Red Sox to expand netting behind home plate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
First we had nets behind home
Then they got moved
Now they're going to be moved again

So why weren't they this far out in the beginning?
Because players are bigger now?
Because bats are better now?
Because the game is no longer focused on producing ground balls anymore?
Because the game is more focused on power hitting now?
Because bats splinter more now?
Because we're no longer ok as a society with people getting killed at work in easily preventable accidents?
Because we're no longer ok with a kid's face being smashed being a normal part of seeing a baseball game?

Things change.
 

richgedman'sghost

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 13, 2006
1,868
ct
So I'll contact the moops, Red Averages, and OurF'ingCity the next time I have a pair come up for sale. Thanks, guys!
Hey Max include me in the group email if you are selling tix. I would be sincerely interested. How much do you want? Do you have playoff tickets?
 

Buffalo Head

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2001
6,864
San Diego, CA
I just wanted to add this to the discussion, in terms of people saying, "well, you wouldn't need the nets if fans got off their phones and paid attention!"

Major and Minor League Baseball want you on your phones at the ballpark. This is not a secret. They actively encourage it. They want you using their ballpark aps and taking selfies and posting them to social media to show what a great time you're having at their games. This is especially true in the Minors. So they have no problem reducing the risk of injury created by fans not paying attention to every pitch by adding nets. It's the price of doing business in a social media age. And it's not changing back.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
Because players are bigger now?
Because bats are better now?
Because the game is no longer focused on producing ground balls anymore?
Because the game is more focused on power hitting now?
Because bats splinter more now?
Because we're no longer ok as a society with people getting killed at work in easily preventable accidents?
Because we're no longer ok with a kid's face being smashed being a normal part of seeing a baseball game?

Things change.
You're telling me Benintendi hits harder than Teddy Ballgame or Manny? I don't buy it.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
I just wanted to add this to the discussion, in terms of people saying, "well, you wouldn't need the nets if fans got off their phones and paid attention!"

Major and Minor League Baseball want you on your phones at the ballpark. This is not a secret. They actively encourage it. They want you using their ballpark aps and taking selfies and posting them to social media to show what a great time you're having at their games. This is especially true in the Minors. So they have no problem reducing the risk of injury created by fans not paying attention to every pitch by adding nets. It's the price of doing business in a social media age. And it's not changing back.
This I buy. Thank you, BH.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,203
I disagree. The issue here is people using this "how far is too far" bullshit to turn something specific into some ridiculous generalized thing for the sake of argument.

The issue is whether or not they should move it further. Would moving it further be safer for the fans? Yes or no. There is no slippery slope. There is a kid that got hurt, and the potential for it to happen again.

This isn't about the sidewalks. This isn't about food safety. This isn't about traffic. That is all 100% bullshit and beneath this site.
Kids got hurt all the time before and we didn't do anything about it. Kids get hurt a lot more often by a million other things. It's not that she got hurt. It's that she got hurt in an age of social media and this got on the twitters and instafaces. (Thanks, BH) MLB and the teams don't really care about your safety. If they did, they would have done this much earlier.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
I've been to a lot of baseball games at all kinds of levels, and I'm still amazed that more fans don't get hurt by rocket line drives down the lines. When I was a kid, a lot of people paid attention to the games and brought gloves. Now though (and here's my "get off my lawn" statement), so many people aren't even watching the game - they're chatting away or taking selfies or checking their phones, etc. How more people don't get seriously injured is beyond me.
I think that at minimum, each ballpark should identify which seats present a realistic danger (perhaps color coding them) and make certain that every patron understands the risks of those seats. In other words, if the fan doesn't want to pay attention - they should choose one of the "safe" seats. Ditto if they bring a kid. This isn't meant to preclude the need for netting - but to avoid the Japanese method or, even worse, some outrageous insurance-driven "solution".

As obsessed fans, we all know where the particularly dangerous seats are. If I'm lucky enough to get one of those, my eye is on the batter for every pitch (based on the handedness of the batter). If I choose to ignore things, then I know I'm taking a risk...one that I should be allowed to take.

Where we all get bent out of shape is watching people on their phones who choose good seats but pay no attention.

Do amateur fields have protection? Not the ones I've seen lately - and those bleachers or standing areas are brutally close to a line drive hitter.

