What punishment should Ben Stokes be given by the ICC and ECB?

[Arham_PakFan]

Stokes has been judged not guilty by the court.But he is still punishable by the ICC and the ECB,for bringing the game into disrepute.What would be a fair punishment?

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

Can you please specify how did he bring the game into dispute? And how does what happened relates to cricket at all?

 

[MenInG]

Can you please specify how did he bring the game into dispute? And how does what happened relates to cricket at all?

One golden rule of any employment atleast in banks is that your conduct whether on duty or outside reflects on your employer and job.

Stokes has been involved in violence and as such his conduct does effect the game ( he was dropped from the team on a few occasions due to this case);

 

[ahmedwaqas92]

One golden rule of any employment atleast in banks is that your conduct whether on duty or outside reflects on your employer and job.

Stokes has been involved in violence and as such his conduct does effect the game ( he was dropped from the team on a few occasions due to this case);

He was dropped because his selection for the said games was in question based on his availability, while unless & until his contractual stipulation doesn't explicitly state that there would be taken action against him (if he's found to having a non acceptable behavior) outside of his workplace i.e. off the cricket field or relating to any cricketing incident then only I believe a fine or a notice of some sorts might be logical.

Furthermore, the Jury and the court found him (not guilty) so the ECB or ICC would basically be overruling them if they themselves hand out a punishment (without having the first hand evidence, which the courts have) and that would be nonsensicle in my humble opinion. Mr. Ali and Stokes were seen to have shaken hands at the end of the trial which means that it's best if we all get back to letting cricket take center stage and tuck this away because at the end of day; a ruling has been passed.

 

[cricketjoshila]

One golden rule of any employment atleast in banks is that your conduct whether on duty or outside reflects on your employer and job.

Stokes has been involved in violence and as such his conduct does effect the game ( he was dropped from the team on a few occasions due to this case);

He has been declared not guilty on all charges. So how does the employer stick his charges?

 

[SM1989]

He should still be banned for getting in that situation and bringing the ECB into disrepute. He should not have been partying that late when a cricket series was going on.

It shows a lack of discipline on his part

 

[topspin]

Alcohol ban I think is suffice.

Can't ban him from playing when he isn't guilty. To those who want him banned, I would say that I rather have a fiery Ben Stokes who can win matches than a mental midget like Shafiq and etc.

 

[Slim]

No punishment at all. He has done no cricket related offence so his employer should mind their own business.

 

[MenInG]

He has been declared not guilty on all charges. So how does the employer stick his charges?

It effects the game of cricket in the country; a player is a role model etc

 

[Dr_Bassim]

In other words, even if you are not guilty, you are still guilty.

 

[adzzy786]

First of all it’s not like this happened in the middle of a cricket game.

Secondly he’s been cleared by the courts so he’s innocent. He’s already not played for a while, no reason for him to be punished any further.

 

[IMMY69]

Now that he has been found not guilty I think both the ECB and Stokes can use this situation in a productive manner.

Stokes should be required to take some anger management counselling and thereafter made speak to youth cricketers on the importance of behavior and how to conduct yourself on and of the field of play.

Whether he was found not guilty is not the issue now. The fact is that he reacted in an overly aggressive manner which every one can see on the CCTV footages and this took almost a year out of his life and prevented him from representing his country against the Aussies in an important Ashes series at the peak of his career. Not only did he bring heartache to himself but all his family and friends. So he should channel this to educate the young.

 

[James]

Now that he has been found not guilty I think both the ECB and Stokes can use this situation in a productive manner.

Stokes should be required to take some anger management counselling and thereafter made speak to youth cricketers on the importance of behavior and how to conduct yourself on and of the field of play.

Whether he was found not guilty is not the issue now. The fact is that he reacted in an overly aggressive manner which every one can see on the CCTV footages and this took almost a year out of his life and prevented him from representing his country against the Aussies in an important Ashes series at the peak of his career. Not only did he bring heartache to himself but all his family and friends. So he should channel this to educate the young.

Strongly agree with this. Great ideas.

I would add in a hefty fine as well. But no suspension or ban.

 

[yasir]

Now that he has been found not guilty I think both the ECB and Stokes can use this situation in a productive manner.

Stokes should be required to take some anger management counselling and thereafter made speak to youth cricketers on the importance of behavior and how to conduct yourself on and of the field of play.

