It doesn’t bring the core of the game in to disrepute.
Sure it’s a bad look for the sport but he wasn’t trying to alter the outcome of a game. This is a matter outside the sport which is why I find Smith’s much worse.
You’re talking about banning someone for not committing a crime. They are up there with Tim Simona who was banned for life from the NRL.
Yeah it is pretty simple.
Ben Stokes - not guilty, therefore his punches are found to be justified and lawful self defense.
Sandpaper boys - broke the rules of cricket. CA didn't need to ban them for so long, but they chose to, and the players didn't appeal the decision of ban length through the courts.
Trying to compare Ben Stokes not being still banned who has now even been cleared in a court with people who have admitted their guilt and accepted their ban for ball tampering is just absurd. Stokes' had a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and he has now been found not guilty!
To suggest punishing people in employment for acting in lawful self defense is utterly ridiculous. The right to self defense isn't given up just because someone has a high profile and well paid job. Nor can it be given up as terms of employment. Nor should they lose their job or be sanctioned for executing that right.
If ECB or ICC try to ban him now for punching someone, they're in violation of the law. They have to try and claim it was for public drunkenness or something else that brought the game into disrepute. Not the lawfully justified punches as found by the jury. That's how the law works.
The moral of the story, don't attack people with a bottle around Ben Stokes, he'll knock you for six. (Stokes could really cash in on this event now with sponsorship and merchandise deals).