There's no perfect solution. At least identify the dangerous areas and let people make their own choices.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Kids got hurt all the time before and we didn't do anything about it. Kids get hurt a lot more often by a million other things. It's not that she got hurt. It's that she got hurt in an age of social media and this got on the twitters and instafaces. (Thanks, BH) MLB and the teams don't really care about your safety. If they did, they would have done this much earlier.
Ok. And? So it's not worth protecting kids because Facebook?
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I am happy with no nets. However, kids should not be permitted in seats deemed a high risk from batted balls. Thats just common sense and unfortunately many parents dont have it (which is why we have laws protecting kids from them) . Able bodied adults should be warned of the risk and make their own choices on where to sit. Perhaps these tickets should come with an insurance policy that provides them with added coverage should they be injured or disabled. Offering helmets and masks for those who request them should be considered (mainly for tag along spouses or dates who would prefer to be elsewhere)

The status quo is beyond unacceptable. Criminal negligence in some parks comes to mind (YS3 with all those bombers) but I'm no lawyer
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Yeah. Or they could put up a net, which is a cheaper and easier solution.

But the idea that it's kids at the ballpark in the good seats that are the problem is an interesting one. And by "interesting" I mean "asinine."
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
Thats just common sense and unfortunately many parents dont have it
This just isn't true. I'd like to think I have a fair amount of common sense, probably a bit more than average, but like all of us I'm amazed at times about things that did not occur to me as obvious except in hindsight.

We want children, old people, disabled people to attend baseball games. At least I do. Because the ballpark is one of the happiest places on earth, and I want as many people to experience that as possible. When I see a dad and a little girl at a game, it makes me happy. When I see boy without a limb at a ballgame, it makes me happy. When I see "Happy 100th Birthday Ethel" on the scoreboard, it makes me happy.

Should it be obvious to parents that certain seats are dangerous? I don't know. Am I unjustified in thinking that a roller coaster was designed by an engineer to stay on the tracks? A guy brings his daughter to a game. He sees nets. He sees railings. There's no net in front of his seat. He's probably thinking, "I wonder how much the ice cream is." Should he be thinking, "well, is there really much of a difference between this section and one 20 feet away that's behind a net; maybe this is dangerous"? Yeah, maybe. Whatever. Is he a dipshit or a bad parent if he doesn't think that right away and thinks instead, even if not consciously, "well, this seat without a net like that one over there must be ok or they wouldn't sell it"?

Only in hindsight. Is this a result of the "nanny state"? Or is it a result of the fact that when you put up a sign that says, "falling rocks" or you create the FAA, it can reasonably make people at least believe that someone is paying attention to safety.

I happened on this thread and was a bit surprised to see two pages worth of posts today and it was not one that I was paying much attention to. I think -- I'm not sure but I think -- I started reading the last 100 posts or so with an open mind. It wasn't an issue I started out with an opinion about. I haven't seen a thread on SOSH where those I regard as the non-crazies -- and there are plenty of non-crazies on both sides of this debate here -- have had a serious debate that doesn't involve politics that has struck me as so one-sided as this. This is so easy.

"I don't like the nets because they negatively affect the way I view the game, and I don't care if that means more people get hurt, including children, and perhaps catastrophically" is not an invalid opinion or desire. But own it instead of dressing it up.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
"I don't like the nets because they negatively affect the way I view the game, and I don't care if that means more people get hurt, including children, and perhaps catastrophically" is not an invalid opinion or desire. But own it instead of dressing it up.
No, it's invalid. It's invalid and it's idiotic, and it should be called out as such.

The idea that those seats should be filled by people more capable than most of reacting quickly to a line drive coming their way or that those who aren't who sit there anyway should simply accept any injury that may occur if they aren't quick enough is insanity unless we want to continue seeing viewership among younger demographics fail to keep up with sports like football or basketball.

We want young kids in those seats. We want people using social media in those seats. We want all fans having the ability to not only sit in those seats, but to engage with the game in whatever way they want because that's good for hooking more people as regular fans. That's good for growing the fanbases of the teams. It's good for branding.

Put up the nets to keep people safe. Run them all the way down to the foul poles. The reasons for not doing so are asinine.
 
