Forum menu
convert - don't go all Nabandian on me dude.
if we're talking semantics - i'd say it was a 1 in 10 chance at best of causing that injury, less if the linesman wasn't sitting legs protruded, unprotected - within mm's of a seemingly metal edged loosely fitted hoarding/ball trap contraption.
Tennis players regularly curse & smash their rackets to smithereens, this was merely another manifestation of the same outburst - albeit a slightly more daft manifestation.
i'd say it was a 1 in 10 chance at best of causing that injury
you must work for an investment bank I reckon, with that assessment of risk...
I didn't think it was there for "advertising" purposes, I assumed it was to stop balls rolling under the line judges chair - no ?
I heard this put forward on breakfast TV too, I can't believe that they only have a couple of balls for the game and losing a ball under the chair would cause that much of a problem. 😛
In law it could well amount to a Battery under s. 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 or even s. 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.
Was it ‘reckless’ kicking the advertising hording (or whatever it was) with that level of force in such close proximity to the judge? What are the potential consequences of that act? Was the actual bodily harm a [i]reasonably foreseeable result[/i] (whether or not it was or should have been foreseen by Nalbandian himself)? If so, that is sufficient to satisfy the mens rea for these crimes.
Then you have to decide if it’s in the public interest to prosecute.
for once I detect a lack of testosterone on STW