Originally Posted by jjaded
If the match was over, the assumption of risk should have ended. This strikes me as the same analysis in Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979), in which a football player punches another in the back of the head fracturing his neck, a violation of the rules, the plaintiff did not assume he risk. In contrast, the OPs hypo about pulling a Lendl and driving a ball hard at an opponent at the net seems to be the exact risk assumed by playing tennis (that a valid return strikes a player).
I don't think that's the same analysis though. The issue in the tennis one is that the practice session ended. The issue in the football game was dealing with a violation of the rules that extended the risk beyond what should be assumed, right? One was accidental, one was deliberate.