Last edited:

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,664
Mid-surburbia
My family shares grandstand season tickets with zero net-related impediments and we also can't move them for face the last couple years, so a BIG el-oh-el to poor Max Power's first world troubles. The sellout streak is over, demand has cratered since 2013, deal with it.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
No, it's invalid. It's invalid and it's idiotic, and it should be called out as such.
I agree that it's idiotic, but not that it's invalid. I mean, you and I agree on the whole thing, of course, but my point is fighting the cognitive dissonance.

The slippery slope arguments, or the crazy reductive arguments, are not only meant to try to be persuasive to others, they are intended by their bearers -- at least some of them -- to deceive themselves. If you can convince yourself of one of those arguments, you avoid admitting what your real opinion is to yourself. And you avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with having an opinion that would make you uncomfortable.

Owning the argument is the first step toward letting someone else -- or yourself -- convince you that it's wrong.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,650
The cradle of the game.
I think that at minimum, each ballpark should identify which seats present a realistic danger (perhaps color coding them) and make certain that every patron understands the risks of those seats. In other words, if the fan doesn't want to pay attention - they should choose one of the "safe" seats. Ditto if they bring a kid. This isn't meant to preclude the need for netting - but to avoid the Japanese method or, even worse, some outrageous insurance-driven "solution".

As obsessed fans, we all know where the particularly dangerous seats are. If I'm lucky enough to get one of those, my eye is on the batter for every pitch (based on the handedness of the batter). If I choose to ignore things, then I know I'm taking a risk...one that I should be allowed to take.

Where we all get bent out of shape is watching people on their phones who choose good seats but pay no attention.

Do amateur fields have protection? Not the ones I've seen lately - and those bleachers or standing areas are brutally close to a line drive hitter.

There's no perfect solution. At least identify the dangerous areas and let people make their own choices.
+1

This thread perks up every time a fan gets hit because we get to see the carnage in a hi-def super-slo-mo that instantly goes viral, repeating ad nauseum for a news cycle or two. And we are hit across the forehead with how sinfully easy/inexpensive/righteous preventative solution A, B and C might be. It's human nature.

What gets lost is the basic understanding that bad things happen to good people. Everything we do as fans, as men, women and children carries risk. Yet we choose to travel 700 mph at 33,000 feet knowing that bad hombres are at work trying to crash planes. Why? Because we are presented with and fully understand that safeguards are in place to shrink risk to the point we are comfortable assuming it. But the risk remains and undoubtably more aviation disasters will happen. When we have a few drinks after work and then fumble around for the ringing smartphone while hurtling down the Pike at 80, we willfully assume massive risks because, you know, we do it all the time. We're in control.

But we're not in control. Risks large and small manifest, shit happens, and it happens every single day. The key to making good risk assumption decisions is being presented with and understanding accurate information about the inherent risks associated with activities we participate in. It's okay to fly. It's not ok to drive impaired/distracted. The information for both activities is readily available and easily understood.

A warning written in 3-point type on the back of a ticket is information presented poorly. It's not easily consumed or understood. An overwhelming majority of fans do not understand that being crammed into a seat while very small and hard objects are darting around in excess of 100 mph, in an environment that masks the senses with the distraction of countless external stimuli, is an EXCEPTIONALLY risky situation. Understanding that baseball is a dangerous sport for the spectator can be the only foundation upon which other mitigating measures are built, not the other way around.

For those of us who fully understand this risk, live baseball - especially in the lower bowl - is an experience no other spectator sport can match. We embrace the risk because we understand it, even desire it, because we want to be as close to the game as possible.

So let's make sure all fans fully understand these risks before we start turning ballparks into net-shrouded but oh-so-safe frontons. If I want zero risk, I'll watch it on NESN.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,131
Back when men were men, dugouts didn't have screens in front of them.

It's good to see that the same people who think they can manage the team also think that they can snag line drives just by flexing their immense testicles.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,047
It's not that she got hurt.
No, it’s totally because she was hurt. If people weren’t getting hurt they wouldn’t be putting up netting. I imagine the brass are forced to actually see the carnage and deal with the fallout and I highly doubt they are having conversations around small sample sizes or social media. That just strikes me as an incredibly callous and cynical view of a child needing facial reconstruction.

someone decided that the downside outweighed the upside[/URL]
This is inarguable. They also made that assessment the two times they’ve put up more netting. None of this is likely based on data, right?

