Phillip Hughes is sadly not with us any more but the coronial inquest into his death delivered sensitive and sober recommendations that will hopefully provide some solace to the Hughes family and – should they be upheld – reduce the chances of this ever happening again. It did its job.
Chief among the coroner’s practical recommendations to Cricket Australia was a tightening of medical procedures at state cricket matches, improved protective equipment for batsmen and a review of laws concerning dangerous and unfair bowling.
These were sensible suggestions wisely delivered within the limits of the court’s remit.
But, in conveying the findings, the New South Wales state coroner, Michael Barnes, told the public much of what it felt it already knew. This rankled many, a number of whom expressed palpable irritation at a perceived waste of taxpayer time and money.
It would be disappointing were today’s event to be reduced to a referendum on whether it needed to happen at all.
Barnes’ words provided a considerate and accurate account of a harrowing episode. It was elegant in the way it navigated the chronology of events, as well as the practical, legal and ethical complexities that arose from it.
Like much of the cricketing community, the Hughes family also expressed reluctance about the inquest but were understandably after some answers. Hughes’ sister, Megan, had previously said that they just wanted to know what happened so that it might not happen to anybody else. This, if nothing else, should have validated the inquest.
His recommendations are just that. They do not legally bind Cricket Australia to any action, though it would beggar belief were they not implemented as swiftly and effectively as possible.
There is very little to oppose about them: emergency medical procedure will be faster; rules about dangerous bowling clearer. However, it’s been suggested that a number of first-class batsmen feel restricted by the current neck guard technology and would prefer to prioritise the reward of runs over the risk to their safety.
Cricketers will understandably reject things that hamper their ability to perform and this should spur Cricket Australia and sports equipment providers to find a solution without delay.
Declaring himself “an outsider”, Barnes said he was “left to wonder why such a beautiful game would need such an ugly underside”. It was a comment apparently outside his terms of reference, so he wasn’t legally required to address it.
It’s another grenade launched in the deepening trench warfare in Australian cricket over the way the nation plays the game, and it had a valid place in this inquest. The coroner’s decision to comment may well have been made in sympathy with the Hughes family, who had said they felt the cricket leading up to the event was unfair. His comments should be cause for reflection at least.
Of important comfort to Cricket Australia and the players present on the day, the coroner made very clear that, essentially, nothing could have been done to prevent what happened on 25 November 2014 and its ensuing days.
After what feels a prolonged period of soul-searching, Barnes has delivered sound findings and well-reasoned recommendations to a bereaved family and a drained community. It was important that he did so. For the public at least, it should now, surely, help achieve some collective closure to a horrific event.
