Red Sox to expand netting behind home plate

Status
Not open for further replies.

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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 60+ 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.


It's good you can put a pricetag on this.
Pretty sure you tried to put a price tag on it when you brought up installation costs.

And which two SoSHers died from alcohol injuries that were the result of only what they drank in the park? Why is death the line here? Why do we think reporting of each kind of injury would be equal? If someone takes a foul ball off the chest or tries to catch one and jams a finger they're not likely reporting it. If someone is hammered and does something stupid, it's far more likely that park security and/or police get involved. Injury doesn't need to mean death or disfigurement.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm just saying that alcohol in our own SSS has proven to be much more dangerous than bats and balls. Even our resident vendor and our resident 50-50 raffle guy who spend many innings with their backs to the field haven't reported any injuries from balls and bats.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Again: the issue isn't people getting injured, it's how can the Red Sox reduce their own culpability and liability.

Kid gets smashed in the face with a ball, that's not only (probably) a lawsuit, it's bad PR, and litigating the lawsuit just results in even more bad PR. Guy gets shitfaced and falls down some stairs, well, maybe it's a lawsuit, but nobody is blaming the Red Sox for that one, and there's likely plenty of precedent where the Sox can easily quantify how costly those issues are/aren't.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,242
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.


It's good you can put a pricetag on this.
Didnt a Judge ball hit someone in the head just earlier this year?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,242
I'm just saying that alcohol in our own SSS has proven to be much more dangerous than bats and balls. Even our resident vendor and our resident 50-50 raffle guy who spend many innings with their backs to the field haven't reported any injuries from balls and bats.
So what? Why does that mean that teams shouldn't put up the nets, something for which there is almost zero downside?
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,446
Again: the issue isn't people getting injured, it's how can the Red Sox reduce their own culpability and liability.

Kid gets smashed in the face with a ball, that's not only (probably) a lawsuit, it's bad PR, and litigating the lawsuit just results in even more bad PR. Guy gets shitfaced and falls down some stairs, well, maybe it's a lawsuit, but nobody is blaming the Red Sox for that one, and there's likely plenty of precedent where the Sox can easily quantify how costly those issues are/aren't.
That's the issue right there. Thought about this is a lot as I was trying to sleep last night, and almost came around on pro/con of the net. Mainly for me it is bad parenting and child car seats and stuff. We don't allow parents to use common sense, we mandate what they do if a child is of a particular age or size (at least in the "good states"). There's a lot of bad parents out there.
I want to keep all people safe, at least the kids that are too young to defend themselves. And kids get distracted easily; that's partly what makes them more likeable than adults, they're more playful, for the most part. They see cotton candy or ice cream, and their eyes and mouths turn large.


If this was about preventing harm, then I would be singing a different tune. It's not, it's about PR and liability.

So I'm against the extension of the net not because I am ok with them getting seriously hurt. But because I want them to have a closer interaction with the players and to see the field unobstructed. I will take a better experience for the people, I don't know, maybe what, 500,000, over the course of the season that are affected by the "new net", then the 1-5 people that are hurt over the course of the season by a ball in the stands. And the photos. We have a couple experts on that just here.

It was one thing to remove the home plate side of the dugout interaction, but now it seems the outfield part of the dugout will be lost too. And I like vision. It's probably the only thing I physically possess that's above average.

If we wanted to prevent harm, we would cut alcohol, we would be stronger against drunk driving, we would paint crosswalks better and in more places,we would install sidewalks in rural/far suburban areas. We don't do that. We act about liability. When we, as a society, actually make things about safety, everywhere, then I'll change my tune and will support a Japanese type system, at least within line drive range.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
This is correct. The goal of nets is PR and avoiding lawsuits (have any of those gone to court? Do we know the results?). Not avoiding injuries. It's why Manfredi (almost said Manafort) is urging teams to do this and it wasn't automatically done decades ago.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
One of the primary goals of the civil legal system is to incentivize safety, and instigate those people in the best position to prevent harm to actually do so.

There's absolutely nothing nefarious about this. Putting up the net to prevent people getting hurt is how it's supposed to work. Just because the Sox aren't acting altruistically doesn't make their efforts any less valid.

Nothing about this explains why you are against putting the net up.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I will take a better experience for the people, I don't know, maybe what, 500,000, over the course of the season that are affected by the "new net", then the 1-5 people that are hurt over the course of the season by a ball in the stands.
Because I don't think it lowers risk appreciably, yet it reduces the experience.
I think this begs the question, though, because I'm not sure that the majority of fans would say that not having a net where they are sitting is a "better experience" than having a net. Sure, if you are sitting close and really want to interact with the players, or have a nice camera and want to take pictures, or have sat in the seats for years and have grown used to your view, I can totally see being annoyed by the extension of the net.

But for a casual fan that attends <5 games a year, brings their young kids, spends a decent chunk of time checking his phone or chatting with people around him and paying only 75% attention to the game, I could definitely see the net being a plus, not a minus, because he'd have a bit more peace of mind.

