had the ball flown/ instead

[Maybo]

What would have been an innocuous incident had the ball flown a foot either side of the official instead left her lying on the ground, clutching her throat and screaming in pain. ('So unintended. So wrong', Djokovic disqualified from U.S. Open by Amy Tennery)

I don't understand the above sentence structure. I don't understand the structure of "...an innocuous incident had the ball flown". And why is a comma not needed before "instead"?

I try to rephrase the sentence to see if I understand the meaning: "It would have been an innocuous incident, if the ball had flown a foot either side of the official. Instead, the ball left her lying on the ground, clutching her throat and screaming in pain."

 

[GoesStation]

I've [STRIKE]try[/STRIKE] tried to rephrase the sentence to see if I understand the meaning: "It would have been an innocuous incident [no comma] if the ball had flown a foot either side of the official. Instead, the ball left her lying on the ground, clutching her throat and screaming in pain."

You're right that the original sentence might benefit from a comma where you suggested. We use fewer commas nowadays, though, and it works fine for me without it. Your sentence, on the other hand, should not have the comma you included.

 

[Maybo]

You're right that the original sentence might benefit from a comma where you suggested. We use fewer commas nowadays, though, and it works fine for me without it. Your sentence, on the other hand, should not have the comma you included.

If a comma is not needed, how do we get the hint that which part of the the sentence is "instead" referring to based on the sentence structure?

Because at first I thought of two possible ways to understand the sentences:
1. It would have been an innocuous incident if the ball had flown a foot either side of the official instead.
2. It would have been an innocuous incident if the ball had flown a foot either side of the official. Instead, the ball left her lying on the ground, clutching her throat and screaming in pain.

 

[jutfrank]

What would have been an innocuous incident had the ball flown a foot either side of the official instead left her lying on the ground

The red part is the subject. The adverb instead is a sentence adverb, which belongs to the verb phrase in blue. We don't separate the subject from the following verb phrase with a comma.

The adverb instead usually fixes at the end, but here it's at the beginning.

How do native-speaking listeners understand that instead belongs in the blue part and not the red part? Partly from intonation from the speaker and partly because we can parse the sentence from its overall meaning.

 

[Maybo]

What would have been an innocuous incident had the ball flown a foot either side of the official instead left her lying on the ground

The red part is the subject. The adverb instead is a sentence adverb, which belongs to the verb phrase in blue. We don't separate the subject from the following verb phrase with a comma.

The adverb instead usually fixes at the end, but here it's at the beginning.

How do native-speaking listeners understand that instead belongs in the blue part and not the red part? Partly from intonation from the speaker and partly because we can parse the sentence from its overall meaning.

I see! So the sentence can be shortened like these:

What would have been an innocuous incident instead left her lying on the ground.
Or
What would have been an innocuous incident left her lying on the ground instead.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, exactly. You've got it.