Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => Players => Topic started by: justnotcricket86 on January 15, 2018, 02:10:47 PM
-
As expected
Due to appear at Bristol Magistrates soon
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41798404 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/41798404)
Beat me to it!
-
Hefty fines incoming I'd imagine?
-
From reading online it seems a maximum prison sentence of 6 months, i suspect he'll more than likely get a fine and community order should he plead guilty. Can only presume the other two men are the guys he was fighting (or punching)?
EDIT according to cricinfo it has a maximum prison sentence of 2 years for a single offence http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22107847/stokes-charged-cps-affray (http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22107847/stokes-charged-cps-affray)
-
It's a public order offence, he will get fined and that's it
-
It's a public order offence, he will get fined and that's it
I suspect you are right. As any fine for this stuff is dependent on income i bet he's regretting that IPL deal :D
-
So Stokes basically gets a slap on the wrist and no more. Should've been selected in the Ashes.
-
So Stokes basically gets a slap on the wrist and no more. Should've been selected in the Ashes.
Or should have kept his (No Swearing Please) together in the first place.
-
Will certainly miss the ODI series in Aus, but could be on the plane to NZ. Suppose it depends when his 'trial' is due to commence
-
It sounds like the least possible charge he could get
Maybe they think affray will get a guilty verdict with doubt on anything more serious
Could get a hefty fine from the ecb
-
I would think he's going to plead guilty to affray, take a fine and community service and get back to work. ECB will hammer him for a few quid as well, as mentioned above.
-
so it has taken all this time to then charge him with Affray........ FFS what a joke!
whether he should of got more or less... it was almost 4 months ago that it happened
-
The key thing is whether the case stays at magistrates level (fine and or max 6 months) or goes up to a crown court (fine and or 3 years)
A magistrate is limited in what punishment can be handed out in cases of affray so that would be better for Stokes.
Feels like a fine and community service coming up...
-
oh will he afford the fine! That 2M pay cheque he'll probably get from the IPL will help
-
I'd think he's merely likely to be bound over... Which does not involve any admission of guilt.
Could put the ECB in an awkward position...
-
Anyone expecting the ECB to essentially double Stokes' 'ban'/absence? They stated they can't stop him from playing in the IPL, so could be theoretically be absent for one full year from the date of the original incident
-
Stokes has made a reply on Twitter explaining, he looks forward to the full story coming out in court basically.
I know this doesn't mean he's not going to plead guilty but sounds like he still has more to say about the situation!
-
No I think the ecb will ban him but take into account the ashes as part of it
Strauss and Harrison talked about support for him, a central contract withdrawal maybe ? If he is found guilty or admits guilt
-
(http://i66.tinypic.com/15wgm78.jpg)
-
Be amazed if anymore than a fine, basically the lesser of any charge with the highest possible guilty outcome to save face for the Police and court system on a high profile case.
He should have kept his s*** in order but missing the Ashes and having to have this hang over for 4 months is punishment enough in my opinion. Whole thing is a bit of a joke. Yea the guy got a broken eye socket or whatever but he wasn't exactly little boy blue in all this either.
-
Yeah gonna be a fine maybe Community service at most his charge of affray is a level 2 with the highest being level 5. Noticed the lads he was fighting also got charged aswell.
-
Reading his tweet about clearing his name suggests he won’t be pleading guilty
-
Yes looks that way. in a ironic kind of way the video may help him. That's in the public domain and was immediately after the event.
you would hope as a cricket fan he is available for the New Zealand tour, or at least the case is dealt with by then.
I cannot see myself the ECB stopping him playing any further although I'm sure there will be a punishment should he be found guilty.
this event started a tour which turned out badly on and off the field, whatever the ECB say we were knocked off kilter by the incident. We may well of lost the Ashes anyway, but it put a downer on the tour before it started.
-
I think he's a lucky boy......
-
IMO he’s trained and paid to know better and avoid these situations. Yes that’s the price you have to pay.
Disappointed he wasn’t here in Australia.
I presume in UK, like here in Australia, he’ll pay disproportionately ( hasn’t he already?) to others as he has profile.
What’s the UK media coverage been like?
-
IMO he’s trained and paid to know better and avoid these situations. Yes that’s the price you have to pay.
Disappointed he wasn’t here in Australia.
I presume in UK, like here in Australia, he’ll pay disproportionately ( hasn’t he already?) to others as he has profile.
What’s the UK media coverage been like?
s
Plenty coverage yesterday.
-
Will be interesting to hear the other defendants explaination of why he was waving a bottle towards Ben Stokes' head
-
Was it all this really worth it, benji?!
Talk about throwing away a good thing. Very sad.
