Class Action Lawsuit Against MLB re Fan Safety

[InsideTheParker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/sports/baseball/lawsuit-seeks-better-protection-for-fans-from-foul-balls-and-broken-bats.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=wide&state=standard&contentPlacement=1&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F07%2F14%2Fsports%2Fbaseball%2Flawsuit-seeks-better-protection-for-fans-from-foul-balls-and-broken-bats.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
 

 
The suit, filed in Federal District Court in Northern California, said that a number of factors have increased the risk of physical harm to fans in unprotected areas at ballparks: pitchers who throw harder; bats that splinter more easily; distractions like video monitors, contests, mascots and Wi-Fi that leave fans less time to react to a foul ball; and a leaguewide initiative to accelerate the pace of play.
 
 
“Spectators have no protective equipment,” the lawsuit said. “They are not as familiar with the game as professional players. Some in exposed sections are sitting closer to the action than the batter is to the pitcher.” It added: “Attention is often no defense to serious injury from a 90-100-mile-an-hour, screaming fastball or shattered bats with numerous projectile pieces that fly in indiscriminate directions and can reach you before you even realize it’s heading in your direction.”

I'm not sure what that means about "wi-fi." Because the fans are looking at their phones? That doesn't help make their case, so perhaps it means something else.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

No, it doesn't. A lot of people used to not be able to get any cell signal at the park, but wifi has solved that problem so they can remained glued to their phone.
 
However, wifi isn't the problem, it's the lack of netting along the field. What's the justification for not having this up at least to the 1st and 3rd base bags?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

No, it doesn't. A lot of people used to not be able to get any cell signal at the park, but wifi has solved that problem so they can remained glued to their phone.
 
However, wifi isn't the problem, it's the lack of netting along the field. What's the justification for not having this up at least to the 1st and 3rd base bags?

 
Complaints from the people whose view is obstructed?  The number of people who will have to watch through the netting is greater than the number of people in significant danger of being unable to react fast enough to avoid a ball or bat.
 
I understand the argument about the maple bats splintering, but the rest of the "dangers" of sitting so close to the action haven't really changed in the last 100 years, let alone 50 or 20 years, have they?  I'm sure players were lining foul balls off with the same regularity as they do now, and the older parks had seating a lot closer to the field (a la Fenway) than many of the parks these days.  The biggest difference is that people used to go the games to watch games, not the video boards or their phones.
 
I have a hard time believing that the balls/bats are suddenly flying into the seats with such increased velocity that fan reaction time is significantly diminished.  I do buy the notion that the extra distractions can play a role, but they are a passive role at best.  People don't have to watch the video boards at all times and they certainly don't have to have their nose in their phone constantly.
 
Some people won't be happy until the entire world is rounded corners and bubble-wrapped walls.

 

[mauf]

The plaintiff's bar in California makes me nostalgic for old-fashioned ambulance chasers, who at least had the decency to find a person to represent who was actually injured.
 
MLB will incur some attorney's fees, but they'll eventually get this case thrown out.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

No, it doesn't. A lot of people used to not be able to get any cell signal at the park, but wifi has solved that problem so they can remained glued to their phone.
 
However, wifi isn't the problem, it's the lack of netting along the field. What's the justification for not having this up at least to the 1st and 3rd base bags?

 
 

 
Complaints from the people whose view is obstructed?  The number of people who will have to watch through the netting is greater than the number of people in significant danger of being unable to react fast enough to avoid a ball or bat.
 
I understand the argument about the maple bats splintering, but the rest of the "dangers" of sitting so close to the action haven't really changed in the last 100 years, let alone 50 or 20 years, have they?  I'm sure players were lining foul balls off with the same regularity as they do now, and the older parks had seating a lot closer to the field (a la Fenway) than many of the parks these days.  The biggest difference is that people used to go the games to watch games, not the video boards or their phones.
 
I have a hard time believing that the balls/bats are suddenly flying into the seats with such increased velocity that fan reaction time is significantly diminished.  I do buy the notion that the extra distractions can play a role, but they are a passive role at best.  People don't have to watch the video boards at all times and they certainly don't have to have their nose in their phone constantly.
 
Some people won't be happy until the entire world is rounded corners and bubble-wrapped walls.

 
Correct on the complaints of the newly obstructed.
 
But seats are closer to the field these days than they used to be, thanks to "dugout seating" and other stadium enhancements of up close premium seating.

