Master Index of Archived Threads


Expanding the netting

41Forever Sep 21 2017 03:08 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Sep 21 2017 03:17 PM

Mike & Mike were talking about the tragic incident with the four-year-old and Todd Frazier yesterday and vented outrage about the lack of netting at games. (This was brief, as they quickly realized that they were not talking about football or LeBron and quickly changed the subject.) I know the Mets have extended the netting, and the minor league parks I've been to now extend them to the length of the dugouts. Do you think this is needed? I don't like sitting behind them, but that might change had I ever been on the receiving end of a screaming line drive foul ball.

Ceetar Sep 21 2017 03:12 PM Re: Expanding the netting

It's a nobrainer, especially as seats get closer and line drives get faster. none of the minuscule complaints about the netting outweigh the benefits of not hurting people.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 21 2017 03:16 PM Re: Expanding the netting

I noticed them sort of subtly when I went to a game after they were installed. It was one of those "did you get a haircut?" moments but I am used to it. Keep in mind I generally sit where only Dave Kingman could reach me with a foul ball. Teams for their own $ake have to be careful for liability issues -- especially because the very $ame concerns drive them to do everything they can to keep you from paying attention to the games. Plus you almost have to accept the fact that people in the Donald Trump Era are complete idiots who are looking at their phones half the time and someone to blame for their problems the other half.

Ceetar Sep 21 2017 03:20 PM Re: Expanding the netting

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I noticed them sort of subtly when I went to a game after they were installed. It was one of those "did you get a haircut?" moments but I am used to it. Keep in mind I generally sit where only Dave Kingman could reach me with a foul ball. Teams for their own $ake have to be careful for liability issues -- especially because the very $ame concerns drive them to do everything they can to keep you from paying attention to the games. Plus you almost have to accept the fact that people in the Donald Trump Era are complete idiots who are looking at their phones half the time and someone to blame for their problems the other half. well, sometimes even the professional 1% of 1% in baseball talent infielders don't handle a screaming line drive. What chance do the rest of us have? or children. without gloves.

Benjamin Grimm Sep 21 2017 03:33 PM Re: Expanding the netting

41Forever wrote: Do you think this is needed? I don't like sitting behind them, but that might change had I ever been on the receiving end of a screaming line drive foul ball. I think that being aware of it happening to a four-year-old girl, even one you don't know, should be more than enough.

Fman99 Sep 21 2017 03:37 PM Re: Expanding the netting

We're more cognizant of it at our local AAA park, only because the screens go as far there as they do at the House that A-Rod built, and because we often get field level seats for these games and we're exposed to some screaming line drives.

Edgy MD Sep 21 2017 03:45 PM Re: Expanding the netting

I narrowly dodged a wickid liner off Josh Barfield's bat at a minor league park. I'm all for the netting. Your eyes focus beyond it and you barely notice it's there. You still get plenty of souvenirs through pops over the netting, and the liners generally get handed under the nets to kids, which is where they should be going anyhow.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 21 2017 03:52 PM Re: Expanding the netting

I told this story before of being at a Texas Rangers game just in front of the 3rd base dugout and watching in fear not for myself but for these chattering kids seated alongside me who had no clue where they were. Sure enough I was nearly decapitated an inning later, and the kids thankfully had gone somewhere else.

d'Kong76 Sep 21 2017 04:04 PM Re: Expanding the netting

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: ITeams for their own $ake have to be careful for liability issues There's still a warning on the back of tickets that has been there for as long as I can remember. Or course even with a magnifying glass I can barely read it but it says, "The ticketholder assumes all risk, danger and injury incidental to the game of baseball or other events and all warm-ups, practices, competitions..." It goes on and on and seems pretty ironclad to me but maybe one of the lawyers here will say someone struck with a baseball has a case. I'm pro-netting and safety first, just not certain that the netting is more of a common sense thing than a liability thing.

Frayed Knot Sep 21 2017 04:14 PM Re: Expanding the netting

d'Kong76 wrote: There's still a warning on the back of tickets that has been there for as long as I can remember. Or course even with a magnifying glass I can barely read it but it says, "The ticketholder assumes all risk, danger and injury incidental to the game of baseball or other events and all warm-ups, practices, competitions..." It goes on and on and seems pretty ironclad to me but maybe one of the lawyers here will say someone struck with a baseball has a case. Just saying it's not your (the team's) fault doesn't necessarily mean you're free and clear and there are multiple ongoing lawsuits involving this stuff - including at YSIII

Centerfield Sep 21 2017 04:19 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Ceetar wrote: It's a nobrainer, especially as seats get closer and line drives get faster. none of the minuscule complaints about the netting outweigh the benefits of not hurting people. Yup. And if you don't like netting, you can sit further out where there is no netting. No brainer. Especially where half the crowd is looking down at their phones or taking selfies anyway. Those guys seem more interested in posting that they are at the game, rather than watching the game.

