What footage have you seen? I ask because I've seen the fighting from two angles - one which just shows Stokes punching the guy, and another that shows the other guy trying to bottle one of the gay lads when Stokes intervenes. From just the former, I could understand arriving at a different verdict to the jury. But if you've seen the latter clip, it'd take some perverse logic to conclude Stokes was the agressor. Rather than being the bully, he was defending people from being bullied. As the gay couple have confirmed on TV. I doubt he'd have been charged if he wasn't a national sportsman and the story had got into the news. What has this country come to if the "right" thing is to let someone get bottled and walk on by?

Interesting. I've watched the videos, read summaries of what was said in court and seen the interview with the gay couple. Firstly, I think the violence from Stokes wasn't unlawful as he stepped in to stop someone being bottled. Secondly, whilst some could argue the continued throwing of punches was excessive, I think there would still be the threat of retaliation if he stopped. Thirdly, since he was reacting to what a specific individual was doing, I'm not sure why anyone else present would fear for their safety. Obviously the jury had even more information than I do, but I can't argue with their verdict. In fact, I wouldn't mind him being around if anyone ever tried to bottle me...

Warren Beatty's so vain, he probably thinks the Oscars mix up is about him...

There's certainly a lot wrong in other instances with how DRS is being used. But in those two cases it hasn't made any difference to what the decision would have been without it, both players would have still been given out. You've answered why there's an 'umpire's call' area yourself, it's reasonable to allow a 'not out' call to stand for close calls where the umpire isn't sure enough to raise his finger. But when he's convinced the ball is going on to hit the stumps, and the replay backs him up even though it's tight, it's also right to stick with his decision. It's one part of the system that's actually working, it's up to the players to stop wasting reviews in such situations.

So exactly the same as what would have happened before DRS? If the umpire gave you out, you were out - if the umpire gave you not out, you were not out. The "umpire's call" benefits the batsman, if you remove it then both would have been 'out' on review regardless of what the umpire said because the ball was shown to be on line to hit the stumps.