The awful passing of an Australian cricketer and the similarity between the action involved and what happens in hurling penalties should be a reminder to us all as to the common sense decision taken by the GAA earlier this year on penalties. While people complained about losing the theatre of an Anthony Nash penalty, we should never lose sight of the fact that player welfare has to be of the absolute highest priority regardless of what must give as a result.

Fair play to the GAA and while I for one think the rule needs to be amended again to provide punishment for fouling (1-on-1 being my solution but ball outside the 21), I think they deserve to be commended for the decisive action taken before we had our own version of Phillip Hughes.

Pinkie (Wexford) - Posts: 4100 - 27/11/2014 16:35:57    1675223

It was awful. It was a freak accident. Listening to an expert on BBC (as I know nothing about cricket), he claimed that it was an issue with the design of helmets for batsman. Hurlers wear helmets yet it seems to be perfectly acceptable for opponents to pull and drag those helmets any which way they want without any sort of punishment - see Cathal Barrett in the All-Ireland final as one of 100's of examples throughout the hurling year.

If the GAA are serious about protecting head injuries, then why not severely punish those that are deliberately interfering with head protective wear?

Penalty takers are aiming to score goals. I would not commend the GAA for making up rules in the middle of the season in they name of saftey when they are blatantly ignoring other more heinous crimes.

For the record, I agree on 1v1 from the 21 (the GAA should have put in a proper solution before their meddling).

bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 27/11/2014 17:00:29    1675231

Pinkie, spot on. a common sense post about due praise for once the gaa using common sense with the nash rule.

woops (Kerry) - Posts: 2073 - 27/11/2014 17:22:52    1675234

I agree with Pinkie and woops.

Changing the rule was necessary interests of fairness and safety. It has perhaps gone to other extreme now, so perhaps reducing number on line to two?

hurlingdub (Dublin) - Posts: 6978 - 27/11/2014 18:17:11    1675244

Philip Hughes was his name , if your going to hijack his death to back up an old argument at least have the decency to use his name , the title of this piece says it all .No class .

Damothedub (Dublin) - Posts: 5193 - 28/11/2014 08:15:26    1675275

A bit harsh on the OP there Damo, I doubt if he was setting out to be disrespectful to Phil Hughes, in fact I beleive he was making valid points in light of this tragic death.

brendtheredhand (Tyrone) - Posts: 10897 - 28/11/2014 08:39:36    1675276

Damothedub
County: Dublin
Posts: 2151

1675275
Philip Hughes was his name , if your going to hijack his death to back up an old argument at least have the decency to use his name , the title of this piece says it all .No class .

That is an awful thing to say. I didnt set out to do anything of the sort. I went on to mention his name in my post. I bet if you read any article on line the headline would probably say "Australian cricketer....". If I put Philip Hughes in the headline most would say "Who"?

Bang out of order chief.

Pinkie (Wexford) - Posts: 4100 - 28/11/2014 09:01:10    1675277

The awful passing of an Australian cricketer and the similarity between the action involved and what happens in hurling penalties should be a reminder to us all as to the common sense decision taken by the GAA earlier this year on penalties. While people complained about losing the theatre of an Anthony Nash penalty, we should never lose sight of the fact that player welfare has to be of the absolute highest priority regardless of what must give as a result.

Fair play to the GAA and while I for one think the rule needs to be amended again to provide punishment for fouling (1-on-1 being my solution but ball outside the 21), I think they deserve to be commended for the decisive action taken before we had our own version of Phillip Hughes.

Drama Queen Alert!!

There are some major differences between the two:

1) Cricket ball is a lot harder than a sliotar
2) Helmet in Hurling is a lot safer/covers a greater area of the head/face than a cricket helmet does
3) In Hurling the aim is to keep the ball away from your opponents on the line. In Cricket the aim is to bowl the ball at your opponent

I'm going to matches for 30 years & I've never seen a player facing a penalty/21 yard free being hit in the head or even being seriously hurt, a few bruises is all.

The GAA made a balls of the penalty rule & it needs to be amended. The best thing to do is put a line half way in-between the 13 & 21 & the penalty taker cant cross it. Also put a line about five yards in front of goaline & players on the line cant cross it, simples!

Dessie13 (Dublin) - Posts: 70 - 28/11/2014 09:45:02    1675287

Good Post Pinkie - I like Woops agree a lot of posts and threads here are people or Gaa bashing slyly from behind the keyboard protected by the animosity of a username - praise given where praise justified - well done.

Horsebox77 (Kerry) - Posts: 5491 - 28/11/2014 12:49:11    1675325

Good Post Pinkie - I like Woops agree a lot of posts and threads here are people or Gaa bashing slyly from behind the keyboard protected by the animosity of a username - praise given where praise justified - well done.

I think the GAA is the greatest sporting organisation in the world & Hurling and Football are the greatest games in the world.

It just in this instance they got it wrong and most people will agree they got it wrong.

Dessie13 (Dublin) - Posts: 70 - 28/11/2014 15:56:07    1675368

read a bit more on the injury in the paper last night, it appears the ball hit him on the neck in an area that was not considered necessary to protect, by all accounts there are only about 100 recorded incidents of this happening in all walks of life. it is only the second time it has happened in a cricket match, the other player survived (I think). So it does seem like a complete freak accident. But as a result will helmets need to be redesigned or do you take the chance it won't happen again.
Am sure the thoughts of everyone are with his family and friends and also with the poor lad who bowled the ball.

