Doug E. Fresh wrote:
Frankely Speaking wrote:
As are you and Armstronglivs.
Nothing gets past you, does it?
That ball would have.
Doug E. Fresh wrote:
Frankely Speaking wrote:
As are you and Armstronglivs.
Nothing gets past you, does it?
That ball would have.
Casually batting a ball off the court does not seem to be "intentional" and with "disregard", as the Default rule requires.
But even so, if that's the rule and it's utterly inflexible without room for leeway or interpretation, the plain fact is tossing the No. 1 seed (and ending a legendary winning streak) for a minor accident shows the rules and game of Tennis are broken... it's unfair, idiotic and bad for the game.
The US Open and Tennis lost of a lot of viewers and fans that day.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Me and my buddies were hanging out watching basketballl when we saw this news Sunday. Not a single one of us could be believe he got DQ'd and to portray it as he hit the ball at the line judge is absurd. He wasn't looking in the direction. Absolutely stupid results-driven decision. Clearly no bad intent on the Joker's part. Why was the lady not paying attention to the point that could hit her in the throat?
Intent is not the driver
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
to portray it as he hit the ball at the line judge is absurd. He wasn't looking in the direction. Absolutely stupid results-driven decision. Clearly no bad intent on the Joker's part.
Wrong. He knows where the line judge stands without needing to look. Also, if you watch very closely, you'll see he does look up just before striking the ball. It is not clear at all that he had no bad intent. I think it is not completely clear either way whether he did or did not intend to hit her. But, it does seem that he did intend to at least hit it in her general direction, and there's no excuse that he didn't know where the line judge stands.
Some people seem to be suggesting that him immediately rushing over and apologizing proves it wasn't intentional, but that's completely false. He could intentionally hit the ball at her, then immediately regret it knowing that he will face negative consequences for it, and rush over in an attempt to do damage control. Immediately rushing to apologize absolutely does not prove a lack of intent.
Anyway, the important fact in this case is that even if he didn't intend to hit her, this wasn't some kind of accidental mis-hit where the ball didn't go where he was trying to hit it. He intentionally hit it in the general direction of the line judge, and he has no excuse for not knowing where the line judge stands.
Ernest wrote:
Casually batting a ball off the court does not seem to be "intentional" and with "disregard", as the Default rule requires.
But even so, if that's the rule and it's utterly inflexible without room for leeway or interpretation, the plain fact is tossing the No. 1 seed (and ending a legendary winning streak) for a minor accident shows the rules and game of Tennis are broken... it's unfair, idiotic and bad for the game.
The US Open and Tennis lost of a lot of viewers and fans that day.
He didn't accidentally hit the ball, so it was in fact intentional. If you hit a ball behind you without looking, you are in fact disregarding who or what the ball may come into contact with.
The rule is not utterly inflexible. Had the ball bounced, lost some momentum, and maybe came up and lightly hit someone on the back they may have barely noticed and he might have gotten off with a warning, if that. The fact is he intentionally hit the ball behind him without regard for where/who it might hit, and the person who did get hit doubled down in pain and had to leave the court.
No viewers were lost. The people doing the most complaining weren't watching or don't follow tennis much anyway and weren't viewers to begin with.
Sounds like he made a mistake. Bolt got dqed for false start. Sometimes thats the way it goes i guess. Learn from it and move forward.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Me and my buddies were hanging out watching basketballl when we saw this news Sunday. Not a single one of us could be believe he got DQ'd and to portray it as he hit the ball at the line judge is absurd. He wasn't looking in the direction. Absolutely stupid results-driven decision. Clearly no bad intent on the Joker's part. Why was the lady not paying attention to the point that could hit her in the throat?
100% correct. Everyone I know that actually saw it feels the same way.
Frankely Speaking wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Understanding the game is.
No it is not.
Unfortunately, you offer proof that it is relevant. As it would be of anything.
PTF wrote:
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Me and my buddies were hanging out watching basketballl when we saw this news Sunday. Not a single one of us could be believe he got DQ'd and to portray it as he hit the ball at the line judge is absurd. He wasn't looking in the direction. Absolutely stupid results-driven decision. Clearly no bad intent on the Joker's part. Why was the lady not paying attention to the point that could hit her in the throat?
100% correct. Everyone I know that actually saw it feels the same way.
Thankfully, pro tennis isn't governed by what you and your (non tennis-playing) buddies think.
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Me and my buddies were hanging out watching basketballl when we saw this news Sunday. Not a single one of us could be believe he got DQ'd and to portray it as he hit the ball at the line judge is absurd. He wasn't looking in the direction. Absolutely stupid results-driven decision. Clearly no bad intent on the Joker's part. Why was the lady not paying attention to the point that could hit her in the throat?
Good thing that USTA doesn't give a sh!t what you and your ignorant basketbro buddies think.
simplicity works wrote:
Yeah, but bats are much more dangerous than tennis balls.
ok... gloves... hats... balls... I've seen kids benched or tossed for throwing all those in frustration.
I'm curious about the potential negligence claim here. How would you define Djokovic's duty of care to the linesman? It's not employer-employee.. would it be simply because he acted unreasonably in hitting a ball while not during a point of the game? Because had she been hit by a ball during a point, there would be no negligence.
aintnothang_ wrote:
I'm curious about the potential negligence claim here. How would you define Djokovic's duty of care to the linesman? It's not employer-employee.. would it be simply because he acted unreasonably in hitting a ball while not during a point of the game? Because had she been hit by a ball during a point, there would be no negligence.
This pretty much covers it:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/negligence-the-duty-care-fault-accident.htmlOne example they give is pretty salient here:
One of the players in a softball game gets angry and throws his bat, accidentally hitting someone who is sitting at the edge of the field watching. Because throwing a bat in anger is not a “reasonable” part of softball, and because the person watching had a right to be there, throwing the bat is a negligent act, and the bat-thrower would be liable for the injuries caused.