Whether he was found not guilty is not the issue now. The fact is that he reacted in an overly aggressive manner which every one can see on the CCTV footages and this took almost a year out of his life and prevented him from representing his country against the Aussies in an important Ashes series at the peak of his career. Not only did he bring heartache to himself but all his family and friends. So he should channel this to educate the young.

It's ironic, in Ashes Brits keep complaining about missing the bull headedness of Strokes. ICC and Co want to milk money off of the aggressive Cricketers(the Ultra Male trait), weather it was Lille/Thomo, Great WI, Richards, KP, Strokes, Akthar, fast bowlers in general etc but when it comes to the negative side of those Ultra male characteristics, they want to distance themselves and slap fines and what not...You cannot have your cake and eat it too...Why don't you remove the aggressive male characters 'on the field' as well?? - That effects business

 

[Divergent Gujjar]

no punishment. He is not guilty. He needs to improve his behavior though.

 

[MenInG]

England’s head coach, Trevor Bayliss, has called on Ben Stokes to make a public apology over the events which led to his eventual acquittal for affray.

Stokes was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing at Bristol crown court on Tuesday, almost 11 months after being arrested following a brawl outside a nightclub in the Clifton area of the city.

Within two hours of the end of the case, England announced that the all-rounder was being added to the 13-man squad for the third Test against India at Trent Bridge, from which he had been omitted the previous day.

Stokes was back at practice on Thursday afternoon and, on behalf of Joe Root’s team and the England and Wales Cricket Board, Bayliss spoke for the first time regarding the matter.

The head coach, who said that a final call is yet to be made on whether Stokes will return to the side this weekend, acknowledged that a public apology should be forthcoming.

Bayliss pointed out that Stokes has already apologised to his teammates, in New Zealand last winter, when he rejoined them after missing the Ashes series while a criminal charge was being considered.

Asked if Stokes should make the same comments publicly, Bayliss said: “Certainly. I think it was important to actually apologise to the boys in the team, management of the team and management at the ECB, who had to go through a lot of extra activities to work our way through it.”

As to whether that will be relayed to a wider audience, the Australian said: “I’m sure something will be forthcoming. That’ll be up to Ben and his management team, I suppose. But certainly, when he came out to New Zealand after the Ashes tour that he missed, he addressed the players in the changing room when he first arrived. So from our point of view, his contrition was evident for the boys in the team.”

Stokes has missed six Tests – including the Lord’s match last week, which clashed with his court case – and 11 limited-overs fixtures for England, as a result of the night out in Bristol. He and Alex Hales, who was present during the incident, will be subject to a Cricket Discipline Commission hearing, conducted at arm’s length from the ECB, to decide whether any further penalty is appropriate from their employers.

Bayliss stopped short of confirming that Stokes will playing this weekend. “There’s nothing automatic about selections – we’ll see how he is mentally as well as physically. He’s not played for a couple of weeks. It’s a difficult decision to make ... whoever misses out, whether it’s Ben or anyone else.”

England will clinch the five-match series if they win again in Nottingham to add to their 2-0 lead.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...public-apology-bristol-brawl?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[MenInG]

The England and Wales Cricket Board must have been heartily relieved by the Test team’s emphatic victory over India at Lord’s with their clean-cut all-rounder Chris Woakes excelling while Ben Stokes, grim-faced, clad in his smart blue suit and ritually snapped by photographers, made his daily trip to a Bristol courtroom.

There Stokes relived the details of a night that went horribly wrong in the city last September after a routine victory over West Indies in a one-day international. Then he would reappear in front of the cameras in the afternoon, providing just about the only sighting of an English cricketer on terrestrial TV since the 2005 Ashes series.

Now the ECB can contemplate another victory of sorts, which is so much more complicated to interpret. One of its employees has been found not guilty of affray and is available to go about his business, but it must also consider whether it is appropriate for him to do so. This was not a day for triumphalism from Stokes or those who employ him at Lord’s.

It must have been an ugly week for Stokes while his teammates were enjoying a glorious victory in London but in the end he could allow himself a mild smile. The verdict means that he can concentrate on being a cricketer again. The incident may soon become a tiny blot on a glittering career; he could easily become one of England’s greatest all-rounders. Even so, some stern self-assessment would not go amiss.

