Nalbandian disqualified at Queens

Interesting end to the final at Queens. Quite funny but right decision to disqualify him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/18479244

 

At least it wasn't at a proper sport!

 

I found it hilarious, feel bad for the guy who got injured but his reaction I couldn't help but laugh.

 

Even though he got cut, he was hopping around like an English Drogba! Especially loved it when he kept looking at the umpire.

 

There was quite a lot of blood in the end. If you look at his leg at about 1.03 on the video it doesn't look too good.

 

It was his reaction which made me laugh, he did milk it a bit haha

 

I doubt he's going to do that. He's an old man, he just can't take it!

 

He craved the attention, nah I am only joking, although he was looking at the empire very Drogbesque, I am not sure if you seen his roll off the chair? That's the funny bit

 

So first he is disqualified when winning then he is fined £8,000 and has his £32,000 prize money waived, he then loses his seeded place at wimbledon and now he is facing criminal charges for assault. Bad couple of days for Nalbandian for a stupid act.

 

Back in eighteen hundred and frozen to death, when I was a copper in the Met, our instruction book described an assault as thus:- An assault is the intentional application of force, by word, act or gesture, or the threat of such force, if the person threatening has, or causes the person threatened to believe that he has present ability to effect his purpose!

Maybe I'm a daft old fool, but I'd love to see them prove the intent!

 

The line judge was a Falkland Islander.

 

I agree, think it's getting blown out of proportion somewhat. He apologised after and obviously didn't mean to injure him. Them Linesman are pointless anyway. What are they actually doing other than having a front row seat with a sponsor around them? They might as well be dressed as Tony the Tiger promoting Frosties. (least he won't get injured)

 

That's what I thought Dave. But there is transferred malice. A intends to harm B but harms C instead, they're guilty of harming C. Nalbandian intended to break the advertising boards but I doubt there is such a thing as transferred malice from an object to a person.

 

That's what I thought Dave. But there is transferred malice. A intends to harm B but harms C instead, they're guilty of harming C. Nalbandian intended to break the advertising boards but I doubt there is such a thing as transferred malice from an object to a person.

 

Sorry for double post. Phone is being a bit of a pain with signal.

 

Oh and is intent could be considered 'reckless' which is enough.

 

Isn't that just vandalism?

 

Interesting debate - if it had been a youth in a hoody kicking in a window that injured a small baby would our thoughts on this be different I wonder and would our reaction to the seriousness of the act change ?