Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

This inquest is an absolute disgrace.

Making_Splinters wrote:This inquest is an absolute disgrace.

Making_Splinters wrote:This inquest is an absolute disgrace.

totally agree, hopefully day 2 and 3 is spent on what is more important on how to stop this happening again rather blaming people that had no part in what happened to Phillip Hughes.

Making_Splinters wrote:This inquest is an absolute disgrace.

Day 2 doesn't get any better with Tom cooper crying.

Melick turned his attention to the alleged words used by Bollinger. Cooper said the phrase had not been used. "I'm confident it didn't happen," he said. "If it had of happened I would have remembered it. It's quite personal, it would stick in your mind."

The Melick cross-examination was exceptionally tense, including a refusal from the Coroner, Michael Barnes QC, to subject Cooper to footage of the over leading up to the fatal blow. Cooper recalled speaking to Jason Hughes, and of telling him that it had been "a tough period of play, with plenty of short stuff".

However Cooper strongly denied relaying Bollinger's alleged sledge to Jason Hughes despite repeated questioning by Melick, responding "no", more than once.

Not sure what the point of the first two days of the inquest is apart from make people sad again.

I'm sorry but what the hell is the point of this? It was a tragic accident that could have happened to any player, the incident has already been looked at in a respectful manner by the relevant bodies and new measures have been brought in to reduce the chance of this happening again. It is frankly disgusting that the inquest is trying to assert there is culpability for players, who exactly does that benefit? The family who are coming to terms with their grief, the players who have had to go through hell after what happened? The short answer is, nobody.

The players should just tell the inquest to *modded* off.

The report I've just read suggests this is being carried out with the backing of Hughes' family, who believe some of the players are culpable.

It was an accident. Bouncers have been bowled by every one who has played cricket at any level. That does not means everyone bowls bouncers with intention to kill. Abott cannot be blamed imo.

I wish it was not happening, but maybe it will help the Hughes family come to terms with it?

Doesn't sound like it. Hughes' brother was upset at Tom Cooper's not backing a story that Bollinger said he was going to kill Hughes.

Maybe better if this was done by therapists behind closed doors. In a way, I feel I'm adding to the inappropriateness of it by even commenting on the subject...

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Doesn't sound like it. Hughes' brother was upset at Tom Cooper's not backing a story that Bollinger said he was going to kill Hughes.

Maybe better if this was done by therapists behind closed doors. In a way, I feel I'm adding to the inappropriateness of it by even commenting on the subject...

Yep I agree Arthur.

Shall leave it here.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/c ... 61614.html
Hughes family walk out.

As we all know, this inquiry is most likely to benefit no-one. The opposite, in fact.

As worrying as the precedings have been, a phrase I heard mentioned during a radio report yesterday gave me an "oh, sh!t" moment. It has serious implications for the game of Cricket. At least in Australia.


Unsafe work environment.


Let us move forward and suppose that the Coroner comes down with the findings that certain actions and attitudes of the NSW players made for a dangerous workplace and that they recklessly put Hughes' life at risk. Should he come to this finding, he will also present his recommendations to stop this from happening again.

What affect will these have on the way cricket is played? CA will have little choice other than implementing these recommendations, as if they don't and a player is badly hurt or even killed in similar circumstances, they will be open for findings of negligence on their behalf - not to mention massive lawsuits.



Tell me I am getting carried away. Please.

This is all billsh*t...enough said.

The players are consenting to the risk. I presume that allows them to continue.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:The players are consenting to the risk. I presume that allows them to continue.

Yes, but their employers are obliged to consider and negate the risk - under WHS laws, not cricket's.