To wear or not to wear is seldom a cricketing dilemma. England skipper Alastair Cook’s objection to using the official English helmet was not a stand against helmets, but against wearing one that interfered with his vision. A crisis was averted in county cricket by the captain agreeing to wear it after all. This raises some interesting questions, though, including philosophical ones that are seldom addressed in sport.
Is it a personal liberty versus official rule debate? First class cricketers are adults, fully aware of the dangers of what they are doing, and responsible for personal safety, goes one argument. Players like Cook who have vast international experience know what works best for them.
Ranged against that is the responsibility of the cricket board to ensure the safety and protection of its players, and if a one-size-fits-all rule is most likely to keep everyone safe, then we must respect the balance of probabilities.
What if the cricket board mandated that only a particular type of abdomen guard should be worn or a particular kind of pads, based on years of research and analysis? It would be foolish not to take advantage of the latest scientific work, but if a player is happier with what he has been using for years, should he not be allowed the choice?
Mandatory wearing of helmets Since late last year, the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has asked batsmen to wear helmets following accidents that >smashed Stuart Broad’s nose and >shattered Craig Kieswetter’s eye socket . At the back of everybody’s mind, naturally, was the >death of Australian batsman Phil Hughes who was struck while batting.
Cook is among a group of English batsmen (Jonathan Trott is another) who find the new helmet with its non-adjustable grille difficult to adjust to. These players understand that the ball cannot squeeze in between the peak and the grille in the new helmets, but they feel safer in the ones they have been wearing for long.
And one must listen to men with the experience of Cook and Trott. Had the captain turned down the ECB, it might have encouraged others to go their own way.
And it would have had an impact on insurance as well as the ECB’s contractual obligations to the helmet makers. The new helmets were developed in consultation with both the ECB and the players’ association.
In sport, there is a complex relationship between a sportsman and his equipment. Like authors and their favourite chairs or professors and their favourite pipes, sportsmen have favourite equipment they are most comfortable with and seem to draw confidence from. But if the trade-off is between comfort and safety, what is the intelligent choice?
All sport, in the words of Steven Connor ( A Philosophy of Sport ) is “the willing and unnecessary subjection to necessity”.
You cannot get arrested for overstepping the line as a bowler, but you cannot play cricket unless you accept the laws of the game which are artificial, restricted and not always logical or necessary. This is true of all sport.
The ECB hopes that players will wear the approved helmet, leaving it to their maturity and common sense to do so. Once acceptance is total, it could easily work it into the rules and make it a necessity.
Often an accessory becomes a necessity over time. The helmet is a good example. In the 1970s, it seemed somehow less than macho to wear one. Viv Richards refused to do so. But then all the terrifying fast bowlers were on his side!
Meeting point Is there a meeting point between individual common sense and collective obligation? Cricket can apply the ‘grandfather clause’ which sports in the US routinely do.
In 1979, the National Hockey League (NHL) mandated that all players should wear helmets, but those who turned professional before that year were allowed to continue as they did till they retired. The last non-helmeted player retired in 1997. Likewise with the batting helmet with the ear flap in major league baseball (MLB). The cut-off date here was 1983, and the last player to wear a flapless helmet retired in 2002.
The grandfather clause will allow Cook and Trott to continue wearing their old helmets while making it mandatory for new players to wear the new one. Well, if not fresh debutants, then perhaps those who have been playing for less than five or six years — the cut-off year can be worked out.
That is an all-win situation. Cook will be left alone, the ECB can insist on players being better protected, younger players can be brought into the safety net, as it were. Personal disclaimers might solve the insurance problem, and helmet contracts, if any, will be honoured. And both the individual and the collective respected.
The catch in this might be the time-period. A player who made his debut last year (and thus could come under the grandfather clause) might play on till 2030. But if it takes that long to marry individual need with collective necessity, so be it. After all helmet technology is evolving too.
