjudgement on his part. Possibly due to the wicket (although from all reports he didn't have too much trouble all day). Maybe it was a slower ball. I doubt anyone involved with cricket, including Hughes himself, would condone a process that basically seems to be hellbent on attributing blame for an accident. The legal boffins involved would have been best served spending the 2 years between the event and the inquest actually learning a bit about the game, so they didn't look like they need assistance removing their heads from their arses.

I hope the intention isn't to drag Sean Abbott up on the stand and ask him inane questions about whether or not he said anything to Hughes during the day/ cast a sideways glance at him with an evil look in his eyes/said something that when played backwards sounds a little like "I want to kill Phillip Hughes". Surely the players have been through enough without being exposed to this horse**** (wait a minute...where's the filter?).

 

[Adders]

AWTA totally and it seems like we're all on the same page here.

How long is this inquest supposed to take?? Like everyone else I think it's appalling that the players are having to go through this, lets just hope at the end of it all common sense prevails, they come to some sensible conclusions and any recommendations made are reasonable and not knee jerk.

 

[Burgey]

It's meant to run through the week, so not very long.

The recommendations they're likely to implement will be things surrounding access to emergency medical equipment, rather than any changes to the rules of the game. Even if the Coroner made recommendations about short pitched bowling (and I don't think that's likely) CA wouldn't have to implement them.

 

[the big bambino]

Idk if blokes are allowed legal representation if an inquest calls them as witnesses. All those questioned about the sledge were running a mile from admitting it was said. I agree its a long bow to draw but the question was put to more than one person. Anyone asked who is a fast bowler or in charge of team tactics or responsible for player's safety would be right to feel uneasy as to where they were going with this. However I get the feeling they've pretty much played the inquiry out with batsmen, bowler and umps saying nothing untoward was said.

 

[Burgey]

They are allowed to be represented if they wanted to be, at least I think so. It's just a weird set up, an inquest. People run down every rabbit hole looking for every angle when they're on. It isn't pretty but it is what it is. I know that sounds cold hearted, but it's an inquisitorial process rather then an adversarial one, so all sorts of questions get fired around.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

It's meant to run through the week, so not very long.

The recommendations they're likely to implement will be things surrounding access to emergency medical equipment, rather than any changes to the rules of the game. Even if the Coroner made recommendations about short pitched bowling (and I don't think that's likely) CA wouldn't have to implement them.

Well I would think that extra medical equipment and a law over helmets is a certainty, just hope that they don't make any recommendations about bouncers as you will open a huge can of worms.

 

[Shri]

Yes. Hogan

As for the topic, there has to be an inquest, but at the end of the day it was a tragic freak accident that couldn't reasonably have been avoided. Apart from banning all bouncers, there is no fix that would have saved his life.

Holy ****. I asked Crowe a sarcastic question and he answered. I don't remember that at all.

 

[Shri]

You see this is where I think the inquest is going. I thought the line of questions directed at Bollinger in particular to be deplorable conduct from the SC and possibly sinister. There is no relevance in getting anyone to admit they sledged the batsman except to establish premeditation and therefore intent. I'm not sure what the powers of the inquest are but I think the SC is on a glory hunt and is seeking a legal scalp. Turning an accidental tragedy into a witch hunt that will affect the lives of innocent players and place an obligation on the administrators to outlaw the bouncer and damage the game as a contest.

EDIT: What midwinter said.

If the mother****ers draw a line on a pitch and tell bowlers they are only allowed to pitch the ball on the part closer to the batsman, I will stop following the ****ing sport.

 

[Top_Cat]

The NSW Coroner won't ban bouncers in cricket, for God's sake.

 

[Shri]

Don't get in the way of my overreactions fam.

 

[Spikey]

Mike Baird would backflip 4 months later anyway

 

[listento_me]

Begins today, expected to run all week.

Obviously very sad, but it will be interesting to see if there are any recommendation/ critiques concerning safety aspects of the game arising from it.

If there are I'd expect Mike Baird to impose fast bowling lock out, and we'll end up like India.

what is the inquest looking at exactly?

From a cricketing standpoint, everybody uses the same type of helmet he had back then and the injury was literally a freak. Didn't the doctor say a 1in 100 chance of it happening?

Or are their questions into the medical procedures and speed of response that followed?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

The NSW Coroner won't ban bouncers in cricket, for God's sake.

if they did then what next, no tackling in rugby?

 

[the big bambino]

You'd think not but you just don't know the level of stupid people recommend in the name of occupational safety. I don't believe the inquest will but I'm not 100% sure after hearing what went down today. Bowling a missile directly at someone is a risk to life. Even if a recommendation is made but not implemented could that leave a governing body open to an accusation of negligence in a future occurence of injury?