sussexpob wrote:Civil court cases are routinely decided on the balance of probability. In those cases, for things like medical negligence, millions of pounds can be levied as compensation.
For the ICC lawyer to turn round and say that losing two matches worth of earnings created a level of evidential proof and certainty "closer to that which is beyond all reasonable doubt" is quite incredible, and really does show the natural inclination to bury this case in England's favour.
So Anderson admits to using unsavoury language and telling him to "f**k off to the dressing room" while pushing him. We have film, twice in the series in fact, of Anderson continuing his verbal assaults, and an umpire testimony that said Anderson ignored his warning to stop. We have an admission, or silence, on a whole host of insulting and aggressive language. We have a seeming admission from the ECB that he had committed an offence before India levelled the charge, but only decided to argue it when a ban was on the cards. We have an English team member who says Jadeja was bat spinning aggressively but didn't notice a push, and another at the same time who had a great view of a push from Jadeja at the same time but no bat waving aggressively. We also have the player in question admitting he wasn't acting in the "spirit of the game" and yet innocent because he was protecting himself, yet his victim apparently turning round in too aggressive a way to be pushed, and then told to f**k off while being told he would have his teeth smashed, is guilty of not acting in the spirit of the game. So its
So in short, if someone pushes you and told you they were going to smash your face in, be aware that they are able to do that in self defence if you turn too quickly to ask them to stop calling you a "f**king *modded*", and sadly that having a bat in your hand after leaving the crease will be construed as wanton acts of violence, and not a simplistic view that you have just been bloody batting.
Sorry, but this absolutely stinks.
excellent summation