-
https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/596777/ecb-statement-on-ben-stokes-england-availability (https://www.ecb.co.uk/news/596777/ecb-statement-on-ben-stokes-england-availability) back available for england
-
Under investigation - suspended
Charged - free to play
ECB logic
-
Wow - very bizarre.
Under what circumstances were they going to continue the 'unavailable for selection' policy?
If he was let off, he's back available
If he was charged with affray, he's back available
If he was charged with assault??? Their rationale is that due to the length of trial etc it isn't fair to keep him suspended - surely that applies even more so with a more serious charge and a longer time to trial?
-
Wow - very bizarre.
Under what circumstances were they going to continue the 'unavailable for selection' policy?
If he was let off, he's back available
If he was charged with affray, he's back available
If he was charged with assault??? Their rationale is that due to the length of trial etc it isn't fair to keep him suspended - surely that applies even more so with a more serious charge and a longer time to trial?
If it was a more serious charge would he have been asked to surrender his passport making him unavailable any games abroad?
-
Strauss hasn't got a clue has he? Just smacks of pure desperation to me.
Sends home and suspends a player for pouring a drink over a teammates' head, but lets a player actually charged with affray be selected. Couldn't make it up.
-
I would think throughout the process the ECB have been taking legal advice, from employment law and criminal law standpoints and their actions have been, dare I say, beyond our understandings of the situation.
I'm maintaining that the primary source of blame is Ben Stokes. Lets hold the ECB accountable for our poor performance in the Ashes and thenselectors for some strange selections, but be in no doubt that Stokes royally screwed up the best chance we had of winning the Ashes by forcing selection wide of our plans for the past 2-3 years, namely a balanced side with 2-3 test class allrounders...
-
Strauss hasn't got a clue has he? Just smacks of pure desperation to me.
Sends home and suspends a player for pouring a drink over a teammates' head, but lets a player actually charged with affray be selected. Couldn't make it up.
That's just the whole ECB in a nutshell though isn't it, they're all clueless bigwigs that are ruining cricket in this country.
-
Ecb management has been poor on this tour
The Stokes situation is difficult to deal with
Duckett got scapegoated big time. Stupid behaviour yes, being sent home and effectively banned...no
-
Jesus bloody Christ
-
Strauss has a wife suffering from cancer. The timeframe for which will have meant diagnosis prior to him flying to Australia. Think about that for a second. Once out there, he then has to deal with Bairstow's and Duckett's antics.
If i were him I'd have sent one of them home as well. Duckett was a scapegoat but, as with Stokes, he acted like a tit. Nothing happened since, so i think the decision was entirely justified.
Strauss had to sort all of this knowing his wife, on the other side of the world, has been diagnosed with cancer. Do we not have any shred of empathy?
-
Strauss has a wife suffering from cancer. The timeframe for which will have meant diagnosis prior to him flying to Australia. Think about that for a second. Once out there, he then has to deal with Bairstow's and Duckett's antics.
If i were him I'd have sent one of them home as well. Duckett was a scapegoat but, as with Stokes, he acted like a tit. Nothing happened since, so i think the decision was entirely justified.
Strauss had to sort all of this knowing his wife, on the other side of the world, has been diagnosed with cancer. Do we not have any shred of empathy?
On a personal level, of course.
But...should we set aside jaw dropping my awful decision making as a result? Especially when Strauss has been making those self same awful decisions since the day he started in the job?
The fact is, he should have been sacked before now.
-
He's not going to be sacked based on the ODI and T20 sides significant progress on his watch. Should he be sacked for decisions made that were forced on him by Stokes, Bairstow and Duckett? Whatever the ECB did in relation to those decisions, they're going to be criticised, especially when they have to uphold employmemt law and try not to prejudice a police investigation.
I dont know what the correct thing to do is/was. I don't have all of the information. Maybe the ECB were also advised by the police, almost certainly they were by lawyers. My feeling is they were put in a very difficult decision by Stokes and criticism was coming no matter what.
-
You're missing the exile of England's best player, the Moore's fiasco, allowing county coaches to be selectors, devaluing the Championship, the bankrupting of test grounds, barring players from title deciders. If Stokes was a decision in isolation, he would just look like an idiot. But its not. Under his watch, English cricket has gone massively downhill and he should resign, or be sacked.
-
The ECB board made this and alot of the decisions mentioned above i believe. Obviously have input directly from people such as strauss but i dont think you can solely blame him. The ECB was (and continues to be) a farce long before strauss took over
-
I have missed those points, many of which i agree with, because the consensus seemed to be on the thread that the ECB were to blame for their handling of a situation that arose through no fault of their own and they had an almost impossible job of managing it ahead of and during an ashes tour. Should Strauss be sacked on the basis of that alone? Absolutely not.