I think that at minimum, each ballpark should identify which seats present a realistic danger (perhaps color coding them) and make certain that every patron understands the risks of those seats. In other words, if the fan doesn't want to pay attention - they should choose one of the "safe" seats. Ditto if they bring a kid. This isn't meant to preclude the need for netting - but to avoid the Japanese method or, even worse, some outrageous insurance-driven "solution".
Maybe they could even put signs to this effect in view of every seat in this location! Then no one will ever not be paying attention.

Maybe specialized ushers to make sure everyone in every “dangerous” section is watching every pitch. Make sure that the vendors also stop moving and face the field. They could probably jam the cell phone signals before each pitch as well.

I’m sure labeling seats as “safe” will be a gangbusters business decision.

Where we all get bent out of shape is watching people on their phones who choose good seats but pay no attention.
They need to watch the game “the right way”!

There's no perfect solution.
There isn’t which is why they chose a very inexpensive method that doesn’t cost them any sales revenue.

When we have a few drinks after work and then fumble around for the ringing smartphone while hurtling down the Pike at 80, we willfully assume massive risks because, you know, we do it all the time. We're in control.
Holy shit is this a serious thought? Driving drunk is totally like taking your 9 year old to a baseball game. Totally.

A warning written in 3-point type on the back of a ticket is information presented poorly. It's not easily consumed or understood. An overwhelming majority of fans do not understand that being crammed into a seat while very small and hard objects are darting around in excess of 100 mph, in an environment that masks the senses with the distraction of countless external stimuli, is an EXCEPTIONALLY risky situation. Understanding that baseball is a dangerous sport for the spectator can be the only foundation upon which other mitigating measures are built, not the other way around.
That’s why they have signs on the backs of seats and walls close to the field. And make PSAs several times a game. It is a risky situation. That’s why they put up nets. Because it’s easier than making sure everyone who purchases a ticket in those areas is paying attention at all times and physically capable of avoiding 100+ mph baseballs. They put diseased lungs on cigarette packages and people still suck em down.

We embrace the risk because we understand it, even desire it, because we want to be as close to the game as possible.
LOL! EXTREME!!! You desire 100mph fastballs at your face? Really?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I am happy with no nets. However, kids should not be permitted in seats deemed a high risk from batted balls. Thats just common sense and unfortunately many parents dont have it (which is why we have laws protecting kids from them) . Able bodied adults should be warned of the risk and make their own choices on where to sit. Perhaps these tickets should come with an insurance policy that provides them with added coverage should they be injured or disabled. Offering helmets and masks for those who request them should be considered (mainly for tag along spouses or dates who would prefer to be elsewhere)

The status quo is beyond unacceptable. Criminal negligence in some parks comes to mind (YS3 with all those bombers) but I'm no lawyer
This is one of the more short sighted posts I've seen in a bit.

People are routinely making the argument that baseball interest is dying, especially in youth, but yeah, lets ban kids from sitting close so that someone with season tickets behind the on deck circle doesn't have a guide wire in their picture. That helps.

It's not just about kids, though they are obviously the most vulnerable. And it's not about being 'able bodied'. You can walking back to your seat from the bathroom and take a line drive off your forehead even if you're sober and intently following every pitch while in your seat (which no one does). Haven't we had at least two recent incidents of adults at Fenway being severely injured?

The only arguments against extending netting are lines of sight, which is ridiculous imo. Cost is NOT an issue (I know you're not making that case but some are). This is every bit a 'get off my lawn' argument. It's a very simple solution to a problem. That it doesn't solve all the problems is not a reason to not do it.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Interesting to think of a handful of sports. Come right down to it, football is probably the safest of all for spectators.

I'm surprised more people aren't hurt in the millionaire seats at basketball games. Car racing is something people attend with witnessing a crash and flying debris always in the background.

What are the most dangerous spectator sports? I'm guessing amateur baseball is near the top.

Golf? Sumo? Buzkashi?
 

Monbo Jumbo

Hates the crockpot
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 5, 2003
25,229
the other Athens
.... Car racing is something people attend with witnessing a crash and flying debris always in the background.