Centerfield Sep 21 2017 06:34 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Back to this, someone here predicted that someone would have to get seriously hurt before it became mandated. I hope the kid is ok.

Frayed Knot Sep 21 2017 11:23 PM Re: Expanding the netting

As noted in one of the papers this morning, a kid was killed back in 1970 at Dodger stadium. I had never heard of that story previously or if I did I completely forgot about it. The Japanese stadiums (and for the most part they are stadiums, not 'ballparks') have netting down to the foul poles in many cases - except that there are two or three rows in front of the netting known as the "excitement seats" where willing ticket buyers (and presumably not kids or old folks) know what they're getting into and each seat is provided with a helmet and glove (and being Japan, the patrons then neatly leave the glove and helmet right where they found them when the game is over). Note also that these are not the same "excitement seats" as what used to be offered in 42nd Street movie houses.

Gwreck Sep 22 2017 01:32 AM Re: Expanding the netting

The netting is awful. Tragic incidents are just that...tragic. But also extremely rare. Seats aren't getting any closer to the field. And line drives being faster? Maybe? A little? Not substantially so. There are thousands of seats to sit in if one doesn't want to be in a spot where the ball will enter the stands. Put away your phone, pay attention, and mind your children if you want to sit there.

Fman99 Sep 22 2017 01:58 AM Re: Expanding the netting

We generally prefer to not sit behind the netting. And when we do not, I am sure to be in the line between the plate and where my kids sit. When Fmom comes up from Florida and takes in a game with us we always sit behind the plate. Because she's just watching the world go by. Seats behind the plate, at least here in the 'Cuse, are often easier to get than those just past the screens. I find it distracting as do the kids. Fly balls are tougher to track. I've taught the kids to watch the fielders to get a sense of how far the ball was hit.

Edgy MD Sep 22 2017 02:24 AM Re: Expanding the netting

Gwreck wrote: Seats aren't getting any closer to the field. Sure they are. Here's Yankee Stadium I vs. Yankee Stadium II vs. Yankee Stadium III. Here's Polo Grounds vs. Big Shea vs. Citi Field.

Frayed Knot Sep 22 2017 02:27 AM Re: Expanding the netting

Between the old multi-purpose stadiums that were common in the 60s-80s vs the newer ones built since I think there certainly are a number of seats that are closer to the field. And of course we're not talking about netting vs no netting, it's a choice between some netting vs some more netting. That netting is needed isn't in question, merely how much.

Edgy MD Sep 22 2017 02:39 AM Re: Expanding the netting

Distance from home plate to the backstop: Yankee Stadium I: 80 feet Yankee Stadium II: 73 feet Yankee Stadium III: 52 feet Polo Grounds: 65 feet Big Shea: 48 feet Citi Field: 46 feet

Gwreck Sep 22 2017 04:06 AM Re: Expanding the netting

I had a problem with the verb tense. This is the end of the ninth season at the current New York ballparks. There are only 3 stadiums in the majors that are newer. The seats aren't getting closer; they've been in the same place for quite a while now. It's not a small sample size. There isn't some horrible pattern of people getting injured on a regular basis. Yes, there's a risk of having "regular" netting and no more. It's not an unacceptable risk, though. The extra netting is not needed, and calling it a "nobrainer" is, well, very misguided.

Frayed Knot Sep 22 2017 01:22 PM Re: Expanding the netting

I doubt anyone outside the commissioner's office (and maybe not even there) has seen -- or, considering that these are all private companies, will see -- an accounting of how many folks get winged by foul balls (or bats) and how the injuries from them would be characterized. The field manager announcing within two hours after it happened that the girl is "OK" is the extent of what we're going to hear from Yanqui mgm't on this one -- and, seeing as how she remains hospitalized, "OK" seems to mean "not critical" or at least could have a variety of meanings -- as they have at least one and I believe several ongoing lawsuits from previous incidents and stoutly refuse to comment on any of them.

