SA Footy

HH3 wrote:Yeah I know that. What I don't know is what the aim is? What outcome are they looking to achieve?

In a workplace accident, they change procedures, amp up safety measures, etc.

In cricket, unless they ban the bouncer and make better helmets, not much can be done about this sort of accident.

I wouldn't have thought you'd need witness testimony and tons of money spent to decide what to do.

Think they have done everything they can already regarding helmets. Manufacturers have increased their designs The professional game has made them compulsory. The only thing the inquest can do is look at the response to the incident from a medical point of view.

They revived him twice on the boundary if I remember correctly.

Seems like a massive waste of time and money, not to mention the emotional and mental toll it would be taking on everyone involved.

Insurance issue maybe?

Either way if they have to have it, why not keep the media out of it?

Dutchy wrote:Insurance issue maybe?

Either way if they have to have it, why not keep the media out of it?

My sentiments precisely.

Now the Hughes Family have walked out during the Cricket Australia lawyer's closing remarks.....

heater31 wrote:Now the Hughes Family have walked out during the Cricket Australia lawyer's closing remarks.....

That's why I'm thinking there must be some sort of penalty resting on the outcome. They seem to want an outcome that no one else seems to want. And it doesn't seem to be going the way they want.

My missus being told that her firm is getting rid of all their temps as of today, this was after she was promised 6 months of work with a view to go full-time at the end of that (it's been approx. 3 months).
She turned down a $36 p/h government temp job after she'd taken this role because she thought it was the right thing to do.

Lesson learnt................look after #1.

HH3 wrote:

heater31 wrote:Now the Hughes Family have walked out during the Cricket Australia lawyer's closing remarks.....

That's why I'm thinking there must be some sort of penalty resting on the outcome. They seem to want an outcome that no one else seems to want. And it doesn't seem to be going the way they want.

Unfortunately it looks like the Hughes family is looking for someone to blame. And given the incredible circumstances - nobody expects their loved one to die on the cricket field - you can't really blame them for feeling powerless and not liking the 'oh well it was an accident' line.

Even though we all know it's an accident I don't think I could definitely say I wouldn't do the same if I was ever in their shoes

Top Stories: Hughes family storms out of inquest after player testimony dubbed 'honest'
http://ab.co/2e9llaR

I feel sorry for the nsw players having to testify. It's my uninformed opinion they would have been sledging the hell out of him. But that doesn't mean they wanted him to die.

If you don't sledge in any sport, you're not doing the most you can do to win. Mind games are half the battle in most sports.

The reason the players couldn't recall a lot in their testimonies is because they weren't actually interviewed until 2 months ago.

The whole week of Phils death would be a blur.

HH3 wrote:If you don't sledge in any sport, you're not doing the most you can do to win. Mind games are half the battle in most sports.

The reason the players couldn't recall a lot in their testimonies is because they weren't actually interviewed until 2 months ago.

The whole week of Phils death would be a blur.

Having to deal with the aftermath with some of his team-mates they were still stunned a week later.

heater31 wrote:

HH3 wrote:If you don't sledge in any sport, you're not doing the most you can do to win. Mind games are half the battle in most sports.

The reason the players couldn't recall a lot in their testimonies is because they weren't actually interviewed until 2 months ago.

The whole week of Phils death would be a blur.

Having to deal with the aftermath with some of his team-mates they were still stunned a week later.

Stunned at the sledging or the loss of their mate?

Booney wrote:

heater31 wrote:

HH3 wrote:If you don't sledge in any sport, you're not doing the most you can do to win. Mind games are half the battle in most sports.

The reason the players couldn't recall a lot in their testimonies is because they weren't actually interviewed until 2 months ago.

The whole week of Phils death would be a blur.

Having to deal with the aftermath with some of his team-mates they were still stunned a week later.

Stunned at the sledging or the loss of their mate?

The whole ordeal. I don't think anyone would have been aware of what has been alleged in the court this week.

Lightning McQueen wrote:My missus being told that her firm is getting rid of all their temps as of today, this was after she was promised 6 months of work with a view to go full-time at the end of that (it's been approx. 3 months).
She turned down a $36 p/h government temp job after she'd taken this role because she thought it was the right thing to do.

Lesson learnt................look after #1.

I'm a contractor and I learnt a long time ago that you look after yourself and assume nothing.

IF the game of cricket is to be looked at, in addition to the safety aspect, should be the way it is taught coached and encouraged to be played. As Gideon Haigh said on Offsiders the weekend after, with helmets, big bats, placid pitches and short boundaries, batsmen have been able to think they can play with virtually complete impunity. Hughes feet seemed to be nowhere, and all around the world we see half-arsed batsmen who wouldn't make it at Shield level on the front foot swiping their bats around their ears.
IF the game of cricket is to be looked at, this is what this trial should be considering but I feel it is going to come back as an attack on bouncers and sledging, which is what would placate the general public who don't understand cricket but read the sensationalist articles that appear from time to time.

My 16 year old niece doing some L-Plate driving with my sister this week, pulls into a servo, fills up and goes into pay. My sister waiting for her to come out is surprised by some bloke banging on her window telling her to move the car out the way.

Sister bites her tongue and politely replies they'll move as soon as her daughter is back.

Niece eventually walks out of the shop (eftpos issues and a long line meant a 5 min process) and bloke starts going off at her calling her a selfish C**t .. She's 16 FFS you weak dog, and get here ******* earlier if you're in such a rush.

JK wrote:My 16 year old niece doing some L-Plate driving with my sister this week, pulls into a servo, fills up and goes into pay. My sister waiting for her to come out is surprised by some bloke banging on her window telling her to move the car out the way.

Sister bites her tongue and politely replies they'll move as soon as her daughter is back.

Niece eventually walks out of the shop (eftpos issues and a long line meant a 5 min process) and bloke starts going off at her calling her a selfish C**t .. She's 16 FFS you weak dog, and get here ******* earlier if you're in such a rush.

Imagine what he did inside the servo with the delay......

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:

JK wrote:My 16 year old niece doing some L-Plate driving with my sister this week, pulls into a servo, fills up and goes into pay. My sister waiting for her to come out is surprised by some bloke banging on her window telling her to move the car out the way.

Sister bites her tongue and politely replies they'll move as soon as her daughter is back.

Niece eventually walks out of the shop (eftpos issues and a long line meant a 5 min process) and bloke starts going off at her calling her a selfish C**t .. She's 16 FFS you weak dog, and get here ******* earlier if you're in such a rush.

Imagine what he did inside the servo with the delay......

Hopefully every punter before him in the queue ordered a coffee, just to rub the salt in

People who have a full trolly load of groceries using the self serve checkout.

And people who drive 20 kms under the speed limit (40 in a 60 zone) just because there's a little bit of rain around.

Driving back from Barmera last night I was stuck behind a bus/coach who was doing about 95. Was only a couple of kms from the next overtaking lane so I just sat behind him. Once we got to the overtaking lane the prick sped up to about 115. Once I finally got passed him a bit further down the road he then sat right behind me with his high beams on.

RustyCage wrote:Driving back from Barmera last night I was stuck behind a bus/coach who was doing about 95. Was only a couple of kms from the next overtaking lane so I just sat behind him. Once we got to the overtaking lane the prick sped up to about 115. Once I finally got passed him a bit further down the road he then sat right behind me with his high beams on.

Get their rego & company name & report them - bus companies take that stuff seriously these days.