The court case may have been survived but there is no escaping that Stokes has brought the game into disrepute. The video footage of a feral night out does not reveal the kind of images that the ECB, so desperate to promote the game to families, wants to be identified with. Indeed, it would be a minor disaster if the verdict leads Stokes to think that he did nothing wrong in Bristol last September, and there is a danger that this might now be the case.

The very best cricketers often ooze invincibility; they are never out and never wrong. They feel invulnerable, capable of dominating any situation. I have witnessed this at close quarters when playing alongside Ian Botham or while keeping an eye on the careers of Andrew Flintoff, Brian Lara and Kevin Pietersen. Such was their predominance in the game that they sometimes concluded that the normal rules did not apply.

In part this explains why some players are so good; self-belief is the most cherished asset among sportsmen. The great ones do not seem to fear failing; instead they take control of what happens in the middle, and sometimes this glorious feeling of power extends beyond the boundary. Which is when it becomes dangerous.

The easy suggestion to such sportsmen when they are in trouble off the field is to be just a bit more careful, more sensible, but this advice seldom hits home. Such caginess is not in their DNA. Perhaps they are great because they live dangerously or ignore some of the basic rules of the road for a professional cricketer. These men rarely function if instructed to wear carpet slippers.

Stokes lives in an era of management teams as well as ever-present iPhones that can record and relay every second of every day – and night. Hence a big night out is always a risky business. In Botham’s era the backroom staff were not so sophisticated. He once had an agent, Tim Hudson, whose response to an allegation about Ian smoking cannabis was famously, “Doesn’t everyone?” Now it behoves not only Stokes, but also his support network, to ensure that there is no repeat of the behaviour that took him back to Bristol.

Seeing Stokes solemnly heading into the courtroom has been a depressing sight. This was an alien environment for him, no more comfortable than the prospect of a well-heeled barrister walking out to combat a swinging cricket ball propelled by Jimmy Anderson; it was an unpalatable contest. The outcome will, no doubt, be met with relief at the ECB, though it may still be startled there has not been more contrition from Stokes about his behaviour that night.

Now the Cricket Discipline Commission must decide whether to take any action against Stokes. He has not broken the law but he may have fractured some trust with his employer. Recently Steve Smith and David Warner were banned from the international game by their board for 12 months because a cricket ball had been surreptitiously scraped with sandpaper and subsequently they were found to be economical with the truth.

The two episodes are hard to compare but by most people’s standards a flick of sandpaper and a dodgy press conference does not seem so much worse than what happened in Bristol.

As ever the ECB will seek to marry principle with pragmatism. The CDC now lurches into action. Stokes may now play at Trent Bridge this week but he could be subsequently suspended later in the year. However, the nightmare scenario has been avoided. The summer of 2019 is the most exciting imaginable – before we head off into the abyss – with the World Cup, which England are far better placed to win than usual – especially if Ben Stokes is at full throttle – and an Ashes series.

For all the excellence shown by Woakes and Sam Curran in the last two Tests, Stokes at his best remains the linchpin of the side, whatever the colour of the ball. There should be no pretending that England are as good without him. Moreover, the players want him back. The dressing room provides the most accurate barometer of someone’s character and the England team like having Stokes there – not just for his cricketing prowess.

However, he needs help and an open mind. He could do much worse than consider the career of Ricky Ponting and, maybe, have a chat with him. Ponting had his moments of madness in bars as a young Australian cricketer and was dropped in 1999 after an incident in Sydney which left him unconscious in the early hours of the morning. He was not required to go to court but he acknowledged a problem with alcohol and his off-field behaviour, and with appropriate help he resolved it before going on to have the most brilliant of careers. With some brutal self-examination on his part there is still time for Stokes to do something similar.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...cannot-hide-game-disrepute-england-allrounder

 

[New Yorker]

Stokes has been judged not guilty by the court.But he is still punishable by the ICC and the ECB,for bringing the game into disrepute.What would be a fair punishment?

Even if he were guilty, what does it have to do with cricket? Did he fix a match, or tamper with the ball? What players do in their spare time is their business.

As it turns out, he is not guilty, of anything, bar looking a bit too desperate to get into a nightclub at 2 am.

Let's move on please. Nothing to see here.

 

[MenInG]

Even if he were guilty, what does it have to do with cricket? Did he fix a match, or tamper with the ball? What players do in their spare time is their business.

