***Official*** New Zealand Domestic Season 2016/17

[Bahnz]

Wait, two time?

Yep, afaia his next trial is unrelated to the trial he went through earlier this year.

 

[Howsie]

Nah, I wouldn't be supporting the NZ side if he was ever a part of it.

I'm pretty capable of making up my mind about what happened with him from everything I've read, whether the jury ends up disagreeing with me or not.

Oh right so what happened then huh?

 

[Zinzan]

Oh right so what happened then huh?

Yeah, I love how people want to be the chief judge and jury on cases they know nothing more than what the public is fed.

If the guy is found guilty in the courts, then fair cop. However if he's found not-guilty of any crime, then this should have zero bearing on his potential professional career, whether it's a high profile position or not.

Otherwise what the hell is the point of going through the proper legal process if fans decide they're going to make him guilty in their own minds regardless.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

He's not saying he's not allowed to have a career if he's found not guilty, just that he won't be supporting a NZ side with him in it. Which he's allowed to do. A bit like how no one's going to advocate for Chris Cairns being part of NZ cricket ever again.

 

[Zinzan]

He's not saying he's not allowed to have a career if he's found not guilty, just that he won't be supporting a NZ side with him in it. Which he's allowed to do. A bit like how no one's going to advocate for Chris Cairns being part of NZ cricket ever again.

I never said nor implied he has to support NZ. My point was about these guilty verdict assumptions we're hearing before the case has even been settled.

The guy could end being prosecuted, I just don't think that's for us in Joe public land to decide based on limited information. His exact statement was "I'm pretty capable of making up my mind about what happened with him from everything I've read, whether the jury ends up disagreeing with me or not." Sounds like judge and jury to me.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Edit: actually scratch that, I can't read.

 

[Zinzan]

But you said a not-guilty verdict should have zero bearing on his professional career, when literally no one said otherwise.

Scroll up, there was talk of the public outcry if he was selected in the future, which in turn could place pressure on selectors and NZ cricket, in which case there could be some bearing.

People can say what they want, I just think it's pretty irresponsible for people to decide the outcome in advance.

Let's just let the thing play out in the courts first, it's a horrible predicament to which there'll be no winners regardless.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Yeah I edited that out. Sorry.

 

[SteveNZ]

Yeah, I love how people want to be the chief judge and jury on cases they know nothing more than what the public is fed.

If the guy is found guilty in the courts, then fair cop. However if he's found not-guilty of any crime, then this should have zero bearing on his potential professional career, whether it's a high profile position or not.

Otherwise what the hell is the point of going through the proper legal process if fans decide they're going to make him guilty in their own minds regardless.

The court of public opinion is quite welcome and has the right to judge him on any moral crimes they feel he has committed, even if they don't amount to legal ones.

 

[Zinzan]

The court of public opinion is quite welcome and has the right to judge him on any moral crimes they feel he has committed, even if they don't amount to legal ones.

It's certainly an inevitability, that is for sure.

 

[The Hutt Rec]

I never said nor implied he has to support NZ. My point was about these guilty verdict assumptions we're hearing before the case has even been settled.

The guy could end being prosecuted, I just don't think that's for us in Joe public land to decide based on limited information. His exact statement was "I'm pretty capable of making up my mind about what happened with him from everything I've read, whether the jury ends up disagreeing with me or not." Sounds like judge and jury to me.

Not really, the jury may well decide within the bounds of the law that he's not guilty. The arguments that his own lawyer made were enough for me to be pretty unimpressed with his actions, though.

Personally I believe that the way these cases are put to trial needs an overhaul ... I don't know exactly what form that would take, but I think the way it's done now is outdated and not really working.

But, that's by the by.

I don't know if his international career will continue (or start) unaffected if he is found not guilty. Theoretically it should ...whether NZ Cricket wants to take the public reaction risk is up to them. I think probably he would be selected if warranted on form (after the trial is completed, I doubt very much they'd go there before).

 

[Flem274*]

considering the laywer had to stoop to "your no meant yes right?" i'm going to go out on a massive limb here and say she said no and he stuck his dick in her anyway

i mean look at this

Can you tell us what you mean by saying 'no' in a lighthearted manner," he asked the tearful woman.

"I was saying no," she said. "I was not coming out all guns blazing. I thought I should be adequate saying no. It should not matter what tone of voice I was saying it."

Morgan asked: "Did you mean 'No, not now,' as if you did not mean it?"

"I meant it," she said.

"Were you saying no but not meaning no?"

"I would not say that," she said. "I was also pulling my underwear back up."

Morgan also took issue with an earlier exchange between the pair, in which Kuggeleijn asked whether the woman was "on the pill" – to which she had said yes.

"Did you not recognise that telling him you were on the pill in those circumstances was you telling him you wanted to have *** with him?" he asked.

 

[Zinzan]

Each to their own, I'm not prepared to go out on a limb either way based on limited info, without the full stories, without seeing the body language and general character of all concerned.

Don't think that's fair on either him or the females involved. Let the due process do it's thing.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Each to their own, I'm not prepared to go out on a limb either way based on limited info, without the full stories, without seeing the body language and general character of all concerned.

Don't think that's fair on either him or the females involved. Let the due process do it's thing.

This is... interesting.

 

[vcs]

Ugh.. that conversation is bad. The general debate about legal culpability and how he will be judged by the public is pretty similar to the Ched Evans case. Can't blame people for not wanting to support a team with him in it.

 

[Slippaah]

I'd wager on yes to live scoring, no to a live stream. There is the capability to live stream from Bert Sutcliffe Oval at Lincoln, but I think only with India A's visit they've ever bothered to do it, due to maybe demand.

In similar vein Kippax. Noticed on Auckland Cricket's FB page, in answer to a recent cricket fan query, that Auckland Cricket cannot Live Stream current Plunket Shield action from EPOO because they do not have the rights ! Whose "rights' and to what - its free entry at EPOO, no TV or Radio coverage, and mid week match days are involved with supporters back in the office/workplace keen to follow more than just a scorecard. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Kippax]

Yeah Sky does have the exclusive rights to broadcast a Plunket Shield match, if they ever deemed one worthy of the production expense. They urged NZC to be very firm on this with even me and my own 240p YouTube stuff in the past.

I think they know that the average New Zealand consumer is very close to ditching their decoder and not paying them a cent during the summer. Therefore, if Consumer X has any interest at all in checking out how an emerging cricketer is looking, Sky wants virtually every second of that to be through their channels.

 

[Prince EWS]

Each to their own, I'm not prepared to go out on a limb either way based on limited info, without the full stories, without seeing the body language and general character of all concerned.

Don't think that's fair on either him or the females involved. Let the due process do it's thing.

I think the point some are making here isn't so much that they think he's probably guilty regardless of the court findings, but that even his side of the story makes him decidedly unlikable in their eyes. The presumption of innocence should kick in when there's a dispute over the facts, but there do seem to be some facts that his defence is admitting to which, to me, paint in a bad light even if not an entirely criminal one.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be selected if he's a free man and his performances warrant it, but it doesn't seem an unjust reason to wish others players the opportunities instead, as a fan.

 

[straw man]

awta

Also, CD just lost 4 wickets in 5 balls and are now 42/6 in the final session chasing 158 for the win.

 

[straw man]

Will Young bowled through the gate by Johnson twice in the match. Makes the bowler feel great but that gap between bat and pad should probably not be so easy to find.