|
|
Post by archie on Aug 4, 2018 17:14:48 GMT
What might have been in Australia if Avon & Somerset police hadn't been so keen to nail Stokes.
|
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Aug 4, 2018 18:13:54 GMT
What might have been in Australia if Avon & Somerset police hadn't been so keen to nail Stokes. Exactly this ^^^, archie. They should have a read of Botham's autobiography, for example - that should lend some much-needed perspective! |
|
|
|
Post by dudleyhatter on Aug 4, 2018 18:26:03 GMT
When I woke up this morning the first tweet on my timeline said Stoooooookes. Needless to say I didn’t bother trying tongo back to sleep (just before 6am) but followed the cricket from Agar. Excellent result.
Ironically the 2005 edgbaston game I followed on a long wave radio signal down to Biarritz in a French hire car. Lost the signal as we entered the town with the Aussies only needing 25 to win. This was in the era before smartphones and real WiFi. The wait was unbearable!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2018 13:20:04 GMT
Stokes not guilty!
|
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 14, 2018 14:54:36 GMT
An ill-judged prosecution by police and prosecutors out to make a name for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dudleyhatter on Aug 15, 2018 11:11:04 GMT
I think we need to pick the mind of our resident legal expert. I always thought affray meant having a scrap, if so how can he be not guilty?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 12:17:52 GMT
I believe for a legal charge of affray, the unlawful violence must be such that a person present (essentially a bystander not involved) who is 'of reasonable firmness' would have to fear for his/her own safety.
Basically if it is deemed that there isn't a threat to bystanders and that the incident of violence is isolated to the individuals involved, then that doesn't constitute affray. To me, it sounds like Stokes and co have got off on a technicality, and the wrong charge was brought against them.
It is obvious they are all acting like kn*bs and having a scrap in the street, and without condoning it, it happens every Friday/Saturday night in every city across the country.
A far more suitable charge would in my opinion have been for being Drunk and Disorderly, or perhaps in Stokes' case ABH.
Had the crown brought more suitable charges against the men involved, I'm sure a few 'guilty' verdicts would have been handed down.
|
|
|
|
Post by bringbacklenwhite on Aug 15, 2018 18:02:43 GMT
Sadly, in law, one cannot be charged with being a totally d**khead in public.  |
|
|
|
Post by Epworth Hatter on Aug 17, 2018 12:57:53 GMT
Curran dropped for Stokes. Sorry, I'm not having that.
Stokes has been found not guilty of affray (very luckily for him - see gts' excellent post above), but has still to face an ECB disciplinary hearing where he should be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and given a ban.
Ridiculous.
Curran must be so mad - he must feel like going out on the lash and punching someone. Oh, wait...
|
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Aug 17, 2018 13:54:57 GMT
Curran dropped for Stokes. Sorry, I'm not having that. Stokes has been found not guilty of affray (very luckily for him - see gts' excellent post above), but has still to face an ECB disciplinary hearing where he should be found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and given a ban. Ridiculous. Curran must be so mad - he must feel like going out on the lash and punching someone. Oh, wait... While I agree with what you say, mate, we need our match-winning players whenever they are available. If we leave Stokes out now before he's even had his hearing, then who are we punishing more - him or us? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 13:58:56 GMT
Yeah, I'm absolutely gutted for Curran. He couldn't have done any more than he has in the previous 2 test matches. He fully deserved to keep his place in the team - that performance in the first test was one of the best I've seen in test cricket for a while.
Not only does this send a poor message out to young cricketers who are knocking on the door of the test team, but we also look like we are going to miss a huge opportunity to blood a youngster in friendly home conditions against the 'number 1' test team in the world.
Curran offers variation to the rest of the attack being a left armer with a low skiddy action. Jimmy - whilst evergreen - is 36, Woakes seems to be injury prone and Broad hasn't been at his best for a good 18 months now. Stokes is blockbuster but he can also be hit and miss with the ball, and away from the pitch the events of the last 2 years suggest he is somewhat of a loose cannon. Come the Ashes next summer, can we guarantee that all 4 of those guys will be fit and firing, with no need for rotation? I'm not so sure.
On another note, I see Durham have signed that scum Bancroft for next season's county championship. No doubt getting his practice in English conditions in ahead of next summer's Ashes. I think it is disgusting that they have signed him - I would be furious had Lancs done the same. I hope him and Smith (and potentially Warner... but I get the feeling he won't play for Australia again) get absolute dogs abuse next summer and have a torrid time. It is the least they deserve.
|
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Aug 17, 2018 14:04:09 GMT
Not only does this send a poor message out to young cricketers who are knocking on the door of the test team As Michael Vaughan has pointed out already, don't you think he'd been punished enough by leaving him out of the Ashes series? |
|
|
|
Post by Epworth Hatter on Aug 17, 2018 14:19:57 GMT
I guess it's a balance between the short-term result over India and the longer-term reputation of the game. The ECB are responsible for both.
Just to bring him back without at least an apology and a commitment to some charitable work (or some such) doesn't sit well with me.
It's the timing that's not good as well the decision.
They also need to crack on with the hearing, if they are going to have one. Knowing the ECB, expect a verdict in December.
|
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Aug 17, 2018 14:33:45 GMT
Just to bring him back without at least an apology and a commitment to some charitable work (or some such) doesn't sit well with me. I totally agree with this, mate. |
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 17, 2018 14:38:09 GMT
It was flagged up before the series that the seam bowlers might be rotated through the 5 matches. If they leave out Broad for Curran in the 4th test, I don't think that it's much of an issue. Trent Bridge is a happy hunting ground for Broad and Anderson, after all. As the disciplinary committee seem unable to produce a quick verdict, it was a perfectly logical decision to treat Stokes as innocent and pick the team as if the whole episode had never happened.
In terms of general cricket indiscipline, this incident is in the same ball-park as Boon consuming 52 tinnies on the flight from Sydney to London in 1989 and Warner thumping Root in 2013 (got a one game ban from memory).
On the general Stokes issue, had the prosecutors done their job properly Stokes and the others would have been cautioned for disorderly conduct and given a short ban by the ECB which would conveniently have fitted in with his unavailability due to injury.
I'm sorry but I strongly disagree with the comment that Stokes was lucky to get off because, as the quick verdict demonstrates, this was clearly not affray in the legal sense. Both police and prosecutors need to take a long, close look at themselves.
|
|
