|
|
Post by philh on Jan 14, 2018 13:47:43 GMT
An impressive start by England to the One Day International series against Australia. Australia set what used to be a decent target of 305 but England knocked it off with relative ease despite the loss of three wickets at the end. It doesn't make up for the disaster of The Ashes but it certainly is good to see England show some form at last.
The 180 from Roy obviously stands out but it's good to see Root score well in his non-captain role. Of the bowlers, Wood and Ali appear to have bowled tidily, but you could argue that Rashid's two wickets made all the difference even though he was the most expensive of the bowlers costing 73 runs. Similarly, Plunkett took three wickets but went for 71 runs.
Let's hope it carries forward to the second ODI in Brisbane on Friday morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jan 15, 2018 10:49:09 GMT
Luke makes a good point.  |
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191 
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 17, 2018 0:52:33 GMT
Going by much of the public and editorial commentary, you'd think the ECB are going to need the judgement of Solomon in deciding what to do with Ben Stokes. Their disciplinary SWAT team has been on 48-hour standby all winter, and now that they're finally on a shout perhaps they are in a bit of a bind at this stage. But it needn't have been this way if only they could have seen their way clear to summoning up an opinion of their own a few months ago.
We've often been reminded, with leaden sanctimony, that "there's a thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'", as though it is self-evident that no employer should make its own assessment of an employee's actions without first getting a steer from the law courts. But most alleged transgressions by employees are of no concern to the police and the courts. Sports governing bodies are no different in that they generally have to rely upon their own internal procedures for reaching disciplinary decisions, without the luxury of guidance from the legal system.
Of course in the beginning it suited the ECB to "respect the legal process", as they piously put it, in the hope that a prompt decision by the police not to pursue charges would free them from having to come up with an ethical stance of their own. Whereupon: the only thing standing between Stokes and the Ashes would have been a charitable donation for breaking a curfew, and everyone goes home laughing. But the gamble didn't pay off, and the ECB might now be wishing they'd shown some confident, authoritative governance. There was nothing to stop them saying they'd found the accounts from Stokes and Hales sufficiently persuasive in mitigation that those players should remain available for selection, pending any evidence to the contrary. But they obviously didn't feel great about saying it, and hoped the police would do their job for them instead.
In October I was interested to read about an unrelated case that had some similarities. There had been an incident in a nightclub involving a Coronation Street actor. Clearly the show's producers didn't like what they'd heard, as they terminated the actor's contract ahead of criminal charges being confirmed. To this layman at least, that confirmed my assumption that an employer may take decisive action either against or in favour of an employee (as presumably provided for under the terms of their contract) without risk of prejudicing any criminal investigation currently under way. I suppose the more valuable the employee concerned is to your organisation, the more respect you find that you have for the legal process.
Now that Stokes has been charged, I keep reading that the ECB are "damned if they do, damned if they don't". Actually they were damned when they didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jan 17, 2018 8:32:15 GMT
Going by much of the public and editorial commentary, you'd think the ECB are going to need the judgement of Solomon in deciding what to do with Ben Stokes. Their disciplinary SWAT team has been on 48-hour standby all winter, and now that they're finally on a shout perhaps they are in a bit of a bind at this stage. But it needn't have been this way if only they could have seen their way clear to summoning up an opinion of their own a few months ago.
We've often been reminded, with leaden sanctimony, that "there's a thing called 'innocent until proven guilty'", as though it is self-evident that no employer should make its own assessment of an employee's actions without first getting a steer from the law courts. But most alleged transgressions by employees are of no concern to the police and the courts. Sports governing bodies are no different in that they generally have to rely upon their own internal procedures for reaching disciplinary decisions, without the luxury of guidance from the legal system.
Of course in the beginning it suited the ECB to "respect the legal process", as they piously put it, in the hope that a prompt decision by the police not to pursue charges would free them from having to come up with an ethical stance of their own. Whereupon: the only thing standing between Stokes and the Ashes would have been a charitable donation for breaking a curfew, and everyone goes home laughing. But the gamble didn't pay off, and the ECB might now be wishing they'd shown some confident, authoritative governance. There was nothing to stop them saying they'd found the accounts from Stokes and Hales sufficiently persuasive in mitigation that those players should remain available for selection, pending any evidence to the contrary. But they obviously didn't feel great about saying it, and hoped the police would do their job for them instead.