As it turns out, he is not guilty, of anything, bar looking a bit too desperate to get into a nightclub at 2 am.

Let's move on please. Nothing to see here.

You and I dont live in vacuums; all our actions have consequences. If Stokes was a nobody, it would not matter, but images of him fighting like an animal have been put on video and seen widely; he cannot just walk on to a cricket field and expect all to be forgotten.

 

[New Yorker]

Now that he has been found not guilty I think both the ECB and Stokes can use this situation in a productive manner.

Stokes should be required to take some anger management counselling and thereafter made speak to youth cricketers on the importance of behavior and how to conduct yourself on and of the field of play.

Whether he was found not guilty is not the issue now. The fact is that he reacted in an overly aggressive manner which every one can see on the CCTV footages and this took almost a year out of his life and prevented him from representing his country against the Aussies in an important Ashes series at the peak of his career. Not only did he bring heartache to himself but all his family and friends. So he should channel this to educate the young.

have there been complaints about stokes' conduct on the field of play? if not, what does it have to
do with a brawl outside a bar?

do you think young cricketers in england believe that brawling outside a bar is something that their
society, and legal system, approves of?

if not, what exactly would be the value of stokes' intervention here?

if it took one year out of his life it has clearly already cost him something. so why punish him further?
unless you happen to be an anger management counsellor looking for work of course.

 

[New Yorker]

You and I dont live in vacuums; all our actions have consequences. If Stokes was a nobody, it would not matter, but images of him fighting like an animal have been put on video and seen widely; he cannot just walk on to a cricket field and expect all to be forgotten.

I don't understand the structure of accountability implied here. What right would any ordinary citizen have to call him to account, or, as you put it, refuse to forget. Forget just what exactly? Again, legally speaking, he did not do anything. Lots of people get into fisticuffs all the time. Why should he apologize for it?

 

[MenInG]

I don't understand the structure of accountability implied here. What right would any ordinary citizen have to call him to account, or, as you put it, refuse to forget. Forget just what exactly? Again, legally speaking, he did not do anything. Lots of people get into fisticuffs all the time. Why should he apologize for it?

Bringing the game into disrepute is not a legal matter. You are right. Its the impression that we have thugs playing cricket - that's where I personally have a problem. Guess people will vote on this poll and that will show the general trend also.

 

[topspin]

Bringing the game into disrepute is not a legal matter. You are right. Its the impression that we have thugs playing cricket - that's where I personally have a problem. Guess people will vote on this poll and that will show the general trend also.

Sorry but I don't see how he brought the game into disrepute? His actions were outside a cricket field and had nothing to do with the sport. He was found not guilty, so there is no basis for ICC and ECB to punish him any further.

 

[RainMan_]

A five years ban would have been justified. That poor guy who was the victim of his madness could have easily died.

 

[HitWicket]

A five years ban would have been justified. That poor guy who was the victim of his madness could have easily died.

Just as easily as someone could have had they recieved a full contact blow to the head from a glass bottle or metal pole?

 

[Robert]

In effect he already served a five-test ban.

I agree with the rehabilitative work with kids who have been in trouble with the law. Though they might look at his example and think.... I will be found Not Guilty too.

 

[introvert]

10 t20i ban. Just let him play test cricket.

 

[hadi123]

For people saying that the fact it was away from the cricket field means it has nothing to do with the game, it's worth remembering that David Warner got banned for punching Joe Root in a bar. Yes, Joe Root is another international cricketer but I don't think that's relevant, the main crime was punching someone, so the ICC and/or ECB could still take action. I voted for fine, he's been found not guilty and already missed the Ashes which is the biggest Test series an English cricketer could ever take place in, so just take some money off him and let that be the end of it.

 

[New Yorker]

A five years ban would have been justified. That poor guy who was the victim of his madness could have easily died.

​

I could not think of anything more dubious than the ECB/ICC punishing a player who has been legally cleared of wrongdoing for something that might have happened. Many things might have happened. Stokes himself might have been killed. If this question were indeed a serious matter it would have been within the purview of the criminal justice system to take it into consideration. But that system cleared him. He has served a de facto five Test ban, has had to go through lengthy court proceedings to dispel a charge that proved false. Let's just get on with cricket now shall we.

 

[hadi123]

Nasser Hussain says Ben Stokes should acknowledge Sam Curran's disappointment after the all-rounder replaced him in the England side to face India in the third Test at Trent Bridge.