Rosineri1 (UK) - Posts: 2099 - 28/11/2014 15:58:38    1675369

It's not acceptable to pull and drag helmets bennybunny. It's a red card. If it's not enforced, that's the refs mistake.

Personally, the only hurling deaths that weren't from SADS was from lads years ago hurling without helmets. I have never heard of an up to date, non tampered with helmet owner dying from a blow to the head so I think this thread is a bit over the top. If the sliotar hit you in the head then the helmet would save you. It's more hitting you in the groin that was the danger.

hurlinspuds (Cork) - Posts: 1494 - 28/11/2014 16:34:42    1675374

Exactly hurlinspuds. The Nash penalty was dangerous. The rules had to be revised and they were.

Greengrass (Louth) - Posts: 6031 - 28/11/2014 17:23:36    1675387

Dessie:

"There are some major differences between the two:

1) Cricket ball is a lot harder than a sliotar
2) Helmet in Hurling is a lot safer/covers a greater area of the head/face than a cricket helmet does
3) In Hurling the aim is to keep the ball away from your opponents on the line. In Cricket the aim is to bowl the ball at your opponent

I'm going to matches for 30 years & I've never seen a player facing a penalty/21 yard free being hit in the head or even being seriously hurt, a few bruises is all."
_____________________________

I have to take you up on a few points Dessie;

1. a cricket ball is a lot heavier and harder than a sliotar but, in contrast, a sliotar is struck with a hell of a lot more velocity than a cricket ball is bowled. I was never good at physics in school but I'd imagine the potential damage from weight * velocity would be quite similar.

2. I've never held or worn a cricket helmet but from looking at it on tv I've always thought it looked heavier and sturdier, and more capable of withstanding a heavier blow, than a hurling helmet, which in my opinion is very light. A light helmet is obviously preferable to a hurler as the sport requires a lot more movement and mobility than cricket, where the amount of running required of a batsman is limited. In terms of area covered, I've never noticed a marked difference between a hurling and cricket helmet but I'll do a comparison later. I do know that a hurling helmet does not protect the ears or the neck, and many hurlers also foolishly remove part of their faceguard to improve their view (which I believe is technically not allowed but, as usual, frequently ignored). In short, I cannot agree that a hurling helmet "is a lot safer" than a cricket helmet.

3. We all know that plenty a hurler has taken a penalty/21 where direction was of secondary importance to the power generated. I'm not saying they were aiming for the defenders, but it was definitely a case of "if they know what's good for them they'll get out of the way". And in cricket it's not correct to say the bowler always aims at the batsman. It can be a tactic, sure, but most of the time the aim is to bowl in such a way that tempts the batsman into playing a risky shot.

Fortunately, I also can't recall a serious head/facial injury from a penalty or 21. The only serious injury from a penalty which immediately springs to mind was Joe Quaid who lost a testicle in a league match v Laois I believe. In fact I'm surprised more players, goalies especially, don't wear protective cups as well.

ballydalane (Kilkenny) - Posts: 1246 - 28/11/2014 21:56:14    1675432

Agree with the original post that it was a good decision by the GAA.
The injury leading to the death was indeed a blow to the neck. In hurling, a penalty is the only occasion where the ball can be struck straight at the goalie, in open play, players try to put the ball away from the goalie rather than at him.
Arguments about which ball is harder/travelling faster and do on are irrelevant- there was a potential (I stress potential) risk of serious injury that could be reduced through a rule change and this was done.

For what it's worth, I'd love to see a one-on-one penalty trialled for a year- it would give all the advantage back to the penalty taker and would increase the drama of a penalty. The showdown between the penalty taker and the goalie. Besides, loading the advantage towards the taker might lean that defenders become scared to foul, leading to more goals from open play. Certainly worth a go for a year.

1914 (Clare) - Posts: 92 - 30/11/2014 11:57:22    1675541

GAA made the correct decision but it needs to be amended to give the advantage back to the forward as we all know. No surprise bennybunny takes an opportunity to have a dig at another county. He should look at Diarmuid O Sullivan in 2004 opening the straps of Martin Comerfords helmet. That is a far worse offense than grabbing a face guard. I have a feeling there will be a lot of red cards next year for pulling at the helmet. It's the only way to stamp it out.

Faithfull (Offaly) - Posts: 573 - 30/11/2014 21:59:48    1675692

Faithfull
County: Offaly
Posts: 423

1675692
GAA made the correct decision but it needs to be amended to give the advantage back to the forward as we all know. No surprise bennybunny takes an opportunity to have a dig at another county. He should look at Diarmuid O Sullivan in 2004 opening the straps of Martin Comerfords helmet. That is a far worse offense than grabbing a face guard. I have a feeling there will be a lot of red cards next year for pulling at the helmet. It's the only way to stamp it out.

Take a dig?????? Read my post (learn to read!!!!) where I said one of 100s of examples...

bennybunny (Cork) - Posts: 3917 - 01/12/2014 09:00:59    1675700