The point you have obviously researched is 'reckless'.

---

@rogevibe wrote:

---

@not_for_sale wrote:

---

@rogevibe wrote:

Regarding line judges is not their job to keep their eyes on the ball and so expected to duck , grin and bare the affront of such an incident with good grace - however if the national culture is of a precious nature.... i can quite well understand the ruling.

Not sure whether a bowler in cricket would have suffered censure for similar. 

 

---

If a bowler drilled the cricket ball at the umpire and hit him in the throat, the bowler would be out for life.

---

Was clearly unintentional - unless Djokovic has eyes at the back of his head - just trying to think of a comparable case in cricket - just for interest sake , i mean tennis rules are tennis rules , i am not disputing the ruling

---

I'll reword it then...

If a bowler angrily and recklessly drilled the cricket ball in the umpire's direction and hit him in the throat, the bowler would be out for life.