Doesn't seem implausible. I know we're all brought up with 'Hollywood physics', but the force of a blow by itself is unlikely to knock somebody off their feet, unless they're unbalanced. Even a bullet from a handgun won't. People fall to the ground if they're knocked out or stunned, but not as a direct result of the force of a punch. That's my understanding anyway.

I find the comments by the judge a bit odd,

'I was very uneasy with his explanation that he went outside to 'make peace', which seemed to be an odd expression to use. I was also uneasy with the meeting at the retail park. It was four months after the event and, given he was supposed to be the injured party, I found that quite bizarre.
'The fact he was assaulted by two separate women within a short space of time for no apparent reason strikes me as being quite far-fetched.'
Now forgive me for being niave but the judge clearly has a bigotted viewpoint that women don't attack men, that men must be the instigators in violence.

He has added together a black eye and two friends version of events & come up with assault, now either the sentence shows that there is some doubt in the judges mind as to what has actually happened (in which case he is guessing/assuming a likely scenario) or he has handed out an extremely lenient sentence if he has no doubt that Crookes was the instigator and did not defend himself from violence from the other parties.

Also that not fully remembering events when you've had a few bevvies is a fairly common occurence, does the judge think we have perfect recall when we are sober, he needs to look at previous cases where someone has had a clear view of events as a witness stone cold sober and got things horribly wrong (in all innocence)

The judge is also very niave to think 'bizarre' someone would not want to make things go-away by having a meeting to smooth things over (guilty or not) who wants to go to court even if you are found innocent, it's a traumatic event either way.
I'm not for one instance condoning slapping/hitting out, drunk or not but certainly these things happen when alcohol is involved, yes there are guilty parties, sometimes we never know what really happened. I've seen/read instances of assault the police are not even remotely interested in, even with witnesses and video evidence. It seems that if it is a women on the end of things then you're more likely to 'get a result' for conviction than if it is a women against a man..
Things are never black and white and it is easy to apportion blame/make judgment & one side being believed over another oft on the basis of probability/bigotted viewpoint alone. I have had personal experience of this in (family) court were lies were told from the outset and due to the other party being the 'mother' everything stated was accepted as gospel without a single shred of evidence...

However, he has been found guilty, he has to face up to that, something that will hang over him long after he leaves FC. he should be given an opportunity to continue his career with Hull for now, he should be given strict stipulations as to his future behaviour/conduct, I'd even say that he should undergo regular alcohol/drug testing (which I think should be mandatory in the workplace anyhow) to show the club mean business. One slip, no matter how small then immediate termination.

No he doesn't he says to get attacked by two separate women in a short space of time. "Women" is incidental.

Good post, knockersbumpMKII - I found the judge's words odd as well...


and Judge Houlden said.....
.

All based on newspaper reporting, of course.

He said it was 'far fetched', why would that be? Does the judge not think that women can be violent after a few jars with seemingly little provacation (go out in any town centre most nights & you'll see for yourself)
He made a judgement on probability/his personal viewpoint that they did not attack Crookes first, unless there is an independant witness to say what happened from start to inish he has no real evidence to convict just the say-so of two friends.
The judges words are pretty clear in that he is using probability/guesswork and probably has experience of these types of cases to figure in his own mind how the events unfurled.. I don't know if there were witnesses but the judges viewpoint is bigotted as are most people's when it comes down to these types of scenarios..because women never hit/attack men in their eyes so the man must be guilty...

Nothing against Women! He seems 2 attacks by separate people (who happen to be women) far fetched.

Yeah, I know in your head you think that's fine, but trust me its not and you sound like a prat

He should have at least knocked her down. Imagine if it was travis burns against crookes! Not good release him.

Cutting!

Tubby Travis Bickle would probably miss being 5'3" 17 stone

I still wonder what Miller said to him about his lass "back home"

I'm please Briscoe repeated it too

Exactly how I saw it. Couldn't make it sound right without it sounding like condoning what a court of law has passed judgement on. I guess hull don't believe it neither hence the 'harsh' comment.

The kids made a big mistake in his life. Hands up those of us who haven't done something they are ashamed of?

My late dad used to say, there was only one man who never made a mistake and they crucified him.

Cut the lad some slack, and let him get on with his life. If he screws up again, THEN come down on him hard.

We all knew about this in January this year but the last I heard was he got questioned and nothing came of it.

I personally believe that everyone deserves a second chance but Jason Crookes second chance should have being at another club. Whether he was provoked or not, he is a professional and he represents our club. He should have gone IMO.

Blokes who go out on the and get 'nasty' with women are a scourge on society and a disgrace to the name of Hull FC. We are a family club and ask a lot of the player's wives what they think of what obviously happened.

I am no fan of his actions and yes he was found guilty

Murderers, Rapists & Paedophiles don't deserve a 2nd chance.

He did something that was cowardly and stupid, but to not give him a second chance is wrong IMO.

Don't think the club need to be 'publicly' seen to be doing anything either, I'm sure he'll be dealt with in-house. Just because AP may have remarked that he was treat harshly, doesn't mean he doesn't think he's an idiot in the first place.