In October I was interested to read about an unrelated case that had some similarities. There had been an incident in a nightclub involving a Coronation Street actor. Clearly the show's producers didn't like what they'd heard, as they terminated the actor's contract ahead of criminal charges being confirmed. To this layman at least, that confirmed my assumption that an employer may take decisive action either against or in favour of an employee (as presumably provided for under the terms of their contract) without risk of prejudicing any criminal investigation currently under way. I suppose the more valuable the employee concerned is to your organisation, the more respect you find that you have for the legal process.
Now that Stokes has been charged, I keep reading that the ECB are "damned if they do, damned if they don't". Actually they were damned when they didn't.
Good post, and not just because I agree with much of your reasoning. As well as the precedent of the Coronation Street actor there is a general principle inherent in many employment contracts that the employee should not do anything that damages the reputation or financial status of their employer by their behaviour and their status. Bringing the game into disrepute is a concept that describes this breach of responsibilities. And yes, I think it is fair to say that the ECB equivocated, though rather than making him available for selection they could have said that there was no place in the side for players who celebrated a win by getting involved in a brawl outside a night club at 3 in the morning. By not taking action on this, but hiding behind the delay in CPS referral, they opened the door to the Australian media to spin off stupid but minor infractions like Duckett's antics and Bairstow's supposed browbeating as a narrative about indiscipline and drunkenness. That really was eminently avoidable, and a good management would have seen that coming and recognised the effect the media circus could have on the already fragile confidence of a patchily-selected squad. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jan 17, 2018 10:40:35 GMT
Really good post, Bazpan. I must confess that I was feeling the need to post on this topic but was struggling to articulate my thoughts as well as you have. I agree with hhsussex that the seriousness of the actions of Messrs Stokes, Bairstow and Duckett are frankly miles apart. We await their decision; I can only assume one outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 17, 2018 11:39:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by deepfineleg on Jan 17, 2018 12:32:38 GMT
If he can play while denying the charge why couldn't he have played while denying a possible charge? It's hard to see how the situation now is different.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jan 17, 2018 12:35:14 GMT
If he can play while denying the charge why couldn't he have played while denying a possible charge? It's hard to see how the situation now is different. I agree, but I'm guessing the ECB thought the legal process wouldn't have been quite so protracted. If they'd known this, I reckon they'd have cleared him to play, pending the result of any trial. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jan 17, 2018 14:14:26 GMT
If he can play while denying the charge why couldn't he have played while denying a possible charge? It's hard to see how the situation now is different. I agree, but I'm guessing the ECB thought the legal process wouldn't have been quite so protracted. If they'd known this, I reckon they'd have cleared him to play, pending the result of any trial. I suspect that you're right, flashblade - it has probably taken longer than they expected, but surely they should have quashed the ban if that was the case. It does send out a strange message. |
|
A.S.
2nd XI player
Posts: 60
County club member: Kent
|
Post by A.S. on Jan 17, 2018 14:27:17 GMT
One wonders why the ECB did not grasp the nettle now, charge Stokes with bringing the game into disrepute, a charge he can hardly deny, dish out a punishment of a four month suspension, hold that he has already served it, and put the matter to bed, at least from the cricket perspective.
As things now stand, it is apparent from the ECB press release that the internal disciplinary process for both Hales and Stokes remains stayed "until the conclusion of court proceedings relating to the incident". It will thus fester, through the summer if Stokes pleads not guilty and magistrates refer the case to the Crown Court, and God knows what will emerge when the internal disciplinary process is eventually resolved.
|
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 17, 2018 18:38:03 GMT
'Conduct unbecoming' is the phrase I think my employer uses. If it was me in that video I'd expect to be out the door regardless of any amount of mitigation (including ultimate acquittal). Of course another employer might watch the footage and conclude "We don't really see a problem with that, as long as it doesn't turn out to be worse than it looks", which seems to be the ECB's latest position. One thing you couldn't accuse them of is handling the matter with a sure touch. I wonder if a strategy similar to the one suggested by A.S. had occurred to the ECB. They're gagging to get Stokes back into the team without appearing to be making a bid for the moral basement, and that seems as good a way out as any. (Well if not actually 'good', then at least better than the approach they've gone for).
