Boyman on Sport - Lessons must be learned from Phil Hughes' tragic death

Cricketers are not like boxers, racing drivers or jockeys, who accept that they are taking their lives into their hands every time they choose to participate in their chosen sport. You don't expect to go out for a game of cricket and not return home again.

Hughes' death puts into perspective exactly how dangerous it actually is to face a bowler launching a hard ball that weighs more than 5oz at speeds of up to 90mph. When you put it like that, it's a surprise that more people are not killed playing the game.

In the wake of Hughes' tragic passing, there will undoubtedly be calls for the game's governing body to ensure that nothing similar can ever happen again, but is that even possible?

There is a strong and very sensible argument for making the wearing of helmets compulsory at all levels, but Hughes was wearing one when he suffered his fatal injury.

There is a question mark over whether he was wearing the very latest model, which may have offered more protection in the area where he was struck, low at the back of the head.

However, it is by no means certain that wearing such a helmet would have saved his life and it would be impossible to protect the entire head without badly restricting the batsman's movement.

Since their introduction in the 1970s, helmets can be argued to have had a massive impact on the sport, in three main ways.

Firstly, and most importantly, helmets have undoubtedly saved lives and prevented countless injuries.

However, they can also be argued to have changed the way both batsmen and bowlers approach short-pitched deliveries.

Hughes was the third high-profile player to suffer a bad blow to the head this year.

England's Stuart Broad suffered a broken nose when he top-edged a delivery from India's Varun Aaron into the gap between his helmet and grille, while Somerset's Craig Kieswetter broke his nose and also fractured his eye socket when a bouncer from David Willey found the same gap.

I don't have any statistics to back this up, but I would hazard a guess that more players are being hit on the head now that helmets are widely used.

Players are nowhere near as afraid of getting hit as they would have been in years gone by. The result is that rather than duck out of the way, they are much more likely to stand tall and take on the short ball, seeing it as an opportunity to score runs.

Would Hughes have played the same shot that got him injured had he not been wearing a helmet? I very much doubt it. He would have been much more likely to simply get out of the way.

I also think that helmets make bowlers more likely to send down a bouncer. 

Nobody wants to injure an opponent, and the impact that Hughes' death will have on Sean Abbott, who sent down the fateful ball, should not be forgotten.

The fact is that helmets make serious injuries much less likely and as a result, I believe that more bouncers are being bowled now.

Helmets are here to stay, and rightly so, but is there another way we can make the game safer?

One option would be to outlaw a bouncer aimed at the head, or over shoulder height.

Bowlers could still put in short balls, aiming for the upper body of batsmen, so there would still be scope for these aggressive deliveries, which, like it or not, are a part of the game.

Calling for such a law may be seen as a knee-jerk reaction and maybe we do need to take a step back and see how people feel in a couple of months.

Either way, such a law would certainly come up against a great deal of opposition, but surely it's a small price to pay to try and ensure no more lives are lost to cricket? It's only a game after all.

Lewis Hamilton and the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award

FIRST and foremost, a big congratulations to Lewis Hamilton on becoming Formula 1 world champion for a second time.

Despite the best efforts of the FIA and their ridiculous double-points system, the final race of the season was a bit of an anti-climax, with Hamilton cruising to victory while his team-mate and rival, Nico Rosberg, struggled with a broken car.

Having said that, Hamilton was a worthy winner, but I don't think that he should be crowned Sports Personality of the Year next month.

As a golfer, you might say that I am biased, but I believe that honour should go to Rory McIlroy.

Not only did he win two major titles, including The Open, but he also ended the season top of the European Tour's order of merit standings and as the world number one. Add his part in Europe's Ryder Cup victory into the mix, and you can see why he would be a more than worthy winner.

I'm not trying to put down Hamilton's achievement. He's at the top of his sport and can't really do any more, but he does have the benefit of the best car on the grid to add to his undoubted talent.

Having said that, I think it would be fair to say that Hamilton would be the unluckiest F1 driver in Sports Personality history if he does not win this year.

Nigel Mansell and Damon Hill both won the award twice, despite winning only one world title, while Hamilton would have no Sports Personality awards but two world titles if he doesn't win the public vote.

McIlroy and Hamilton are the stand-out candidates, but it's a good Sports Personality shortlist overall. The only change I might make would be to replace boxer Carl Froch, with Olympic silver-medal winning curler David Murdoch.

Froch fought once in 2014 and while it was a massive fight, it was a rematch against George Groves, who he had already beaten.

For me, Murdoch was the face of the Winter Olympics. He may not have won, but curling got a massive boost from the efforts of him and the other British curlers. I think that should have been recognised with a place on the shortlist.

Have your say on these issues using the comment box below - or Tweet @JBoymanGazette.