But it's the splintering bats and the cell phone distractions that are the real difference, as has been said.

 

[snowmanny]

 
Complaints from the people whose view is obstructed?  The number of people who will have to watch through the netting is greater than the number of people in significant danger of being unable to react fast enough to avoid a ball or bat.
 
I understand the argument about the maple bats splintering, but the rest of the "dangers" of sitting so close to the action haven't really changed in the last 100 years, let alone 50 or 20 years, have they?  I'm sure players were lining foul balls off with the same regularity as they do now, and the older parks had seating a lot closer to the field (a la Fenway) than many of the parks these days.  The biggest difference is that people used to go the games to watch games, not the video boards or their phones.
 
I have a hard time believing that the balls/bats are suddenly flying into the seats with such increased velocity that fan reaction time is significantly diminished.  I do buy the notion that the extra distractions can play a role, but they are a passive role at best.  People don't have to watch the video boards at all times and they certainly don't have to have their nose in their phone constantly.
 
Some people won't be happy until the entire world is rounded corners and bubble-wrapped walls.

I think this is an interesting point.  I agree with you, basically.  It always pissed me off when I couldn't watch the game because everyone had stood up to watch some nonsense in the crowd, or because bases loaded was a good time to meander past me on the way to the beer stand. Now there's even more stuff from the team itself,  and I personally could do without 90% of the extraneous crap that gets thrown at me at sporting events from Celtics dancers to God Bless America (just about everything except pitch velocity, in fact).
 
But it is true that the team really markets the greater "fan experience" beyond the game itself and to the degree that the team is distracting the fans from the field of play I suppose there is an argument for liability.  Most of that occurs before the game and between innings and plays, however.

 

[FortyFive]

 
I understand the argument about the maple bats splintering, but the rest of the "dangers" of sitting so close to the action haven't really changed in the last 100 years, let alone 50 or 20 years, have they?  I'm sure players were lining foul balls off with the same regularity as they do now, and the older parks had seating a lot closer to the field (a la Fenway) than many of the parks these days.  The biggest difference is that people used to go the games to watch games, not the video boards or their phones.

 
This.  I love going to games.  I understand when I go to a baseball game there is a risk that foul balls and splintered bats may enter the seating area at dangerous speeds.  I accept that risk, because I like watching baseball.  Catering to the "what if" without regard for the majority when it's such a small percentage of injuries as compared to total fans who attend MLB games is ridiculous (though somewhat understandable given how litigious our society has become).  Not everyone is going to be safe at all times.  I actually really like that baseball spells that out on the back of the ticket, and I enjoy being able to watch a game without nets all over the place.   
 
And I get (like in the case of the girl who got hit this weekend) that you sometimes don't have the time to react, even if you are paying attention.  But I do think that's something you accept as a risk when you sit in seats that are close to the field.

 

[RG33]

Just another example of billionaires taking advantage of the little man. Hmmmppphhh.

 

[Jnai]

 
This.  I love going to games.  I understand when I go to a baseball game there is a risk that foul balls and splintered bats may enter the seating area at dangerous speeds.  I accept that risk, because I like watching baseball.  Catering to the "what if" without regard for the majority when it's such a small percentage of injuries as compared to total fans who attend MLB games is ridiculous (though somewhat understandable given how litigious our society has become).  Not everyone is going to be safe at all times.  I actually really like that baseball spells that out on the back of the ticket, and I enjoy being able to watch a game without nets all over the place.   
 
And I get (like in the case of the girl who got hit this weekend) that you sometimes don't have the time to react, even if you are paying attention.  But I do think that's something you accept as a risk when you sit in seats that are close to the field.

 
But this is exactly the problem. No one thinks it can happen to them. You don't maintain complete and undivided attention to the game on the field for the 3+ hours of baseball, and you shouldn't be expected to in order to enjoy yourself. Imagine if hockey had no glass panes, for which the exact same argument could be made (I realize, historically...)
 
I don't know what the solution is, exactly, because I'm not really sure the nets are the answer. But posting warnings on the ticket and at the ballpark or asking people to maintain perfect vigilance during every pitch in order to avoid being struck by a very fast moving and very hard and sometimes very sharp thing is not really a good solution either.
 
Honestly I'm surprised that more people aren't seriously injured every year. That debris hits the crowd quick.
 