From the outset I expected the ECB to handle the situation poorly, but I'm genuinely surprised that they seem to have been caught on the hop by how long this is all going to take. Whenever a news story about the conclusion of a criminal trial happens to catch my eye, the alleged offence almost always seems to date from a year or two previously. Even if Strauss and Harrison, etc., don't have much of a feel for the likely timescales involved, they must have legal advisers who do. The ECB just seem to have been paralysed by self-delusion.
|
|
Bazpan
2nd XI player
Posts: 191
County club member: Kent
|
Post by Bazpan on Jan 18, 2018 0:41:51 GMT
Just reading the portion of Elizabeth Ammon's article in Thursday's Times that can be viewed by non-subscribers:-
twitter.com/legsidelizzy?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Looks like it was an 8-5 vote in favour of Stokes's return. Crucially, two members of the disciplinary panel changed their minds during the meeting upon receipt of legal guidance. The most pertinent aspects of this advice seem to have been:-
(i) Prolonging Stokes's suspension could have been prejudicial to his trial. I'll have to take their word for that. Not being sarcastic! I don't know what I'm talking about with this stuff (although HHS seems to). Common sense and precedent would appear to indicate that an employer is at liberty to act autonomously in disciplinary matters (to the extent provided for contractually), but it's dangerous to try and come the armchair lawyer.
A possibly frivolous analogy:- if a woman wishes to leave her husband who has been charged with (though not yet convicted of) an unpleasant crime - because she believes him to be guilty, and that he isn't the man she thought he was - would she be compelled to continue living in the marital home until the conclusion of the trial for fear of prejudicing the proceedings by moving out?
(ii) Stokes could sue the ECB for restraint of trade if they continue to suspend him. Of course the ECB are under no obligation to renew Stokes's central contract in October, and presumably the current contract (for which he's still being paid a substantial retainer, though not match fees) could be terminated by mutual agreement at any time. In the mean time, the ECB do actually seem to have acted quite prudently in this respect, in that they have raised no objection to Stokes playing in New Zealand or in the IPL, etc. I'm sure he's free to play for Durham, and for any other team apart from (up until now) his national side. Is it possible that in not selecting Stokes for England (for reasons other than form and fitness) they could be held to have unreasonably restricted his ability to ply his trade? That also seems an odd one to me, but perhaps others on here will have a more informed angle on both these potential sources of legal jeopardy.
It strikes me that there's a paradoxical aspect to all this, on a day when the ECB reiterated the respect they have for the legal process. So fearful are they of contravening employment legislation and judicial protocol that they decided their best bet was, in fact, to show the legal process a little less respect by acting more as though the criminal proceedings are irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jan 18, 2018 14:56:03 GMT
According the BBC, Ben Stokes has been given the date of Tuesday 13 February to answer the charge of affray at Bristol Magistrates Court. This coincidentally happens to be the date that he is due to return to the England team in a T20 match v. New Zealand.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jan 19, 2018 13:48:52 GMT
On the evidence of 5 Test matches and 2 ODIs against Australia, there seems to be a striking difference, which may be coincidental. It's not just simply that we lost the Test series badly and are winning the ODIs well; it goes further than that. We had some good moments in the Test series, but nearly every time we needed to exert some authority on the match, we failed. In the ODIs, the reverse seems to be true. We could have wilted when the 6th wicket down today, but we didn't. Is it the team? Is it the belief? Are we just better at the 50 overs games than 5 day matches? Or, is it just that Australia have enough in their team for a 5-day match? It's probably a bit of all these things, to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jan 21, 2018 9:36:09 GMT
This crucial ODI 3 for Australia to win has been helped by Plunkett gaining a hammy but what has impressed me so much is how the
England side have surged ahead 2-0 without their talisman Stokes. Critics argue their recent ODI successes have come at the expense
of Test matches like the Ashes and I completely agree with this. But after a golden decade of Test wins and dismal ODI failures, the
decision by the ECB to focus on the 50 and 20 over formats make complete sense.
The 50 over and T20 does not rely so much on home or away conditions, unlike Test cricket, and in a sport where Test popularity is on
the decline, I can clearly understand the ECB emphasis on these two formats. Sadly, why flog a dead horse? This view may not go down
well with the traditionalists but the future of England cricket is vital and must come first as we have seen with the ECBs recent decision
to create the City-Based T20 Tournament. Better to be ahead of the game than decline into an abyss of extinction.
|
|
