14 hours ago, Gav said:

 

Stokes was clearly the aggressor, throwing punches, flicked a cigarette at the gay chap he was supposed to be defending, and proceeded to knock 1 lad out who was holding his hands up not looking for a fight.

The guys a bully.

Just imagine if you're a football fan on CCTV in the same circumstances, you'd have been jailed and banned from Ewood for life. 

 

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?

20 hours ago, Gav said:

Just goes to prove once again that if you've got enough cash you can get off with anything.....

Definition of affray:

'Under the Public Order Act 1986 'a person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and his conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety'

Anyone who has seen the video can make their own mind up....

Guilty as charged in my opinion.

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...

Had the umpire given them not out, Hawk Eye would have showed the ball hitting the stumps, so would that mean the umpire got it wrong? There was enough doubt to give both decisions as not out. Horrible system and ruining the game for me.

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.

How ridiculous is this DRS nonsense? The "Umpire's call" has to be removed. Watson and Haddin would have been not out had the umpire given them not out.

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.