And, not in direct response, but the idea that protecting people in the crowd is somehow part of a wussification movement in America in which people need to be safe is frustrating. I want to take my wife to a game and sit in "good seats" without worrying that if she's looking for the pretzel vendor she could end up with the same prognosis as a stroke patient. I know that's dramatic, but that's basically what happened to the lady a few weeks ago, and that seems pretty wrong.

 

[Toe Nash]

But seats are closer to the field these days than they used to be, thanks to "dugout seating" and other stadium enhancements of up close premium seating.
 

I'm not sure this is true. Don't old parks like Fenway tend to have more (edit: less, I mean) foul territory?
 
People have been making a lot of noise about this on twitter (particularly a few reporters who are on a high horse) and it frustrates me because there's not really good data on the risk, or at least no one cites it when getting on their soapbox. Yes a couple Red Sox fans have been hurt and it was scary, but I dont really remember it happening much before this year.
 
I found a couple things in a quick search:
http://reportingtexas.com/into-the-stands-how-safe-is-professional-baseball/
 

 
 
A recent report out of Wake Forest University and North Carolina University suggests that 35 injuries occur for every 1 million fans. More than 110 million fans attended Major and Minor League games in the United States in 2009, which means that 3,850 injuries, reported or not, are likely to have occurred.

Bloomberg says 1750 (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-09-09/baseball-caught-looking-as-fouls-injure-1750-fans-a-year):

 
 
Johnson isn’t far off. About 1,750 spectators get hurt each year by batted balls, mostly fouls, at major-league games, or at least twice every three games, a first-of-its-kind analysis by Bloomberg News has found. 

 
So maybe one injury a game, combining the two? (Double edit: I see the first study estimates major and minor league games, so two injuries every three games is probably close to correct) That seems high, but it's taking into account all injuries, from bruises on up.
 
According to the book "Death at the ballpark," there's only been one death due to a foul ball (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2009/05/youre_out.html)
 

 
 
In the past 150 years, only one fan at a major league baseball game has been killed by a foul ball—a 14-year-old in Los Angeles named Alan Fish.

That's incredibly low. I mean, there were probably dozens of people who died driving home from games in the past year (or driving home from the bar after the game). Climbing the stairs to the upper deck is probably more "dangerous" if you are at risk for a heart attack.
 
Plus, how far do you extend the netting? Some balls that are angled down the line go pretty damn fast -- I'm thinking towards the Pesky pole at Fenway. 
 
When I've sat behind home I got used to the screen pretty quickly, so I don't think that would be a major impediment to my viewing experience, but I don't think it's particularly necessary either. Maybe there should be more studies on the risk and the cost of the screens (in fan experience), but my feeling is that what's worked for 100 years is fine.

 

[dcmissle]

Oh just fuck this. California. Figures.

 

[InsideTheParker]

Perhaps players can be persuaded to turn back the clock fifteen years? 

 
Maple is the wood of choice for the Nationals. Last season, about 70 percent of Major League Baseball players used maple bats, with 25 percent using ash and 5 percent yellow birch, according to MLB Players Association spokesman Greg Bouris.
 
Fifteen years ago, nearly everyone used ash.
 
“I think originally when maple came out, guys tried it because it was something new,” first baseman Adam LaRoche said. “Ash was all we’d ever had. Then maple came out and the thought was that it was a lot harder. Ash has the little grains through the middle of it, and over time, those kind of bury into the wood and make the ash harder, but it takes a while of hitting balls on that spot. Maple was just hard right out of the box, and there wasn’t really a breaking-in process.”
 
Several Nationals said their preference was maple because it’s the harder wood. Nationals hitting coach Rick Schu said that’s why the ball will go farther off a maple bat. Yellow birch is rising in popularity because it’s also a hard wood.
 
 
Ash is softer and tends to flake after repeated use, so players prefer maple’s durability. Maple breaks less often than ash, but it also breaks more violently, prompting MLB to add regulations for the slope of grain in maple bats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/nats-have-their-wood-bat-preferences-but-science-suggests-there-is-no-difference/2014/07/25/c8145624-01e9-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I'm not sure this is true. Don't old parks like Fenway tend to have more (edit: less, I mean) foul territory?
 
.

Fenway used to have more foul territory than it does now, they added two rows in front of Row A about ten years ago.

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

The NHL added netting behind the goals after a fan hit by a puck died.

