TOPIC:

This whole inquest is a ridiculous waste of time and wont achieve anything at all!! It was just a tragic accident and the parents need to let it go, he isnt coming back, the game will go on and hopefully nothing changes in the way it is played.
Why the hell does there have to be a blame game and enquiry after any accident?

Bazza wrote: Interesting one,,,When is a "Sledge" just a sledge and when does it become "a threat to kill" what if that threat is in fact carried out and kills someone as has happened in this case, you have to wonder at the inconsistency in the story, if it was just a "sledge" why would he deny saying it, and if it was untrue why would someone make up a story that he had said it??

There really is no such thing as a tragic "accident", everything has a cause and effect.... aim a rock hard object at someone's head - it may well hit it - we no longer refer to traffic "accidents", they are now crashes as every crash has a cause. The question is, who is responsible? Have the actions of someone been negligent or where they intended???

Recommendations may well include a rule change.

Absolute rubbish! Disagree with everything you have written.
Are you seriously saying someone actuallly wanted to harm or kill him?? Have you ever played cricket at a high level? Sledging is part and parcel of it to put your opponent off his game.
Of course they will deny saying it because its clearly not the result anyone wanted.
What if they find it was poor technique that contributed to it? What would you ask them to do then?

ArkRoyal wrote: BC -- just shows you how well Randall played in that innings, especially as England came close to recording the highest run win on the fourth innings in test cricket history.

The worst incident I can remember readding about was when John Lever hit Ewen Chatfield, a bad one, considerring that he could not bat at all and it was before the days of helmets.

Didnt Ewen Chatfield need resuscitating AR from memory? Trevor Franklin from NZ was another too I think?

BH -- yep. from memory of reading , I think Chatfield swallowed his tongue and had to be revived by the England physio.

Franklin was another one, as was Vermeulen of Zimbabwe. Also, I think Craig Kieswetter had to retire after being hit a couple of times?

Swandog wrote: This whole inquest is a ridiculous waste of time and wont achieve anything at all!! It was just a tragic accident and the parents need to let it go, he isnt coming back, the game will go on and hopefully nothing changes in the way it is played.
Why the hell does there have to be a blame game and enquiry after any accident?

Just cover it all up, that's the way things are done out Bassendean way aren't they...lol

Swandog wrote:

Bazza wrote: Interesting one,,,When is a "Sledge" just a sledge and when does it become "a threat to kill" what if that threat is in fact carried out and kills someone as has happened in this case, you have to wonder at the inconsistency in the story, if it was just a "sledge" why would he deny saying it, and if it was untrue why would someone make up a story that he had said it??

There really is no such thing as a tragic "accident", everything has a cause and effect.... aim a rock hard object at someone's head - it may well hit it - we no longer refer to traffic "accidents", they are now crashes as every crash has a cause. The question is, who is responsible? Have the actions of someone been negligent or where they intended???

Recommendations may well include a rule change.

Absolute rubbish! Disagree with everything you have written.
Are you seriously saying someone actuallly wanted to harm or kill him?? Have you ever played cricket at a high level? Sledging is part and parcel of it to put your opponent off his game.
Of course they will deny saying it because its clearly not the result anyone wanted.
What if they find it was poor technique that contributed to it? What would you ask them to do then?

You reckon accidents have no cause and effect?? really...?? that's BS for a start. There is a reason they occur, that reason should be identified either way.

Yep.. so denying is a lie after all to protect their own arses , shows the weakness in your whole argument, if there was nothing to worry about they would be up front ...after all didn't the umps go through the events an say everything was hunky dory dont,,remember this aint some numpty suburban cricket tribunal they are giving SWORN evidence at a judicial inquest over a person who has died under the coroners act...but hey lieing on oath must be something that's a breeze to you, if that's the way you like it, so be it.

Personally I'd rather get to the truth of matter, with a view of making some improvements and preventing it from happening again if at all possible.

Dazzler wrote: With all due respect to the family and their grief I'm not sure trying to apportion blame or uncovering what he said or she said is going to help anyone much. I really can't see what good is going to come from raking over the coals like this. These things just become play things for parasitic lawyers to pontificate and lecture and make accusatory statements without substantial evidence that, to my way of thinking, only extends the grief.

Its actually the Coroner that orders the inquest , not the family, they are routinely held by the Coroner when sudden deaths and incidents happen that need explaining, and its the State that conducts the inquiry - although a family member can also be represented by counsel if they wish as can anyone else involved, so I have no idea why your heaping blame on the Hughes family for "raking over coals", its not their choice.