It would be very interesting if the Red Sox conducted a year-long poll of everyone who entered the stadium with tickets in the affected seats as to whether they would prefer expanded netting or not. My guess is that more people would actually prefer the nets or it would be pretty close to 50-50, but that is admittedly a totally subjective guess based largely on my observation when attending games (especially in the past 5 years or so) that there is a very sizable percentage of attendees who to go to the game for the overall "Fenway experience" and care less about a perfect view of the game.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Because I don't think it lowers risk appreciably, yet it reduces the experience.
This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. It bothers you a lot because you think you should be bothered by it. The net is really not obstructive, at all.
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,659
The cradle of the game.
This is a classic self-fulfilling prophecy. It bothers you a lot because you think you should be bothered by it. The net is really not obstructive, at all.
But when I try to take a picture of Bobby Orr throwing out the first pitch on opening day, there's a 2mm black string in the shot!
Oh, come on.

Just go to a damn game and sit there for 3 hours and tell me it doesn't bother you.

x.jpg

Obviously, this was taken behind home where the net has always been, but I assure you, the sight lines behind where the new netting was installed is not that much less obtrusive.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,242
Because I don't think it lowers risk appreciably, yet it reduces the experience.
Fair enough. I dont agree about the experience, and the risk is serious injury, so I'm on the other side, but there's not a lot to argue about.

But for a casual fan that attends <5 games a year, brings their young kids, spends a decent chunk of time checking his phone or chatting with people around him and paying only 75% attention to the game, I could definitely see the net being a plus, not a minus, because he'd have a bit more peace of mind..

I do wish people would drop the whole "not paying attention" part. A regular person sitting 100 feet away when a ball is hit at 100MPH while paying rapt attention will be lucky to avoid getting hit. And then there are things like keeping score, which requires a 5 second look away every so often. Or asking the guy next to you if he knows why Roger Moret is just standing there.

 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,659
The cradle of the game.
A completely honest (non-sarcastic) question: Why has it taken so long for teams to start putting up more nets? I mean, Feller's fastball was estimated to be in the 98-108 (but probably 101) range in the 1940s. I understand equipment and conditioning have evolved to bump up ball speeds by a percent or two, but why all the attention now, 70 years after speeds were already extremely dangerous?
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
20,659
The cradle of the game.
I mean, he basically propelled them to the American League Eastern Division Championship that year. I know this because I have one of the commemorative t-shirts they printed up.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Oh, come on.

Just go to a damn game and sit there for 3 hours and tell me it doesn't bother you.

View attachment 17504

Obviously, this was taken behind home where the net has always been, but I assure you, the sight lines behind where the new netting was installed is not that much less obtrusive.
Quite honestly - though you likely won't believe me - that makes no difference for me and I've sat behind the plate at games plenty of times in many stadiums. It's taken me about ten minutes for my eyes to adjust and naturally phase it out of my line of sight. The guide wires have very little impact on more than a handful of seats. I take it as part of sitting in those seats, it does t really make much difference to me if 'worse' seats also get impacted in a similar manner but I understand STHs getting upset, I do.

I get that people aren't happy if they buy season tickets in a section that didnt used to have them and now do or would if they were extended. But static images don't mean much to me to prove the anti netting point. It's two different things and there's about nineteen other things that would annoy more than a 2mm black cable.

I'm sincerely not trying to be sanctimonious or holier than anyone and I'm sorry if it comes off that way. That photo - or many others posted here by STHs - would impact my enjoyment of the game to an almost completely negligible degree. Yes, I get it that it ruins photos, but sitting watching the game? No, that doesn't do anything noticeably negative for me.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
So what age do you guys think you’ll give up your tickets because your reflexes have faded?
Speaking for myself in my seats in GS 25, where I have only had one lazy foul ball come within ten feet of my seat in thirty years, I'd never give them up due to my reflexes. Yet the net is in my view of home plate and cuts thru the pitcher's upper torso.

You do realize the net interferes with the view of thousands of perfectly safe seats, right?
 

Soxfan in Fla

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 30, 2001
7,187
Oh, come on.

Just go to a damn game and sit there for 3 hours and tell me it doesn't bother you.

View attachment 17504

Obviously, this was taken behind home where the net has always been, but I assure you, the sight lines behind where the new netting was installed is not that much less obtrusive.
I've sat behind home plate a lot in Tampa. The netting has never distracted me nor have I thought it was obtrusive.
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,253
Alberta
Also, a MLB pitcher will almost undoubtedly be killed on the field within the next 10 years. Start planning for that while you're hanging the nets.
At 45 feet away facing jacked up bats on a field the game has outgrown, I expect that to happen in a D1 college softball game sooner...

And for the most part, I have noticed that before the recent push to extend MLB nets, MiLB and Indy league teams tended to have bigger nets than MLB did. The cost of the actual net was never the issue - you probably save enough on baseballs alone in a season to pay for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.