 

[tonyandpals]

How bad are the seats behind the plate? Do people consider them obstructed?

 

[MuzzyField]

Behind the plate you're mostly just looking straight through the net, similar to the end zones in hockey. Once you start going down the lines I think netting becomes more of sight issue as you have to turn you head to follow the action.
Just give everyone a catchers helmet and call it a day.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Oh just fuck this. California. Figures.

When the East Coast freezes over, you're not welcome here.[emoji19]

 

[BigJimEd]

Behind the plate you're mostly just looking straight through the net, similar to the end zones in hockey. Once you start going down the lines I think netting becomes more of sight issue as you have to turn you head to follow the action.
Just give everyone a catchers helmet and call it a day.

I don't necessarily agree that it would be much different. I think people would get used to it. Plenty of HS and college that have then at least to the dugout.

And this isn't just this year, there was a well publicized case a few years ago about a child getting hit in the face with a line drive. That kid ended up in ICU and needed multiple surgeries.
I think that dad child a lawsuit as well after hearing about another kid getting hit.

And it's not just a matter of paying attention. That is certainly part of it but that child had a second to react. One second from the bat to their head.

I also wouldn't be surprised if more are going into the stands faster than before. It would be an interesting study.

I have no problem with extending the netting. I'm all for them doing it right away.

Either that or maybe they should remove all nets. No need to have any behind the plate. More souvenirs, less wimps.

 

[mauf]

How bad are the seats behind the plate? Do people consider them obstructed?

I did a quick, unscientific survey on StubHub, and it appears that loge boxes directly behind home plate fetch slightly less than comparable seats behind the on-deck circles. I assume that's because of the netting. And that's consistent with my anecdotal experience -- I like sitting directly behind the plate myself, but that's a minority view.

 

[dcmissle]

When the East Coast freezes over, you're not welcome here.[emoji19]

I'll send you some water before it freezes. Deal?

 

[Jnai]

I think I have the same reaction as most people who rarely sit behind the plate: for the first batter, I think the netting is distracting. And then, like magic, it's gone. Vision is neat.

 

[MuzzyField]

The more you have to move your head to the left and right, changing the distance between your eyes and the netting the more annoying it will be.

And we're talking about the most expensive and intimate seats.

Escalators and stairs are far more dangerous to the fan experience than the game.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

The more you have to move your head to the left and right, changing the distance between your eyes and the netting the more annoying it will be.

And we're talking about the most expensive and intimate seats.

Escalators and stairs are far more dangerous to the fan experience than the game.

 
As is Josh Hamilton throwing balls to fans (note:  His teammates still do this).
 
Offer catchers masks to all fans entering so they can be safe from this terrible danger.

 

[BigJimEd]

You joke but they make base coaches wear batting helmets due to the risk. Some fans are closer than that.



How far do the screens go for the Diamondbacks? Didn't they extend them?


I'll be surprised if many teams don't extend them at least to the dugout.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I know about the base coaches (and ball boys) wearing helmets.  That's because one (1) base coach in a minor league game got hit badly in the head a few years ago.
 
One.
 
You can't legislate away all risk in anything.
 
Here's Chase Field from 2015:
 

 
Looks like they do have a screen to the dugout, but their dugout is closer to HP than most fields.  Looks like they extended it one section about 10 fans wide.  Fenway would move 40 more fans width behind screens

 

[BigJimEd]

Thanks for the pic. I couldn't find a clear one. Dugouts do look closer. Still more protection than your see at most major league fields.


No you can't legislate out all the risk but that doesn't mean you can't reduce it where feasible.

I believe that minor league coach died. And yes it only took one which is all it should have. Easy precaution to have them wear helmets. No real downside to it.
But it is another example that the risk to life is real.

Several fans have been critically injured in the last few years. I think it's a matter of time before another dies.


I think they could at least extend the nets partially in Fenway and don't think extending the netting even all the way to the dugout would significantly impact fan experience. Same with other parks.

But it would be nice to have more compete data of where fans may be more vulnerable to serious injury.
Total injuries per spectator doesn't really tell much. What are the danger areas and just how dangerous are those specific areas?


MLBPA had asked for extended netting several times. Players don't want to feel responsible for someone going to the hospital.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Thanks for the pic. I couldn't find a clear one. Dugouts do look closer. Still more protection than your see at most major league fields.