What are the most dangerous spectator sports? ...
I remember Norwood Arena having to put up more fencing after some injuries in the stands. The old man never let us go to the stock car races there. He'd seen the casualties first hand as a doc at Norwood hospital.

Humans are evolving, now with their heads permanently lowered. Self-driving cars can't come fast enough for the eejits driving while looking at their phones.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,566
02130
I disagree. The issue here is people using this "how far is too far" bullshit to turn something specific into some ridiculous generalized thing for the sake of argument.

The issue is whether or not they should move it further. Would moving it further be safer for the fans? Yes or no. There is no slippery slope. There is a kid that got hurt, and the potential for it to happen again.

This isn't about the sidewalks. This isn't about food safety. This isn't about traffic. That is all 100% bullshit and beneath this site.
Well, some people might believe that it's too far already. And without examining data it's hard to refute that unless you make an emotional argument -- one injury prevented is worth it!. And that same argument would call for extending it much further than it already is.

I honestly would like to know where the optimal place to put the nets is. I'm not sure it's correct now in either direction. We don't have to have a slippery slope, we just shouldn't react to every single occasion. That's not the way to set any kind of policy. If you told me "moving the nets here would stop all balls that had less than X seconds reaction time before they reached the stands because those are the foul balls likely to cause the worst injuries" that would make total sense. But I haven't seen that.

It's not yes or no, it's how far and what degree of risk is acceptable. Yes moving it further would be "safer" to some degree, but that's not really helpful.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Well, some people might believe that it's too far already. And without examining data it's hard to refute that...
Here's some data: a kid got her face caved in the other day because there wasn't a net.

You guys are the ones bringing emotional arguments into the mix, because there is no "data" that shows "things have gone too far". The arguments all boil down to: "I like things the way they are, and don't want to be inconvenienced in the name of safety, no matter how marginally."

That's really all this is about. As others have said, just own it. And if it makes you feel like a bit of a dick to own it (which it must because nobody is willing to come out and say it), then maybe reconsider *why* instead of making up some hypotheticals about cost or possible ulterior motives of which there's no evidence.

I think this article sums it up pretty well:

THE most casual visitor at any baseball park cannot but notice the wire screens behind the catcher's box and generally along the first and third base lines. To the great majority of customers these screens are nuisances since they obstruct their vision of the playing field. Certainly a baseball park in which all the seats were screened would lose patrons. If nothing else the possibility of retaining balls hit into the stands as souvenirs is attractive to many and would be eliminated by complete screening. On the other hand, if there were no screens whatever, others would not attend games for fear of bodily injury. The screening of a portion of the stands therefore is a compromise between conflicting demands.
Oh, it's from 1940.
 
Last edited:

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,528
South Boston
To all those that are saying "get off your phone and pay attention and you won't get hit"...have you ever had a baseball hit near you while sitting in the stands? A line drive coming at you 85-100 MPH ( and not in a straight line)...gives you a split second to react. It's hard to do.

Tony Mazz made a good point yesterday. He said trained, professional players have trouble getting safely out of the way of a pitch....and they KNOW it's coming. A fan in the stands isn't expecting it, so their reaction time is delayed until it's probably too late.

Put the nets up.
 

sfmainer

New Member
Oct 8, 2005
45
Honest to goodness people, get a grip. No casual fans buying tickets - good ones, close to dangerous areas - means no professional sports. None. The RedSox and MLB are in the entertainment business, not the make sure our obsessed fanatics are 100% pleased all of the time business. Hockey put up nets ages ago, everyone complained, everyone forgot. This is a non-issue.
 

BoSoxLady

Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2003
3,447
I’m 100% in favor of eliminating injuries. That said, I’ve been a STH (Weekend Plan) at Fenway for decades and I’ve seen more fans injured by being drunk or engaging in altercations with drunks than by batted balls or broken bats.

There will never come a time when the Red Sox stop selling alcohol. AAMOF, they expand their alcohol locations every year.

I was very nervous about the addition of the dugout to dugout netting the Sox installed in 2016. My seat is on the 1B side of the plate, just past the old netting. I chose that location because I didn’t want my view restricted. I sit above the walkway and I believed the height of the new netting would not impair my view. Wrong. The pic is from opening day 2016. As you can see, there are cables everywhere. The net behind the plate was extended to my section as well, so I have heavy guage vertical cables in my line of sight as well as the horizontal cable that’s holding up the new netting to the dugout. As another poster mentioned, the pitcher is cut in half.

