|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 13, 2018 9:03:37 GMT
Nemmo, A couple of points. The risk in Golf to spectators is fairly slim. The mass of the ball is not enough to do anything serious unless you are very unlucky. Each year people are being killed by golf balls. Here is one of the latest incidents. metro.co.uk/2018/02/26/golfer-27-dies-golf-ball-hits-head-7344129/Q: How many cricketers have been killed by a cricket ball compared to golfers or spectators by a golf ball? A: I would suggest golf is a far more dangerous sport. If so, should all professional golfers wear a helmet while playing on a course? Should all spectators or public not be allowed within a certain distance from a fairway or even a golf course? Please read this article. golf.heraldtribune.com/death-by-golf-ball-not-all-that-uncommon/It is often the perception of a sport that makes it dangerous or non-dangeous in the public eye. Tennis is, perhaps, one of the less dangerous of ball sports, yet it still regularly causes injury to players. Therefore, is the criteria that makes it dangerous the probability of death to an individual caused by the ball and not injury? I whole-heartedly agree that batsmen wearing helmets is not only a good thing but essential in today's modern game. The question is where do you draw the line between suffocating a sport with safety measures and allowing it to naturally breathe.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 13, 2018 11:27:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 13, 2018 13:39:23 GMT
That time of the month has arrived when supporters are asked to vote for the best Sussex cricketing performance during July. Not surprisingly, a certain bowman is way ahead of the rest.
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Aug 13, 2018 18:37:27 GMT
Nemmo, A couple of points. The risk in Golf to spectators is fairly slim. The mass of the ball is not enough to do anything serious unless you are very unlucky. Each year people are being killed by golf balls. Here is one of the latest incidents. metro.co.uk/2018/02/26/golfer-27-dies-golf-ball-hits-head-7344129/Q: How many cricketers have been killed by a cricket ball compared to golfers or spectators by a golf ball? A: I would suggest golf is a far more dangerous sport. If so, should all professional golfers wear a helmet while playing on a course? Should all spectators or public not be allowed within a certain distance from a fairway or even a golf course? Please read this article. golf.heraldtribune.com/death-by-golf-ball-not-all-that-uncommon/It is often the perception of a sport that makes it dangerous or non-dangeous in the public eye. Tennis is, perhaps, one of the less dangerous of ball sports, yet it still regularly causes injury to players. Therefore, is the criteria that makes it dangerous the probability of death to an individual caused by the ball and not injury? I whole-heartedly agree that batsmen wearing helmets is not only a good thing but essential in today's modern game. The question is where do you draw the line between suffocating a sport with safety measures and allowing it to naturally breathe. I don't want this to turn into a debate on a column page so I'll leave my final thoughts. Given the number of people that play and spectate golf it is still not a particularly dangerous sport to participate in. The title of the article is completely disingenuous when considering this - it is not "not all that uncommon" considering those being the cases he found compared to the half million golf courses in the world and the presumed millions that play on them - it is in fact incredibly rare. In the UK ~3 people on average are killed by lightning a year. When looking into this you need to take into account the average age and fitness of participants - which on an amateur level is fairly low in golf! Contrast this with cricket where the factor that many injuries in it probably go unreported (to western media and research at least) thanks to the massive player bases in the subcontinent who we won't be getting detailed reports on. That said, the argument of "What sport is most dangerous" tends to lead to much pointless hypothesising and conjecturing (As I have just done!). Especially when comparing radically different sports such as golf and cricket. I'd argue that by and large the public perception of various sports is correct. Although they might have certain things wrong, such as Tennis being incredibly safe they are mostly right in the grand scheme of things. Tiddlywinks is, after all, less dangerous than Rally Driving. As for "where do you draw the line between suffocating a sport with safety measures and allowing it to naturally breathe", I don't honestly think this is much of an issue. Most reactions against safety initiatives are knee-jerk. Take for example the "Halo" on F1 cars and look at people whining about how it looks or how camera shots are ruined because of it (though there is of course valid criticism of the idea). I think where a governing body of a sport has a belief that a change will make something safer they are generally right. How militantly they enforce it is up to them (see: county cricket and fixed helmet grills)! If you want to carry this on feel free to send me a private message or
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 14, 2018 8:51:40 GMT