No you can't legislate out all the risk but that doesn't mean you can't reduce it where feasible.

I believe that minor league coach died. . Easy precaution to have them wear helmets. No real downside to it.
But it is another example that the risk to life is real.

Several fans have been critically injured in the last few years. I think it's a matter of time before another dies.


I think they could at least extend the nets partially in Fenway and don't think extending the netting even all the way to the dugout would significantly impact fan experience. Same with other parks.

But it would be nice to have more compete data of where fans may be more vulnerable to serious injury.
Total injuries per spectator doesn't really tell much. What are the danger areas and just how dangerous are those specific areas?


MLBPA had asked for extended netting several times. Players don't want to feel responsible for someone going to the hospital.

 
If one coach dying was enough to make them all wear helmets, then why can players still throw balls in to the stands?  Coaches are paid employees and should have no problem wearing helmets.  Throwing balls in to the stands is not part of the game.  Getting a souvenir is part of the game, and putting up screens to the dugout will stop a helluva lot more slow rollers and one hoppers going in to the seats (or balls being gently tossed by on deck hitters) than it will stop "several fans" from being critically injured.
 
If you don't want to be in the danger zones in a ball park, don't sit in the danger zones.  MLBPA is pandering with their request for extended netting. 

 

[BigJimEd]

Maybe, probably, MLBPA is pandering but they've been pandering for almost a decade, at least.

You'd get a lot more souvenirs if you removed the netting behind home plate. Why not do that? If people don't want to sit in that danger zone then don't. Should Arizona shrink theirs since it is larger than most?

Fact is teams have already determined some areas need netting. How far out the netting goes is random and up to the team. I think more teams will decide to expand it.
They already put up temporary during BP when there would be a lot more souvenir balls going into stands.


Of course I'm not a foul ball guy so that part doesn't concern me individually. But yes there were certainly be a decrease in that regard. Fans would still get foul pop flys though.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

BP rarely has foul balls going in to the stands, due to the batting cage.  They've always put nets between 1B and the stands there for overthrows, if that's what you mean.
 
And I shouldn't reply to your "get rid of the netting behind home plate" comment, but I will, because I already said, folks should have the option of safe areas.  And by having netting in the traditional areas you stop a very high percentage of the "moving really fast" foul balls that go straight back and scare the shit out of people behind the screen.
 
They've already gotten rid of nearly all the danger to fans with current protection, and they can improve fan protection more efficiently a dozen other ways before they expand the netting.

 

[MuzzyField]

The minor league coach was Mike Coolbaugh and he did die.  He played in Huntsville in 1997.  That Stars team was a monster, particularly in the first half.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/minorlbb/news/story?id=2945798

 

[BigJimEd]

MLB required teams a couple years ago to have extended temporary netting during batting practice. This was a change instead in 2012 our 2013.

The reason I brought up behind home plate and Arizona is to demonstrate teams do feel the need to employ safety netting but where the netting should end is up for debate even among teams.

They've already gotten rid of nearly all the danger to fans with current protection, and they can improve fan protection more efficiently a dozen other ways before they expand the netting.

This where we disagree. I don't think they have gotten rid of nearly all the danger.
I think this areas to the left and right if the screen are nearly as dangerous as directly behind. Although it would be nice if we had some good data.
While you've focused on foul balls, there is also broken bat risk in this areas which I think most would agree has increased in recent years.

I'm open to listening to the dozen other areas.
I also do not think extended the nets to the dugout would significantly impact fan experience and isn't very costly for MLB team. So I think that would be easy and efficient way to increase safety.

Granted part of my reasoning for thinking fan experience would not suffer much is from personal experience at smaller parks with small bleachers behind the netting. Maybe it would be different in a large venue but I haven't heard any good reasons for that.

Are there complaints in Arizona?

 

[MuzzyField]

How many fans require in-game medical attention after ingesting some of what currently counts as ballpark food?
 
I guess you could use it to bat away an incoming foul ball.
 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

MLB required teams a couple years ago to have extended temporary netting during batting practice. This was a change instead in 2012 our 2013.

The reason I brought up behind home plate and Arizona is to demonstrate teams do feel the need to employ safety netting but where the netting should end is up for debate even among teams.


This where we disagree. I don't think they have gotten rid of nearly all the danger.
I think this areas to the left and right if the screen are nearly as dangerous as directly behind. Although it would be nice if we had some good data.
While you've focused on foul balls, there is also broken bat risk in this areas which I think most would agree has increased in recent years.