The netting itself isn’t horrible. Not invisible but manageable. The park looks like a friggin’ circus to the point there’s cables everywhere.

I’m fine if the Sox want to add more netting but they should consider less intrusive cables as well.
 

Attachments

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
So let's make sure all fans fully understand these risks before we start turning ballparks into net-shrouded but oh-so-safe frontons.
Can we all agree this is a literal impossibility? What would be the plan here. Do they heard all the people in "at risk" seats into a room where they review all the safety information and test their reflexes to insure they are qualified to sit there before letting them go to their seats. The vast majority of people have no way of conceptualizing how fast a ball or piece of a bat can get to them. They can believe with all reasonable certainty they will be ready and able to react. People overestimate their abilities and underestimate the risk all the time, it's basic human nature.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
For those of us who fully understand this risk, live baseball - especially in the lower bowl - is an experience no other spectator sport can match. We embrace the risk because we understand it, even desire it, because we want to be as close to the game as possible.
Taken to its logical conclusion, doesn't this support an argument that there should be no nets whatsoever because, hey, sure a stinging foul ball directly behind the batter in the home plate seats is deadly but if you're sitting there you've assumed the risk!

If that's not the argument, then we are just arguing about how much netting is appropriate, which then is just a cost-benefit analysis between the danger presented to fans and the annoyance more netting causes to fans. Obviously this cost-benefit analysis changes over time due to different technologies, more awareness of where the most dangerous seating areas are, etc.

But to suggest that protecting fans is pointless because if only they fully knew the risks they could make the choice for themselves is not a good argument because we try to make risky situations less risky every day in every walk of life. You make this point yourself w/r/t airplanes:

Because we are presented with and fully understand that safeguards are in place to shrink risk to the point we are comfortable assuming it.
Why aren't more nets similar such "safeguards" that allow us to shrink risk further?

(Edited because my initial post probably mischaracterized the post I was responding to.)
 

moretsyndrome

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2006
2,158
Pawtucket
The entire rest of your post refutes this though. If you were 100% in favor you wouldn't be complaining over and over about having to look at some cables
Her point is still valid, though. Selling alcohol at parks is a much, much more dangerous practice than not expanding netting. Even if it's often mixed with other factors, it has to result in injury at rates several times higher than what batted balls inflict. We all know there's a simple solution, and it would result in a 100% reduction in the number of alcohol-related injuries (except for those that arrive hammered, I guess), but nobody's bringing it up seriously.

I'm sorry, based on attendance of 73 million people in MLB last year, the risk is not large enough to mandate this change. If a team wants to choose the option, so be it. Still, it's an outsized reaction.

It's like school buses. One little kid decides it's a good idea to "hide" behind a wheel and gets killed. It's terrible. But think about the billions of bus rides that go off without incident. In the wake of that one incident, the whole structure got upended. Additional employees (at taxpayer cost, but whatever), The time spent peering under the buses in the one in a billion chance there's a kid hiding there. It's insane.

You have to be able to live with some risk. You have to use your best judgment. I'm under no illusion that I have the reflexes to casually grab a 100 MPH liner every time it's near me. I'm also under no illusion that, even as someone who's way more intense than a casual fan, I'm immune to distraction during a game. But I know how to divide, and I know that if I go to 1000 games, it's a real long shot that I'll ever have to deal with a dangerous situation from a ball or bat.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,446
Rogers Park
Are you a season ticket holder who's tried to sell any seats lately? I've lost money on pretty much every game I haven't been able to attend the last two years and haven't even been able to give away tickets for a couple games. Who knows what the breakdown for reasons are for that, but it's true.

I hated the nets when they went in and still hate them. Actually, I don't hate the nets, I hate the giant wires attaching them to the structure 400 feet away. They go right through your view of the pitcher to home plate - the worst possible location for them. There has to be a way to protect the couple hundred fans behind the net without impacting the view of 15,000 others who are provided no benefit.
This might be an argument for Japanese-style foul pole to foul pole netting. Otherwise, we're just quibbling over whose seats are disrupted by the support wires for the netting.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,415
Somewhere
The argument for netting and alcohol (simultaneously) is pretty easily made when you realize that it's a revenue argument.