Stokes was found not guilty at Bristol Crown Court on Tuesday and has subsequently been named in England's team to face India at Trent Bridge from Saturday.

Hussain believes whoever lost his place to the returning Stokes would feel aggrieved, and while he described his inclusion as a 'no-brainer' once he was added to the 13-man squad, the former England captain has immense sympathy for Curran.

Speaking on Friday night ahead of the Vitality Blast match between Yorkshire Vikings and Nottinghamshire Outlaws, Hussain told Sky Sports: "Sam Curran definitely didn't deserve to be left out.

"If I was Ben Stokes, and Ben really wants to change his ways, and have that sort of Ricky Ponting moment where he needs to do something about himself and his behaviour at times - if he thinks that, he needs to look at Sam Curran tomorrow morning and see a lad who's been left out for no reason.

"A lad who was man of the match two games ago and gave absolutely everything to put England 1-0 up at Edgbaston, and he's not playing now.

"If ever there's a moment, Ben needs to look at him and say I was responsible for that, tomorrow when that first ball goes down, that's exactly when."

Stokes and England one-day star Alex Hales, who was also out in Bristol last Autumn, could yet face punishment from the ECB's Cricket Discipline Commission, which will meet following the conclusion of criminal matters.

The 27-year-old missed the second Test at Lord's while attending his trial, and while Stokes will now hope to demonstrate he is mentally prepared to compete in a Test match, Mark Butcher believes Curran will return to the fold before too long.

"I think he'll take it hard, because it's always difficult to be left out of a team at any time regardless of whether you've just put in the two best performances of your life in an England shirt," Butcher said.

"But I don't think there'll be any animosity between himself and Ben. If you look at it in a cold fashion, the guy that's taken Sam Curran's place in the side from the start of the series is actually Chris Woakes.

"It's very tough on the young lad, but he's immensely talented, and his time will come again without any shadow of a doubt."

http://www.skysports.com/cricket/ne...ns-face-to-learn-a-lesson-says-nasser-hussain

 

[kingusama92]

No punishment at all. He has done no cricket related offence so his employer should mind their own business.

Happens all the time.

Multiple North American athletes have been suspended for similar actions. While they were not guilty in court, this had no bearing on the league's decision. They only care about the business and its image, which is brought down with behavior like this.

Most businesses are run this way.

 

[UN talkz]

He should be made to do #Dele celebration and slapped with a fine of $100000

 

[MenInG]

Media Advisory – Cricket Discipline Commission – Ben Stokes/Alex Hales

ECB NEWSROOM - Sep 18, 2018 14:00 BST


The independent Cricket Discipline Commission (“CDC”) today confirmed that Ben Stokes and Alex Hales have each been charged by the ECB with bringing the game into disrepute.

Each player has been charged with two counts of breaching ECB Directive 3.3 and will be required to attend a CDC Disciplinary Panel Hearing in accordance with the CDC Regulations.

ECB Directive 3.3 states:

“No Participant may conduct themself in a manner or do any act or omission at any time which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket or which may bring the ECB, the game of cricket or any Cricketer or group of Cricketers into disrepute.”

Who: The composition of the CDC Disciplinary Panel will be: Tim O’Gorman (Chair), Chris Tickle and Mike Smith.

When: The CDC has ruled that the Disciplinary Panel Hearing will be held on Wednesday 5th and Friday 7th December 2018.

Where: The Hearing will be held in private in London. The CDC Disciplinary Panel’s rulings will be published following the Hearing.

 

[Amjid Javed]

The charge of Affray that leveled at Stokes was always going to hard to prove and it was a joke the law tried to go for such a charge, its plain to see if he would have been charged with assault then he would be clearly locked up by now.

He was in a drunken state and his behavour was disgusting and therefore should be banned for a while by england. I see it no different to incidents that marlon black (W.Indian on tour of Australia) or Warner during an Ashes series (Fight with Joe root) he should be given a ban.

Also behaviour isnt much better then Ben Ducketts either who was banned for a while.

Will england ban a player before a World cup or major Ashes series? I doubt it.

 

[Amjid Javed]

In effect he already served a five-test ban.

I agree with the rehabilitative work with kids who have been in trouble with the law. Though they might look at his example and think.... I will be found Not Guilty too.

