How Changes in Cricket Helmet Regulations Affect the Vision of Batters
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VU Research Portal Out with the old, in with the new Wilkins, Luke; Mann, David; Dain, Stephen; Hayward, Thomas; Allen, Peter published in Journal of Sports Sciences 2019 DOI (link to publisher) 10.1080/02640414.2018.1479944 document version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record document license Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act Link to publication in VU Research Portal citation for published version (APA) Wilkins, L., Mann, D., Dain, S., Hayward, T., & Allen, P. (2019). Out with the old, in with the new: how changes in cricket helmet regulations affect the vision of batters. Journal of Sports Sciences, 37(1), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1479944 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. E-mail address: [email protected] Download date: 28. Sep. 2021 Journal of Sports Sciences ISSN: 0264-0414 (Print) 1466-447X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20 Out with the old, in with the new: how changes in cricket helmet regulations affect the vision of batters Luke Wilkins, David Mann, Stephen Dain, Thomas Hayward & Peter Allen To cite this article: Luke Wilkins, David Mann, Stephen Dain, Thomas Hayward & Peter Allen (2019) Out with the old, in with the new: how changes in cricket helmet regulations affect the vision of batters, Journal of Sports Sciences, 37:1, 13-19, DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2018.1479944 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1479944 Published online: 28 May 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 217 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsp20 JOURNAL OF SPORTS SCIENCES 2019, VOL. 37, NO. 1, 13–19 https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1479944 Out with the old, in with the new: how changes in cricket helmet regulations affect the vision of batters Luke Wilkinsa, David Mannb,c, Stephen Dain d, Thomas Haywarde and Peter Allen e,f aInstitute of Neuroscience, Henry Wellcome Building, The Medical School, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; bDepartment of Human Movement Sciences, Vrije University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; cAmsterdam Movement Sciences & Institute Brain and Behaviour Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; dSchool of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; eDepartment of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK; fVision and Eye Research Unit, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge Campus, Cambridge, UK ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY The International Cricket Council recently introduced new regulations for helmets in cricket. Amongst Accepted 15 May 2018 other changes, these regulations limit batters from adjusting the gap between the peak and the grille, KEYWORDS resulting in some controversy over whether the new helmet design reduces visibility of the ball. This Helmet; visual field; cricket; study compared the visual field of individuals when wearing an old helmet that does not conform to batting the new regulations, and the equivalent replacement which does. The visual field of 10 male partici- pants was tested whilst wearing an old and new helmet. The new helmet resulted in a significant reduction in the visual field of the wearer (M = 66.1 out of 76 points seen in the new helmet vs. 74.8 seen with the old helmet), with the restriction predominantly confined to the superior visual field. The new regulations do appear to restrict the visual field of batters, confirming the anecdotal reports of players. However, the majority of this restriction occurs in the superior field, suggesting that the impact on batting performance may be limited. The importance of considering the impact that new helmet regulations can have on vision, batting performance, and player safety is discussed. Introduction An appreciable amount of research has demonstrated the important role of vision in cricket batting (Land & New international regulations have been introduced that McLeod, 2000; Mann, Spratford, & Abernethy, 2013; Muller are intended to improve the protection provided by et al., 2009; Renshaw & Fairweather, 2000; Sarpeshkar, cricket helmets when batting. From January 2017, all hel- Abernethy, & Mann, 2017), with the obvious implication mets worn in international matches must comply with being that any loss of visual function can have substantial British Standard BS7928:2013 (International Cricket consequences for performance. In particular, research has Council [ICC], 2016), which, among other changes, now shown that when hitting a cricket ball, rather than tracking limits the ability of the user to alter the size of the gap the ball with their central vision, batters employ two strate- between the peak and the grille of the helmet. This is an gies: i) they couple their head movements with the ball and important feature from a player safety perspective, thus rotate their head downwards at the same rate as the ball because research has found that 29% of head injuries (Mann et al., 2013), and ii) they often use predictive saccades suffered by batters are due to the ball penetrating this that move the eyes downwards between 10 and 20 degrees in gap (Ranson, Peirce, & Young, 2013). This has inevitably advance of the head direction to predict where the ball will led to the introduction of new helmets which feature a bounce, and then often where bat-ball contact will occur reduction in the size of the gap when compared to the (Land & McLeod, 2000; Mann et al., 2013; Sarpeshkar older helmets. Moreover, within the standard there is no et al., 2017). The predictive saccades and head-ball coupling consideration of the minimum or maximum extent to have been reported to contribute towards skill in batting, with which the helmet should or can obstruct a player’sfield elite batters found to rely on more consistent predictive eye of vision (ECB, 2017). The new regulations have led to movement strategies compared to lesser skilled batters (Mann complaints from several high-profile figures in cricket et al., 2013). Consequently, any obstruction of the visual field, (Boycott, 2016), and is perhaps best exemplified by the particularly in the area 10–20 degrees below the direction of thoughts of ex-England captain Alistair Cook: “Ifeelas the head, could potentially reduce a batter’s ability to keep though I don’t see the ball as well in these new helmets, the ball within view when making these head rotations and the gap is smaller and I see more of the grille than I did saccadic eye movements. with the old one” (Westerby, 2016). Anecdotally then, it The anecdotal reports of cricketers who have worn the new seems that the visual field is reduced with the new hel- helmets suggest that the changes to the helmets have mets, yet no study to date has tested this hypothesis. CONTACT Luke Wilkins [email protected] © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 14 L. WILKINS ET AL. resulted in a restriction in their visual field. The visual field Methods reflects the extent of the external world that can be seen Participants (Erickson, 2007). The visual field afforded by a helmet should be of particular interest for cricketers because, unlike other Ten male participants took part in the study. All participants sports such as baseball, cycling, and motor racing, in cricket played amateur cricket. The average age of the participants the helmets are designed such that parts of the central and was 24.7 years (S.D. = 5.5; range 20–37 years). All participants inferior visual field are obscured by the grille that protects the who required a refractive correction wore soft contact lenses face. Given the importance of the inferior field to a batter’s and had visual acuity of logMAR 0.0 (6/6 or 20/20) or better in downward saccadic eye movements, it would be logical to each eye. Participants who didn’t require a correction had assume that any regulations which affect the view of the monocular vision of logMAR 0.0 or better. Because we were inferior field could have a significant impact on batting per- able to access only one particular size of the old and new formance. An equivalent restriction in the superior field (such helmet, we included only those participants for whom the as that expected with a lower peak of the helmet) may be less helmet was a comfortable fit. Eight potential participants detrimental to batting performance because the gaze beha- were excluded for this reason. In addition, time was taken to viour of batters does not tend to extend to this area of the carefully adjust the helmet for each participant. The experi- visual field, except perhaps when facing spin bowlers who mental procedure conformed to the ethical standards of the often release the ball using a higher arcing trajectory. Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Faculty It is important that new safety equipment should avoid Research Ethics Panel of Anglia Ruskin University. Participants introducing new risks to players, such as those that would were informed about the nature of the study and gave result from impaired vision (Dain, 2016).