MLB teams feel that fans aren't going to be dissuaded by the netting and I see no reason to disagree with them. The most expensive seats in the park are behind home plate and nets have been there since forever.
 

BoSoxLady

Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2003
3,447
The entire rest of your post refutes this though. If you were 100% in favor you wouldn't be complaining over and over about having to look at some cables
Where did I complain "over and over?" I reiterate that I have no issue with the netting. The netting and the cables are two different issues. Most likely the Red Sox will extend the netting for 2018. How difficult would it be for the Red Sox to replace the current cables with something more narrow?

Our house has a pool enclosure that has hurricane Cat 5 cables holding it down. The cables are as thin as a strand of angel hair pasta. My pool enclosure took on Irma and won! That's what I'm talking about.

BTW....JetBlue Park in Fort Myers has no netting except behind the plate and it's not attached to the facade. Every spring training we see dozens of people walking around the park with babies with zero protection. Of course, that's not a Red Sox issue, Lee County owns the facility.
 

BoSoxLady

Rules Red Sox Nation with an Iron Fist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2003
3,447
The argument for netting and alcohol (simultaneously) is pretty easily made when you realize that it's a revenue argument.

MLB teams feel that fans aren't going to be dissuaded by the netting and I see no reason to disagree with them. The most expensive seats in the park are behind home plate and nets have been there since forever.
This is true however, most of the seats behind the plate are owned by the Red Sox or corporations. There are a handful of regular folks who own those seats.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Her point is still valid, though. Selling alcohol at parks is a much, much more dangerous practice than not expanding netting. Even if it's often mixed with other factors, it has to result in injury at rates several times higher than what batted balls inflict. We all know there's a simple solution, and it would result in a 100% reduction in the number of alcohol-related injuries (except for those that arrive hammered, I guess), but nobody's bringing it up seriously.

I'm sorry, based on attendance of 73 million people in MLB last year, the risk is not large enough to mandate this change. If a team wants to choose the option, so be it. Still, it's an outsized reaction.
The bolded is quite seriously amusing to me. "It'll work 100% of the time, except when it doesn't!"

I don't think anyone is arguing that alcohol causes more accidents, as opposed to being realistic about options.

No alcohol sales would mean lesser revenue from sales and sponsorships - that's not going to happen. No alcohol would mean smaller attendance (I for one would not go to a game if I couldn't buy a beer) - that's not going to happen.
Short of installing breathalyzers at the gates, people that do go will drink off site and show up drunk or bring a flask that would require everyone to be frisked or searched - that's not going to happen.

That they can't fix every risk doesn't mean they shouldn't fix the ones they can.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
There is the issue of culpability (which goes hand-in-hand with liability) that's being ignored and/or willfully conflated with "risk".

People sitting behind 1st base during a game are minimally culpable when a ball hits them in the head.

People who get drunk, or climb on nets, or hang from railings, etc... are culpable for whatever negative consequences result, because they took an affirmative action to place themselves at risk.

The goal is not to eliminate all *risk* of injury, because that's impossible. The goal to reduce as much as possible the culpability of the team for injuries that occur. Like everything else in our complicated lives, this is not a black and white issue, but one of grays. Or, if you prefer, a spectrum, where the team's opinion on what constitutes an acceptable amount of culpability may change from time to time, based in part on revenue concerns, current events, and public outcry.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,650
The cradle of the game.
Can we all agree this is a literal impossibility? What would be the plan here. Do they heard all the people in "at risk" seats into a room where they review all the safety information and test their reflexes to insure they are qualified to sit there before letting them go to their seats. The vast majority of people have no way of conceptualizing how fast a ball or piece of a bat can get to them. They can believe with all reasonable certainty they will be ready and able to react. People overestimate their abilities and underestimate the risk all the time, it's basic human nature.
Not sure how my point that "all fans should fully understand these risks" becomes your straw man's reflex testing? But there are plenty of instances where satisfying comprehensive cognitive and physical requirements are strictly enforced in the public arena. Example:

https://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/inflight-experience/emergency-exit.html
 

moretsyndrome

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2006
2,158
Pawtucket
The bolded is quite seriously amusing to me. "It'll work 100% of the time, except when it doesn't!"