I'm open to listening to the dozen other areas.
I also do not think extended the nets to the dugout would significantly impact fan experience and isn't very costly for MLB team. So I think that would be easy and efficient way to increase safety.

Granted part of my reasoning for thinking fan experience would not suffer much is from personal experience at smaller parks with small bleachers behind the netting. Maybe it would be different in a large venue but I haven't heard any good reasons for that.

Are there complaints in Arizona?

 
Until I see numbers relating to real injuries (not bruises, bumps and scratches), I think any changes are premature.  The Sox have played 45 home games this year and there was one bad accident due to a bat about a month ago, and one pretty bad one with a ball (about a week ago).  And at least the second one said she was planning to go back again.  I think we all can agree that two such incidents making the news in half a season is a whole lot more than we've seen here before.  Get some real numbers and locations of the injured parties and we can discuss this intelligently.
 
 

How many fans require in-game medical attention after ingesting some of what currently counts as ballpark food?
 
I guess you could use it to bat away an incoming foul ball.
 

 
That is one (ok, more than one) of the dozen other things that can be done to protect fans

 

[WayBackVazquez]

I vividly remember this scaring the shit out of me when I was a kid.
 
Back before Shaughnessy took his heel turn.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I have an idea. How about putting bullet proof lexan around the entire seating area up to the 2nd deck this enabling every ticket holder to watch the game on their cellphone when it suits them to pay attention? 
 
Could even make the barrier reflective so that home viewers wouldn't have to put up with watching Rodney wave to the camera every time he's in a shot (as viewed on his cell phone).
 
Maybe even get rid of the lower decks entirely and replace them with indoors theater-style projection screens that show the action on the field, along with waiter service, diaper changing stations, disco areas and first aid kiosks.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I'm all for having to answer a 10 question quiz in order to sit in the "Danger Zone".

 

[hbk72777]

 
Until I see numbers relating to real injuries (not bruises, bumps and scratches), I think any changes are premature.  The Sox have played 45 home games this year and there was one bad accident due to a bat about a month ago, and one pretty bad one with a ball (about a week ago).  And at least the second one said she was planning to go back again.  I think we all can agree that two such incidents making the news in half a season is a whole lot more than we've seen here before.  Get some real numbers and locations of the injured parties and we can discuss this intelligently.
 
 
 
That is one (ok, more than one) of the dozen other things that can be done to protect fans

 
 
We live in a kneejerk society.
 
I'm surprised kids are still allowed to ride bikes  (though they're still covered in pads and helmets, how did we ever survive without them )

 

[BigJimEd]

 
Until I see numbers relating to real injuries (not bruises, bumps and scratches), I think any changes are premature.  The Sox have played 45 home games this year and there was one bad accident due to a bat about a month ago, and one pretty bad one with a ball (about a week ago).  And at least the second one said she was planning to go back again.  I think we all can agree that two such incidents making the news in half a season is a whole lot more than we've seen here before.  Get some real numbers and locations of the injured parties and we can discuss this intelligently.
 
 
 
That is one (ok, more than one) of the dozen other things that can be done to protect fans

agreed we have seen more publicized this season. I don't think the second one is uncommon but who truly knows hire frequent.
We knew of several serious ones similar to the one add Fenway on the past 5 years or so. That's the real concern for me.
However, I also agree and said earlier we could use actual complete data.
How much would extended the nets to the dugout as I suggested some teams may do, actually help? Tough to know for sure.


Where I disagree with apparently most in here is I don't think that extending them will hinder a fans enjoyment. But I can see where others might feel it would.

As for the wussification and getting rid of the lower bowl type comments. There were probably similar comments when they first out up nets. We are just discussing how far out they should go. Where should that random line be drawn.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

I sat behind home plate at the Lowell Spinners game last night with Fratboy.
 
Trying to watch a game through the netting was extremely annoying. 
 
Currently it isn't hard to move to good seats where you don't have to watch through a screen. Extend this to the dugouts and you just won't be able to be close to the action with an unimpeded view.

 

[Average Reds]

agreed we have seen more publicized this season. I don't think the second one is uncommon but who truly knows hire frequent.
We knew of several serious ones similar to the one add Fenway on the past 5 years or so. That's the real concern for me.
However, I also agree and said earlier we could use actual complete data.
How much would extended the nets to the dugout as I suggested some teams may do, actually help? Tough to know for sure.


