• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

English Domestic Season 2026

Nas207

U19 Debutant
There were two trials and the first was a hung verdict before he was acquitted at the second. There was clearly significant doubt amongst that first jury about what had happened. (The first jury for Alex Hepburn failed to reach a verdict either). Yes, he was found not guilty, but what message does it send to the various women employed by Hants Cricket? They could've signed any bowler in the world, but they went for the one with a questionable record. The fact they just snuck him into a teamsheet rather than publicly announced his signing tells you everything.....
Sure but ultimately he was found not guilty. Most of us aren't lawyers or connected to the case at all so it seems a bit weird to blacklist him from cricket 10 years later.
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It was announced on the website before the teamsheet announced. Either way it was a horrible move in the first place and amazing to think they didn't anticipate the backlash.
 

Molehill

International Coach
Well done social media for leading to the correct outcome

Shame on Hampshire for selecting him slyly in the first place. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Yeah, it was the sly way of doing it that was so dodgy. That's some expensive flight bookings for zero return.

Meanwhile, where there is cricket, I have no idea why Sussex opted to bat first at Chelmsford. Haines and Hughes been watching it zip past their edge until Haines finally nicked one.
 

tony p

State Vice-Captain
It was announced on the website before the teamsheet announced. Either way it was a horrible move in the first place and amazing to think they didn't anticipate the backlash.
Who signed off on him coming in the 1st place.
Maybe that person should be heavily looked out.
 

Stefan9

International Vice-Captain
Sure but ultimately he was found not guilty. Most of us aren't lawyers or connected to the case at all so it seems a bit weird to blacklist him from cricket 10 years later.
***ual Abuse cases were there is only he said/she said have a notoriously low conviction rate. Its why most victims don't want to come forward. In New Zealand its apparently 10%.

The jury not being convinced beyond a reasonable legal doubt doesn't mean any cricket side should be signing or playing him. Just cause kuggeleijn and greenwood have the means to get them off legally doesn't mean the public should accept them in their teams.
 

Nas207

U19 Debutant
***ual Abuse cases were there is only he said/she said have a notoriously low conviction rate. Its why most victims don't want to come forward. In New Zealand its apparently 10%.

The jury not being convinced beyond a reasonable legal doubt doesn't mean any cricket side should be signing or playing him. Just cause kuggeleijn and greenwood have the means to get them off legally doesn't mean the public should accept them in their teams.
Still doesn't make the man guilty. I see Hampshire have changed their tune but not sure I like blacklisting someone after so much time on the off-chance the legal system got it wrong. A jury found him innocent, who the **** are we to judge?
 

mackembhoy

International Vice-Captain
That Durham batting lineup is absolutely stacked.
Agarwal for Clark who's had a poor red ball campaign is an upgrade! But weakened by Carse no longer at 10, but Parky is averaging 40 with the bat this season from 11 :laugh:

Apparently ECB have Carse managing his workload today. Not sure why Raine isn't back yet apparently some family matters.

Our bowling a bit weaker today as Carse took 4 against Gloucs.

But there was no need for a spinner so Parky replaces him today, wonder how much need of a spinner there will be for this game.
 

Xix2565

International Vice-Captain
Sure but ultimately he was found not guilty. Most of us aren't lawyers or connected to the case at all so it seems a bit weird to blacklist him from cricket 10 years later.
It is also part of the evidence of the case that he didn't take no for an answer when propositioning the victim, and that he did hear her say no multiple times while he pestered her. We don't have to act like being found "not guilty" (not "innocent") means he never did a thing.
 

mackembhoy

International Vice-Captain
So Mason Crane (FC batting average 19.8) is now opening the batting for Glamorgan.
He opened in the last game second innings got 7 from 12 balls.

Looks like Zain-ul-Hassan picked up a groin injury in that game. Surely they have another opener at the club or one of the other proper batsman put their hand up.

But he seems to have done a better job today as pinch hitter 27 from 37.
 

Nas207

U19 Debutant
Think it's pretty fair to judge a man who said in court "She might have said 'no, no' a few times but it wasn't dozens of times" & whose defence was basically "reluctant consent is still consent". There doesn't need to be a legal conviction for some moral standards.
And he was found not guilty by a jury who were witness to the entire trial not a single soundbite. Sorry, I don't believe that in this case we have any right to judge.
 

Top