I don't think anyone is arguing that alcohol causes more accidents, as opposed to being realistic about options.

No alcohol sales would mean lesser revenue from sales and sponsorships - that's not going to happen. No alcohol would mean smaller attendance (I for one would not go to a game if I couldn't buy a beer) - that's not going to happen.
Short of installing breathalyzers at the gates, people that do go will drink off site and show up drunk or bring a flask that would require everyone to be frisked or searched - that's not going to happen.

That they can't fix every risk doesn't mean they shouldn't fix the ones they can.
Right, but if your aim is to make all ballparks safer overall (not my aim, BTW - I think they're fine and also have had at least a couple of beers at every game I've attended since 1984), then heavier alcohol restriction would go a lot further than more nets. Or you could do both, I guess.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Right, but if your aim is to make all ballparks safer overall (not my aim, BTW - I think they're fine and also have had at least a couple of beers at every game I've attended since 1984), then heavier alcohol restriction would go a lot further than more nets. Or you could do both, I guess.
It's not like people are standing around doing shots. There's time and amount limitations already in place to try to mitigate issues. If someone is so drunk they're climbing the nets, as Lose is worried about, it's likely not from what they drank after they went thru the turnstiles. It's from getting hammered at the bars outside the stadium, then topping off in the park. There's quite frankly only so many people that are going to spend the time and money to get hammered before the seventh inning on $7 bud lights they have to wait in line for. Or be able to. So again, I think it's kind of neither here nor there. We can all agree the parks will never stop serving alcohol and I think it's kind of a bullshit to claim that more netting would be beneficial is being portrayed as pearl clutching or a nanny state, when the downside is having a guidewire in your field of view.

Edit: I'll also add it doesn't necessarily need to take getting your face smashed in or being impaled by a broken bat for there to be injuries that can be prevented. I'm sure plenty of adults and children get bruised or broken bones from foul balls. There's only so much you can expect non professional athletes to be able to when a baseball is hurtling at them at 90 mph.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
We all know how many accidents will be stopped by ceasing alcohol sales (or stopping it after the 3rd inning or whatever), and we also know how many accidents will be stopped by extending the nets to the foul poles.

If you are in favor of limiting injury then you really have to encourage both of those changes be made.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
If you are in favor of limiting injury then you really have to encourage both of those changes be made.
If you are REALLY in favor of limiting injury, you should encourage teams to ban all spectators from games.

But no one is arguing that teams should seek to eliminate injuries regardless of cost, but instead that where there is a relatively low-cost, low annoyance way to do so, there is no reason that should not be done.

Installing expanded nets does cost some money and (obviously from this thread) does annoy some people, but banning alcohol sales would cost a shitton of money and annoy probably the majority of fans in the ballpark. (That's not to say discussions shouldn't be had about ways alcohol policy couldn't be improved. For example, being more aggressive about kicking out obvious drunk spectators might be one way to reduce injuries without bothering the majority of fans or increasing costs.)
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Ok, how many of each occur each season?
We had stats on injuries from bats and balls earlier in the thread. There have been 2 deaths from balls (one in MLB, one in MiLB) in the past 150 years per an article in the Globe. We've had at least 2 injuries from alcohol just at SoSH Bashes in the past 10 years.

Installing expanded nets does cost some money and (obviously from this thread) does annoy some people, but banning alcohol sales would cost a shitton of money and annoy probably the majority of fans in the ballpark.
It's good you can put a pricetag on this.
 
Last edited:

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
It's good you can put a pricetag on this.
No one except those in the organization can put a specific price on it, but are you really arguing that banning alcohol sales would be less (or equally) costly than installing nets? Even if installation costs way more than one would think, that is a one-time cost (with minimal upkeep costs for repairing the nets, wires, etc.) Banning alcohol sales would be abandoning a massive revenue stream for every future year.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Banning alcohol would be much more costly to the team in terms of lost revenue, obviously. It would also solve many many more injuries than the extra nets would. I'd actually love to see the stats on alcohol revenue and alcohol injuries and other costs (extra servers, security, etc) to see if one could calculate the "alcohol revenue/alcohol injury" rate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.