Where I disagree with apparently most in here is I don't think that extending them will hinder a fans enjoyment. But I can see where others might feel it would.

As for the wussification and getting rid of the lower bowl type comments. There were probably similar comments when they first out up nets. We are just discussing how far out they should go. Where should that random line be drawn.

 
If they had any interest in tracking it, MLB should have a pretty good understanding of precisely what the spray pattern behind home plate looks like.  This is really what should inform each team's decisions as to how far they extend the netting.
 
I understand that it's actually a complex issue from a liability standpoint - meaning that conducting such a study might actually increase a team's legal risk, even if the results of a study cause them to increase the amount of netting - but the reality is that the line being drawn is not random and MLB should be able to determine where the best balance is.

 

[BroodsSexton]

Yeah, but that's minor-league netting. Not the good stuff.

 

[BigJimEd]

 
If they had any interest in tracking it, MLB should have a pretty good understanding of precisely what the spray pattern behind home plate looks like.  This is really what should inform each team's decisions as to how far they extend the netting.
 
I understand that it's actually a complex issue from a liability standpoint - meaning that conducting such a study might actually increase a team's legal risk, even if the results of a study cause them to increase the amount of netting - but the reality is that the line being drawn is not random and MLB should be able to determine where the best balance is.

yes. I think almost all agree that it be helpful to have better data.
Random probably isn't the right word but there is no standard and there doesn't appear to be much data behind where they stop.

The Phillies reportedly plan to increase netting but are just waiting to see if and what MLB may mandate. I think we can expect more netting at many stadiums over the next couple years.

 

[soxhop411]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal  15h15 hours ago
#Phillies plan to expand protective netting; #MLB "actively" working on fan safety. Story:... http://fb.me/6JkdMP6sh 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 
Two incidents, in particular, focused recent attention on the threat that fans experience while seated close to the field.
The first occurred on June 5, when a female fan at Boston’s Fenway Park was struck in the face by a shattered bat, suffering life-threatening injuries. The second was last Friday at Detroit’s Comerica Park, where a woman was struck in the head by a foul ball.

 
 
Yep.  2 incidents in the past 12 weeks.

 

[scotian1]

http://www.wcvb.com/news/woman-struck-by-foul-ball-sues-red-sox-owner/34970290

 

[hbk72777]

Boo hoo. You go to a Nascar race, a Monster truck show or an airshow, you know there's an inherent danger
 
No one is forcing anyone to go.
 
 

 
Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal  15h15 hours ago
#Phillies plan to expand protective netting; #MLB "actively" working on fan safety. Story:... http://fb.me/6JkdMP6sh 
 

 
 
They're just trying to obstruct as many fans from seeing their horrid play more than anything

 

[mauidano]

Been to games this year at AT&T Park in SF and Wrigley Field in Chicago. Sat behind netting in both parks lower sections.  It really isn't that significant of a difference after awhile I thought.  Your eyes adjust. Like using a camera lens, it just refocuses.  Foul balls go everywhere in a baseball park. Bats not so often but it happens.  Choose your seats with your risk tolerance in mind I suppose.  And FFS, put the phone down!

 

[InsideTheParker]

In last night's game in Philadelphia, both the Mets pitcher and the Phillies batter visibly cringed when they saw a fan being hit by a foul ball, just beyond the current fencing. The woman was able to walk off the field, according to Darling and Cohen (?), but they were very sober in their account, apparently upset. They mentioned the above, that the Phillies have plans to extend the netting in that very area.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

http://www.wcvb.com/news/woman-struck-by-foul-ball-sues-red-sox-owner/34970290

This has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Gravity is still a force to be reckoned with at the ballpark.
 

A longtime Atlanta Braves season ticket-holder was seen passionately rooting against a Yankees slugger when he toppled over the upper-level railing at Turner Field on Saturday night, falling to his death on the concrete at least 40 feet below.
***
Murrey’s death was also the 24th fatal fall at a baseball park since 1969, according to Robert Gorman, co-author of a book titled “Death at the Ballpark.” Atlanta has had the most.
 

 
Braves fan’s fatal fall the third at Turner Field since 2008
 
(You get three guesses which Yankees slugger he was rooting against. Passionately.)