Alastair Cook and the Helmet Debate: How Much Safety-Policing Is Up to Boards?

Alastair Cook and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) are currently locked in a private disagreement. It centres around the England captain's initial refusal to wear a new helmet that does not comply to the new British Safety Standards during a recent county match.

According to ESPN Cricinfo's David Hopps, "the new design of helmets have a narrower gap between the peak and grille and are not adjustable on each side so reducing the likelihood of a ball bursting through the opening."

It sounds like a pretty useful change, right? Here's the thing, though, cricketers are creatures of habit and even a small tweak can impact on those habits. Ravi Bopara, Cook's England and Essex team-mate, expressed sympathy for the England captain.

Via Hopps:

"

Bopara told Sky Sports News HQ: "I understand where Cookie's coming from. Because of the safety aspect, with everything that has happened...we are told we have to wear the helmets that meet the standard guidelines.

"But it is difficult for players to change helmets like that, because you [get] so used to wearing a certain helmet which you're comfortable with—and you have your visor as wide as you want it.

"But the problem with the new helmets is you can't move the visors—you've just got to look at the hole that's there. Sometimes, that bar that goes across can get in the way."

"

The decision has led to a mixed reaction, but it seems that the majority of former cricketers are in Alastair Cook's camp. Former England captain Geoffrey Boycott called it "modern-day bureaucracy gone mad" in his Telegraph column, adding that "accidents and injuries are an occupational hazard."

Dominic Cork also backed Cook, telling Sky Sports News HQ: "I get the safety element that is needed for children and academy players, but it should be down to the player—if he feels it is right to go down his route, then he should. If it means they have to sign a disclaimer, then great.

"I just find it hard that the ECB are trying to tell county cricketers and England cricketers that they have to change a visor or put in one that doesn't move."

Nick Compton also chimed in. He was quoted by the Telegraph saying: "For me there are so many rules and regulations now. Health and safety and all these regulations—they do my head in."

It's important to note that the helmet being prescribed is one that prevents injuries like Stuart Broad's broken nose or Craig Kieswetter’s fractured cheekbone. The helmet is not the new design that has been implemented since the tragic death of Phil Hughes.

While there cannot be any arguments made against wanting to ensure the safety of players, we also have to consider application, as mentioned by Boycott.

Pundits have mentioned on many occasions that players are getting bumped more frequently because of a lack of application and skill when it comes to dealing with the short ball. Cook has played the short ball tremendously well over his career. He sees the ball early and moves late, but in order to function optimally, he has to be comfortable, and the new helmet is not comfortable for him.

Thus, the ECB finds itself in a delicate position. There's a busy summer coming up in which Alastair Cook will play a leading role. As an elite athlete and a player who got to almost 10,000 Test runs without any freak injuries, many will feel that Cook should have the right to choose to wear whatever he wants on his head.

As Mike Selvey put it in the Guardian: "(For an elite player like Cook) the smallest detail is important. It is a fine line between understandable attention to health and safety and nannying."

It also raises questions over just how much the ECB consulted with players. It is clear that many are unhappy and uncomfortable with the design, so did the governing body really and intensely engage with players over the use of the new helmet? Or is the new prescription merely a case of "health and safety gone mad" as many have suggested?

If England's captain has a problem with it, the ECB might very well have to backtrack on its decision and leave it up to players to police their own safety.