He probably used his position to settle a personal grudge with KP, which is wrong. Problem there is, KP put himself in a position where a decision could be made and justified. The Moore's situation was always going to end in tears. Completely agree re selectors, there's an obvious conflict of interest. Championship has been devalued for years, which doesn't make it right, but it requires a huge overhaul. The ECB are held accountable for the england team and, in much the same way politicians play to the press, the ECB play the political game. They know their jobs are most at risk from national team performances, hence the enquiries after every away ashes tour...
Central contracts have always vexed the counties. Is it right, no. But the issue was around Strauss's handling of the Stokes et al discipline issues. I don't think he can be hung out to dry for that alone. I still don't think he's in danger of losing his job though, due to the success of the limited overs teams, which goes back to my earlier point regarding how Strauss will be judged in the press and media.
As i say, I agree with many of your points. But I still think, taking into account his wife's illness and Stokes's, Bairstow's and Duckett's actions, the balance of blame in those events doesn't fall on the ECB.
They install a curfew, make an example of the last player to commit an indiscretion (after team meetings and numerous warnings to the squad), get criticism from ex players, but no more incidents occur. Yet they still get hammered. It's far from black and white and not an easy fix.
-
The ECB was desperate for an excuse for our piss poor performances so scapegoated Duckett and tried to spin the narrative towards a few blokes having a beer after work as being the problem. It was the ECB's security guards that snitched on Duckett, which just isn't right. If your employer decides to protect you outside of work then they have no business meddling in your personal affairs.
Strangely they've finally got the Stokes situation right. He is innocent until proven guilty after all, though I suspect this is actually a failure of their PR policy. If they'd managed to make the ill discipline and drinking story stick then they'd also be gunning for Stokes.
-
Really wasn't expecting that, the inconsistency is bizarre. If he's suspended due to being under police investigation then he should be suspended while awaiting trial, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs. They'll look bloody silly if he flies out to NZ and then has to fly straight back again when the court date gets announced.
Strauss has been making (No Swearing Please) decisions since the day he started the job I'm afraid. If he's not mentally fit to be making decisions properly at the moment then that's understandable, but then he should be on leave surely.
-
Really wasn't expecting that, the inconsistency is bizarre. If he's suspended due to being under police investigation then he should be suspended while awaiting trial, whatever you think of the rights and wrongs. They'll look bloody silly if he flies out to NZ and then has to fly straight back again when the court date gets announced.
Strauss has been making (No Swearing Please) decisions since the day he started the job I'm afraid. If he's not mentally fit to be making decisions properly at the moment then that's understandable, but then he should be on leave surely.
Being reported that because the legal proceedings could technically take up to 18 months suspending him for up to that long could leave the ECB liable to legal action for restraint of trade.
-
Being reported that because the legal proceedings could technically take up to 18 months suspending him for up to that long could leave the ECB liable to legal action for restraint of trade.
I'm no lawyer now, but Stokes has been suspended, likely on full pay, and is also free to ply his trade elsewhere (Canterbury/IPL/Durham etc) during his England suspension. Please explain where the restraint of trade is?
-
Interesting take - stokes picked so ecb dont get sued?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-5280681/Ben-Stokes-concentrating-clearing-name.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-5280681/Ben-Stokes-concentrating-clearing-name.html)
-
That's an article with a hatred of the ECB I'd even I read it! It's fantasy stuff, Stokes has years ahead of him with an ECB contract, yes he has made money from the IPL but players want the contract for England. Plus.....has anyone seriously who has watched him play ever doubted his commitment to England? I havnt, if anything it's his full on personality and never backing down that may have got him in bother off the pitch.
What possible reason could he have to sue the ECB?
If you read vic marks in the guardian today it's a far more balanced report about the whole thing.
Yes it's completely inconsistent what they have done but the have got to the right decision now despite of it. A court case could take all year to sort out, he can't stop playing for a year? What if he is found innocent, missed the whole ashes and New Zealand and the summer!
The ECB have not handled this well no argument there :) what else could they do now knowing a court case could take ages
If the case in in the NZ tour he is going to have to come back and face the music.
Media like to stir things up, my guess is Stokes has a decent relationship with the ECB, he's got himself in trouble and will have to take what's coming, he is not he first sportsman to end up in trouble
-
So Stokes' court date is the day of the first NZ t20... poor ECB 😂
-
So, he's entered a not guilty plea. I wonder what he can do to make himself look less of a thug?? ...shave his head... Yeah... That should work... 🤦♂️
-
So, he's entered a not guilty plea. I wonder what he can do to make himself look less of a thug?? ...shave his head... Yeah... That should work... 🤦♂️
Worked for OJ