14th June, T20 v Surrey at Arundel

I'll try to make myself a bit clearer than I did last night in responding, because I agree that there should be debate.

For many years there has been the assumption, propagated by cricket journalists but unquestioningly accepted as received wisdom, that cricket is not a “contact sport” in the way that soccer or rugby and other ball games are. This conveniently ignored the evidence of Cowdrey’s broken arm in 63, or Paul Terry’s in 84, the awful moments when Ewen Chatfield lay on the ground awaiting revival having swallowed his tongue, the brain injury that forced Nari Contractor’s retirement in 62, and the more recent accidents to Kieswetter and Boucher. It also ignores the experience of almost everyone who has played the game at some level and seen or been involved in accidents mostly minor but sometimes much more serious.
 
The attitude that this is ultimately a gentle, pastoral game, played with conviction and strength but largely without risk – although the need for helmets has long been accepted there are still traditionalists who bemoan it – also engenders a feeling that actions on the field somehow transcend normal physical laws. We all laughed at Brian Close fielding at silly point and answering the question “What will you do if you get hit?” with “It will get caught at cover off the rebound”. We simply refuse to take seriously the notion that risk is part of this game as it is part of anything that involves competitive interaction with others.
That attitude however changed completely with the death of Philip Hughes. The realisation that someone could, and did, die whilst playing a game had a profound effect. The massive outpouring of sympathy also coincided with a heightened concern about safety in all sports. Everything that has been said and written about Arundel suggests a complete crowd revulsion from the spectacle that took precedence over any other consideration. There seems to have been great sympathy for the medical arrangements and an understanding that of course the game should not go on. The feeling that the contest was over at that point seems to have been universal.

I think the points that have been raised in this discussion certainly should be debated: the possibility of substitution in some circumstances, and the idea of refunds when some force majeure incident happens. I’m not sure that I would agree with the first one without being very clear about what and when would substitution be triggered, and in any case the readiness of the onlookers to accept it would have to be measured, somehow. As to refunds, there doesn’t seem to have been any strong feeling expressed that they should be made, which isn’t to deny the concept.

It isn't a direct parallel, of course, but the point I am trying to make is not about the logic of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but about how a single action can act as a catalyst for a change in public perception. What appears to be a serious accident on a cricket field - whether by the agency of the ball or this bizarre fielding collision - is no longer a matter for a flurry of reminiscence about what happened in Dartford in '55, but now raises in the minds of many the thought of another person dying in front of an audience. It isn't an argument for a change of the rules of the game, but it is a reflection of a heightened approach to the way an
audience's expectations can change from entertainment to revulsion, maybe a Diana moment, and attitudes may soften again, but it is too recent to be ignored.

Playing devil's advocate, how much stronger would the PR effect be for Sussex to offer refunds, than for what seems to be regarded as a sensible, organised and humane approach to the on-field treatment and relatively swift decision to abandon the game?

A collision between two fielders at cricket is different from the collisions experienced in other sports. Neither party is prepared for a collision so the consequences are potentially more severe. I hope you are right that no-one ever dies from such an incident.

I think you are missing a key point.

Burns was unconscious for 5 minutes after the incident, which might have meant bleeding in the brain.

Like a boxer who gets up after a blow, seems alright, and then collapses and dies 4 hours later.

So- Even when he regained conciousceness you couldn't happily say 'Good, he's alright. let's continue'

Despite your opinion it really WAS potentially a life threatening situation.

You expect people to carry on, worrying someone might die?

 If you have any first aid training, you will know  there was no prospect that two people running into each other would cause instantly fatal brain trauma - but it is important to get them to hospital  asap for a CT scan.  Which is what happened.   Nasty incident, clearly,  but many worse on the football field and to claim otherwise is, in my view, unecessarily alarmist.

A top athelete can run a mile in under 4 minutes.

They were both said to be going at full pelt.

So 1 miles in 4 minutes would be 15 mile an hour. If we say it probably wasn't that fast, then maybe 10mph each would equal a clash of heads at 20 mph.

Plenty of scope to be very very worried.