Originally Posted by gomezz:
“As the evidence presented to the coroner was that the new design helmets would *not* have helped in Hughes' case then they seem to have wasted their time by not waiting.”
TBH not sure any realistic helmet would help in Hughes case actually, but that doesn't make what CA did a waste of time considering the old helmet had a major flaw that had to be fixed.
Also don't think the coroner even gave any recommendation on a new helmet barring the neck guard which they didn't even check to see if it would work or could be implemented on cricket helmets.
or if they could do it, that it actually does the job, since I believe the cricket helmets got to the stage that any new protection actually doesn't make a difference but starts reducing visibility/movement for the batsman which could actually make them more dangerous.
Might be wrong but remember reading that when CA tested neck guard they found it doesn't reduce the risk and batsman found it harder to move out of the ball ways so are more likely to be hit so in a way increase the chance of the ball hitting the area.
Actually reading cricinfo it seems like the family gave the recommendation not the coroner.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/australi...y/1061614.html
all the coroner said was to clarify the bouncer law.