The Bedge wrote:whufc wrote:Those not introducing the policy are only delaying the inevitable. Will be advised for the next couple and then compulsory after that. It's how all slow large scale policy is implemented.
Let's be serious, there really isnt much need to introduce a policy - it's mandatory for kids to wear them, has been for years - in a few years time the old codgers will move on and the youth will come through and continue to wear their helmets.
Yeah absolutely there will be natural transition like you said but my understanding is from the report I read that the policy came into England because they were seeing a lot of injuries from juniors who had worn helmets all their junior cricket 'trialling' and taking the opportunity to not wear helmets at their first chance in senior cricket. Obviously the young lads still batted like they were wearing a helmet which saw an increase in injuries.
From the report this policy isn't about protecting the older folk, its about protecting the younger cricketers.
Then there is the obvious risk management against litigation if a injury was sustained. remembering now that any competition completing risk assessments has to assess batting as a 'high risk' maximum consequence 'death' since the tragic Phil Hughes event.
You cant risk assess some things as high level and then not have risk management plan in place.
TBH this has been a long time coming and they are starting their soft rollout of it.
If the 'oldies' cant move with the times maybe lawn bowls is a more appropriate sport for them.