Ceetar Sep 22 2017 01:30 PM Re: Expanding the netting

you drive your car for thousands of hours and never need the airbag or the seatbelt either. Pretty large sample size. People get hurt every year. Maybe not seriously, but it happens. Hell, bats fly into the stands sometimes. Are you supposed to keep your eye on the ball or the bat? These are 110mph projectiles headed right for you. If you're sitting about 6-7 rows behind the ballboy at Citi Field you have roughly 1.5 seconds to see the swing, register that the ball is foul, that it's headed towards you, and to do something about it. 1.5 seconds. are your hands up? Are you holding a beer, or a phone, or a hot dog, or a kid's hand? Did you happen to blink because the sun was in your eyes, or the hot dog vendor just walked past your line of sight? 1.5 seconds. Can you get in front of a child seated 1, 2 seats over in that time? Can you do more than just stick a finger that's about to be broken in front of them?

Edgy MD Sep 22 2017 01:31 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Metropolitan Stadium: 60 feet to the backstop Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome: 60 feet to the backstop Target Stadium: 48 feet to the backstop Braves Field (1946): 60 feet to the backstop Milwaukee County Stadium: 60 feet to the backstop Fulton County Stadium: 50 feet to the backstop Turner Field: 43 feet to the backstop Suntrust Stadium: ~54 feet to the backstop (A COMEBACK!) As for the rates of injuries due to objects flying into the stands, I'm sure MLB and their insurers have data that I don't. Here's a guy writing about the cost-benefit analysis. That was 10 years ago, and I’ve written about being at that game. I’ve talked to several people about being there. I’ve bragged about being there, and I’ve bragged about the seats I lucked into. I’m bragging right now. But this is the first time that I realized that I watched the moment from behind a protective net. I don’t feel as if my memories were cheapened. Because they weren’t. I didn’t notice. It’s the future, and companies are pretty good at making nets you don’t notice, everyone. It was a tradition back before seats were this close to the field, to install 2-4 extra rows in front of row one, for the post season. Very often a ball would go down the line and play would be forced to stop when a fan reaching over the new temporary wall, caused it to collapse. But also, line drives would come firing at these patrons at close to the baseball equivalent of point-blank range. Keith hit one during the 1986 post-season (I think, maybe it was 1988), and he was upset and distracted for an inning or two.

Centerfield Sep 22 2017 02:55 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Gwreck wrote: The netting is awful. Tragic incidents are just that...tragic. But also extremely rare. Seats aren't getting any closer to the field. And line drives being faster? Maybe? A little? Not substantially so. There are thousands of seats to sit in if one doesn't want to be in a spot where the ball will enter the stands. Put away your phone, pay attention, and mind your children if you want to sit there. In theory yes. An able-bodied person can and should put away the phone, pay attention, and mind their children. But what about elderly patrons. A single adult with four children. People with disabilities. It's easy to say "then just sit somewhere else". But why should the majority of field level seats be off-limits to those people? Also, it's easy to say people should put away their phones. This is not going to happen. It's only going to get worse over time, and so, injury is unquestionably forseeable. Rare, but forseeable. The acceptable number of children injured at baseball games is zero. There should be no kids who go to a game and get struck by line drives. Seat belts are obstructive and uncomfortable. Bike helmets are the worst. There should be no need for law enforcement of no texting and driving, no need for advertising campaigns for this purpose, but it's necessary. Because people do it. They will always do it. They text while speeding down the highway at 80 mph with their kids in the backseat. You don't think they're going to text at a baseball game? You have to protect people from themselves. The cost-benefit here is a slam dunk. That's why I think it's a no-brainer. After it's been there for a while, no one will even notice it. In hockey they didn't want to wear helmets. Batters didn't want to wear helmets. Base coaches didn't want to wear helmets. Now we barely notice these things. Put up the nets guys. I don't think it needs to go to the foul lines, but extend it like they did at Citi.

Vic Sage Sep 22 2017 03:03 PM Re: Expanding the netting

The most expensive seats in a stadium are behind netting. Why do those sitting in the less expensive seats along the sidelines deserve to be put in mortal danger? I can't believe this is even a conversation.

Ceetar Sep 22 2017 03:22 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Vic Sage wrote: The most expensive seats in a stadium are behind netting. Why do those sitting in the less expensive seats along the sidelines deserve to be put in mortal danger? I can't believe this is even a conversation. Something something healthcare.