nemmo, I would suggest at least double the number of people are killed by golf balls than cricket ones. I don’t understand what fitness levels or the number of golf courses there are has to do with this fact or that only three UK people are killed by lightning a year. As to your suggestion that because cricket is most popular in Asia we don’t hear about the actual number of world injuries, it is a good job I am not affiliated with the political far left as I might call you out as a racist and bigot. The media in Asia is far more interested in cricket than the West and therefore any interesting cricketing story, local or otherwise, is usually reported. As for halos on F1 cars, I am not sure what this has to do with the debate. I am talking about hard sports balls and whether they are dangerous enough to cause death to a person, and if so, whether protection is necessary to stop any potential of that death. As you suggest, this subject could be debated endlessly and why I’ll put this particular discussion out to grass.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 14, 2018 12:14:48 GMT
"NOT GUILTY!"Well, well, well, Ben Stokes is found "Not Guilty" by the jury after being cleared of affray as jurors accepted he was acting in self-defence during an alcohol-fuelled street brawl. Stokes' sparring buddy Mr Ali was also cleared of charges. Great news for England, but will the ECB now doff their own punishment? If not, whose place in the England line-up will Stokes take. Surely not Woakes. Jos Buttler, perhaps, for the 4th and 5th Tests? Meanwhile, I wonder how many of the jurors follow England cricket? Did the judge? We will never know. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/14/ben-stokes-found-not-guilty-affray-street-brawl-outside-bristol/
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Aug 14, 2018 20:42:24 GMT
From reports afterwards it seems that the CPS have made a complete mess of this one.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 14, 2018 20:48:11 GMT
From reports afterwards it seems that the CPS have made a complete mess of this one. Hmm . . . were the 2 gay men, allegedly the cause of the fracas, called as witnesses? If not, why not?
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Aug 14, 2018 20:51:00 GMT
From reports afterwards it seems that the CPS have made a complete mess of this one. Hmm . . . were the 2 gay men, allegedly the cause of the fracas, called as witnesses? If not, why not? Hales also not called as a witness despite video evidence of him being just as involved as Stokes. Attempts to get ABH added at the trial (promptly thrown out) which they clearly could have added ages ago. This all seems very motivated by Stokes' position and reputation to me. And no, the two gay men were not called as witnesses - by either side - which I find to be rather strange.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 15, 2018 7:35:14 GMT
A very interesting interview with the two gay men outside the Bristol nightclub who Stokes purported to protect. This throws a far more positive light on Stokes' behaviour and confirms that he was defending them.
Meanwhile, Simon Hughes takes on the predictable establishment role. I am a little surprised as Hughes can, on occasions, come over as a bit of an anti-establishment figure.
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Aug 15, 2018 7:53:33 GMT
Does anyone have a view/theory as to why the 2 gay men were not called as witnesses? They are obviously very supportive of Stokes.
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Aug 15, 2018 8:28:21 GMT
Fb,
As nemmo suggests this case appears flawed. Surely, the gay couple were one of the most important witnesses. Why weren't they called to give evidence?
|
|
|
Post by joe on Aug 15, 2018 11:40:41 GMT
And why wasn’t Alex Hales charged or called as a witness? He was with Stokes the whole time and it’s eledged he could have been the one to break Mr Ali’s eye socket when he kicked him in the head!
|
|
A.S.
2nd XI player
Posts: 60
County club member: Kent
|
Post by A.S. on Aug 15, 2018 12:43:23 GMT
Does anyone have a view/theory as to why the 2 gay men were not called as witnesses? They are obviously very supportive of Stokes. Given that the prosecution were hardly likely to call them, the risk to the defence in calling them was that it opened the pair up to cross examination by the prosecution. How the pair would each have stood up to cross x and how their previously well publicised support of Stokes would have withstood individual robust questioning by prosecuting counsel was, of course, unknown to the defence. Better, maybe, to hope that the comments of the pair immediately after the incident were known to the jury and leave it at that.
|
|
nemmo
Captain 2nd XI
Posts: 285
|
Post by nemmo on Aug 15, 2018 17:59:46 GMT
As I said before that CPS dropped the ball on this one. They could have easily got both Hales and Stokes for a charge of ABH or similar - given the video evidence - but decided to go for the charge of Affray which isn't directly related to the violence itself. My guess would be that they wanted to make an example of him given his position - if we prosecuted every drunken fight in this manner the courts wouldn't have time for much else. At best this was a slap on the wrist by a magistrate job.
|
|