- Tennis assault
again, that red mist takes no prisoners.
Personally I respect the fact that Nalbadian cared about the result so much, whether he’s a posh boy or not has nothing to do with it for me. Shame about the freak accident no doubt.
Shin guards & gum shields for line judges?Posted 5 years ago
Shame about the freak accident no doubt.
So how unlikely does the outcome have to be for you to consider it “freak”? How many times out of a 100 do you recon I could boot it like he did with you sat behind it and you not get injured? Assuming you think 99 or 100 for you to consider it “freak”.Posted 5 years agoTurnerGuyMember
David N would have been pretty sure that the boarding would give way if he kicked it, as otherwise he would have possibly broken his foot, or at least hurt it enough to give him some trouble during the match.
But didn’t particularly care about the consequences, probably due to this ‘red mist’ that is being suggested, or maybe because he didn’t consider what might, and did, happen, thinking the flimsy bits of wood would just fly out of harms way.
A stupid error.Posted 5 years ago
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.Posted 5 years agodon simonMember
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. 😛Posted 5 years agodeludedMember
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 reasonably foreseeable result (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.Posted 5 years ago
The topic ‘Tennis assault’ is closed to new replies.