Mets Willets Point Sep 22 2017 04:55 PM Re: Expanding the netting

I think the worst fan injury I ever witnessed was at Harbor Park in Norfolk when a line drive over the first base line seats ricocheted off the upper deck and hit a woman in the back of the head. They carried her off with considerable blood gushing from her head. I think a net would've stopped the line drive before it even got to the stands.

seawolf17 Sep 22 2017 05:36 PM Re: Expanding the netting

We saw a guy fall out of the suites at a Ducks game. That was scary as hell.

batmagadanleadoff Sep 22 2017 08:40 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Centerfield wrote: You have to protect people from themselves. The cost-benefit here is a slam dunk. That's why I think it's a no-brainer. Cost-benefit in favor of more netting is not a slam-dunk. Not by a zillion miles. If there's one thing these soulless corporate bean counters that run MLB know how to do is to count the beans. If this was a slam dunk, every millimeter of every MLB stadium would be wrapped up in netting. Then, on top of that, they'd put every attending fan inside of their own personal net. From a legal standpoint, MLB could probably avoid liability in almost every instance of a fan being struck by batted ball or broken bat based on an assumption of the risk defense.

41Forever Sep 22 2017 09:17 PM Re: Expanding the netting

They need to raise the height of the railings in the upper decks, too. USA Today had an interesting ballpark safety story in May. [url]https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2017/05/26/major-league-baseball-stadium-deaths-falls/102146750/

Frayed Knot Sep 23 2017 12:43 AM Re: Expanding the netting

Edgy MD wrote: [fimg=400]http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/YankeeStadium1976.gif[/fimg] [fimg=400]http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/YankeeStadium_II.gif[/fimg] One thing that's apparent from those layouts of YSII and YSIII is how much less bowed the walls in RCF are making the gap on that side is considerably closer.

bmfc1 Sep 23 2017 01:40 PM Re: Expanding the netting

The first time I sat behind the netting, it was distracting for a few innings and then I didn't notice. If someone says that it blocks their view, they can move upstairs. Every game that the MFYs don't extend the netting is another day that they are putting their fans at risk. The little girl's family should be able to get Otani $ from the MFYs because the MFYs knew of the risk and failed to act. The MFYs will say that the family contributed to the negligence by sitting there despite the absence of the netting. However, even the Court agrees, in NY (unlike, e.g., Maryland) Plaintiff’s damages will be reduced by their own liability, but not barred completely. NY CPLR § 1411 (2012).

batmagadanleadoff Sep 23 2017 02:14 PM Re: Expanding the netting

bmfc1 wrote: The first time I sat behind the netting, it was distracting for a few innings and then I didn't notice. If someone says that it blocks their view, they can move upstairs. Agree. Same experience. After a short while, it's as if the netting's not even there. bmfc1 wrote: The little girl's family should be able to get Otani $ from the MFYs because the MFYs knew of the risk and failed to act. The MFYs will say that the family contributed to the negligence by sitting there despite the absence of the netting. However, even the Court agrees, in NY (unlike, e.g., Maryland) Plaintiff’s damages will be reduced by their own liability, but not barred completely. NY CPLR § 1411 (2012). Despite CPLR § 1411, the assumption of the risk defense will likely bar the entire claim. https://www.leagle.com/decision/2002767300ad2d4671246 http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseri ... _01696.htm

d'Kong76 Sep 23 2017 03:06 PM Re: Expanding the netting

I can't afford major league netting but I've experienced minor league netting and didn't find it distracting or really even think about it being there.

Gwreck Sep 23 2017 05:46 PM Re: Expanding the netting

But why should the majority of field level seats be off-limits to those people? They're not, of course. The vast majority of field level seats have a minuscule risk of getting hit by a line drive hit into the stands no matter what your age, size, disability status, or other physical/mental characteristics are. Rare, but foreseeable. The acceptable number of children injured at baseball games is zero. There should be no kids who go to a game and get struck by line drives. There are any number of ways a child can get injured at a baseball game. Or if they're riding in a car. Or if they go to school. It's impossible to suggest that no one should ever be injured at at baseball game. People - yes, including children - are going to get injured from time to time. I guess you could put everyone behind plexiglass for the entire game; that might do the trick if you really think that no one should ever be struck by a line drive. I strongly disagree that netting is not a distraction or something that one gets used to after a few innings. I don't want to sound heartless but I find the sudden urge to have tons of extra protective netting to be a giant overreaction.

bmfc1 Sep 23 2017 07:56 PM Re: Expanding the netting

Thanks batmagadanleadoff. I hate to think that just showing up and holding a ticket that says "you're assuming all liability" gives a team carte blanche to ignore any safety concerns. Perhaps a difference with those cases is that the MFYs have affirmatively chosen not to extend the netting while other teams did so.