A loud mouth thug like stokes is no role model for anyone and should help no one, his behavior on a cricket field most of the time is not great.

 

[HitWicket]

The charge of Affray that leveled at Stokes was always going to hard to prove and it was a joke the law tried to go for such a charge, its plain to see if he would have been charged with assault then he would be clearly locked up by now.

He was in a drunken state and his behavour was disgusting and therefore should be banned for a while by england. I see it no different to incidents that marlon black (W.Indian on tour of Australia) or Warner during an Ashes series (Fight with Joe root) he should be given a ban.

Also behaviour isnt much better then Ben Ducketts either who was banned for a while.

Will england ban a player before a World cup or major Ashes series? I doubt it.

You can't see the difference between knocking out 2 violent armed men dishing out homophobic abuse and swinging at a fellow sportsman because he's wearing a fancy-dress beard?

 

[Amjid Javed]

Even if he were guilty, what does it have to do with cricket? Did he fix a match, or tamper with the ball? What players do in their spare time is their business.

As it turns out, he is not guilty, of anything, bar looking a bit too desperate to get into a nightclub at 2 am.

Let's move on please. Nothing to see here.

Hes not guilty of a stupid charge levelled at him like Affray. If common sense had prevailed and he was charged with Assault things would have been much different. Its almost as though tougher charge was aimed for knowing if probably wouldnt be found guilty on it.

 

[Amjid Javed]

You can't see the difference between knocking out 2 violent armed men dishing out homophobic abuse and swinging at a fellow sportsman because he's wearing a fancy-dress beard?

Regardless of either someone has raised there hands when they shouldnt have, Stokes was an innocent bi stander was he?

My point is if warner was banned for a lot less then so should stokes is same levels of punishment are been given out.

 

[HitWicket]

Hes not guilty of a stupid charge levelled at him like Affray. If common sense had prevailed and he was charged with Assault things would have been much different. Its almost as though tougher charge was aimed for knowing if probably wouldnt be found guilty on it.

If he was charged with assault instead of affray there would be more room for the defence to make a claim of self-defence/defence of others. With affray that didn't matter as much because it was about a bystanders perception.

 

[HitWicket]

Regardless of either someone has raised there hands when they shouldnt have, Stokes was an innocent bi stander was he?

My point is if warner was banned for a lot less then so should stokes is same levels of punishment are been given out.

Raised their hands? They were swinging glass bottles and improvised metal crowbars at peoples heads as well as putting their arm around Stokes's neck.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Raised their hands? They were swinging glass bottles and improvised metal crowbars at peoples heads as well as putting their arm around Stokes's neck.

Should stoke have been out and in a drunken state in 1st place? Yes players are not robots and should be allowed out, facts are he was out in a state and got into trouble. Something players shouldnt be doing if they can control their actions while out.

 

[HitWicket]

Should stoke have been out and in a drunken state in 1st place? Yes players are not robots and should be allowed out, facts are he was out in a state and got into trouble. Something players shouldnt be doing if they can control their actions while out.

Have you seen the police body-cam footage from immediately after the incident? Stokes hardly looks to be in a state. Infact he looks very sober, aware and polite/understanding for someone who's just been involved in that brawl.

 

[Amjid Javed]

Have you seen the police body-cam footage from immediately after the incident? Stokes hardly looks to be in a state. Infact he looks very sober, aware and polite/understanding for someone who's just been involved in that brawl.

There self defense and theres go and throwing extra punches, kicks as well. Again what was stokes out that late in 1st place when players who have had clear cerfews in place and expectations on them on how to behave.

 

[HitWicket]

There self defense and theres go and throwing extra punches, kicks as well. Again what was stokes out that late in 1st place when players who have had clear cerfews in place and expectations on them on how to behave.

Pretty sure it's been stated their is no set curfew.

Self-defence doesn't have to just include the immediate moment after an attack. His defence would've made a point that Stokes was under the belief that if he stopped it would've given the 2 guys the opportunity to carry on their attacks. They'd have used the fact that the first guy who got knocked out ran away straight after therefore had the opportunity to exit the violence, but instead returned to it with a metal pole. They'd have then made a point that Stokes was walking away from the second guy (before he got knocked out) giving him an opportunity to exit the violence which he instead used as an opportunity to put his arm around Stokes's neck. From that both men demonstrated they didn't really have any intention of letting it be.