What about bats? Should they be made out of foam rubber?Fair point, although netting wouldn't have helped Bryce Florie, for instance.
You’re messing with us.
What about bats? Should they be made out of foam rubber?Fair point, although netting wouldn't have helped Bryce Florie, for instance.
You can't be serious.I hate netting, and I'm sorry, you can't convince me it's not distracting. You can't tell me nets that obstruct one's view of the field don't take away from the fan experience. It's fine to advocate for safety, but the "barely noticeable" argument is complete bullshit. I would hate to see entire stadiums shrouded in nets.
But obviously fan safety is a legitimate concern, and if nets are the only option, why not have the first few rows down past 1st and 3rd designated as 'unprotected,' sell them as such, and require fans in that area to bring a glove or wear a helmet? ... like the ballgirl, who is in the line of fire every pitch and never gets injured.
That’s what I was getting at. There’s gotta be a way to make netting less visually noticeable. Thinner but stronger string, grey string, white or clear like fishing line.The hockey rink my son plays at has netting from the top of the glass to the ceiling all around the ice. The netting is white. It takes about 20 seconds to get used to watching the game through it. The debate about obstruction seems ludicrous to me.
They literally do this exact thing in the Tokyo Dome. The “excite seats” are the (expensive) box seats down the line, are the only seats from pole to pole without netting, and come with either a helmet or a glove.You can't be serious.
Oh, then that puts a whole new paint job on things.They literally do this exact thing in the Tokyo Dome. The “excite seats” are the (expensive) box seats down the line, are the only seats from pole to pole without netting, and come with either a helmet or a glove.
The Tokyo Dome also has young women wearing halter tops and hot pants with kegs of whiskey strapped to their backs serving drinks. No idea if they serve fans in the “excite seats” though.They literally do this exact thing in the Tokyo Dome. The “excite seats” are the (expensive) box seats down the line, are the only seats from pole to pole without netting, and come with either a helmet or a glove.
Yes, those backwards Japanese and the idea that people should be able to knowingly and voluntarily choose to assume a risk have no relevance to this great country.Oh, then that puts a whole new paint job on things.
There are many differences between hockey netting and baseball netting. Baseball has more wires, viewing at greater angles, and glare/reflections from the sun. But even if they were exactly the same, it's ludicrous to think that everyone observes things exactly like you.The hockey rink my son plays at has netting from the top of the glass to the ceiling all around the ice. The netting is white. It takes about 20 seconds to get used to watching the game through it. The debate about obstruction seems ludicrous to me.
I think of it like this. Playing hockey growing up, you had the full wire cage. You do not notice it after a quick adjustment period. Your brain ignore the small obstructions and it doesn't affect your view of anything. And that's an inch or two from your eyes, not dozens of feet away with thinner mesh and bigger holesThere are many differences between hockey netting and baseball netting. Baseball has more wires, viewing at greater angles, and glare/reflections from the sun. But even if they were exactly the same, it's ludicrous to think that everyone observes things exactly like you.
I hate netting, and I'm sorry, you can't convince me it's not distracting. You can't tell me nets that obstruct one's view of the field don't take away from the fan experience. It's fine to advocate for safety, but the "barely noticeable" argument is complete bullshit. I would hate to see entire stadiums shrouded in nets.
But obviously fan safety is a legitimate concern, and if nets are the only option, why not have the first few rows down past 1st and 3rd designated as 'unprotected,' sell them as such, and require fans in that area to bring a glove or wear a helmet? ... like the ballgirl, who is in the line of fire every pitch and never gets injured.
The kegs on their backs are full of beer. They carry small containers of whiskey in trays strapped to the front of their outfits.The Tokyo Dome also has young women wearing halter tops and hot pants with kegs of whiskey strapped to their backs serving drinks. No idea if they serve fans in the “excite seats” though.
And yet, it's still pretty badLittle girl hit on May 29 had skull fracture, brain contusions, and brain swelling (edema).
Thank goodness it wasn't even worse.
AgreedSome work needs to be done to find the least obtrusive way to extend netting, but we we can't accept 2-year-olds with skull fractures and seizures as acceptable risk. That kid could very well have seizure/migraine issues the rest of her life.
Sorry if that takes away from your fan experience, but children getting brained with 100 mph liners takes away from my fan experience.
Some work needs to be done to find the least obtrusive way to extend netting, but we we can't accept 2-year-olds with skull fractures and seizures as acceptable risk. That kid could very well have seizure/migraine issues the rest of her life.
Sorry if that takes away from your fan experience, but children getting brained with 100 mph liners takes away from my fan experience.
I agree with what you are saying but the ball club should also realize it`s a high risk area. A casual fan may not think about it at all. When buying a seat in a high risk area something should be communicated to the buyer.This is a tragedy, 100% for sure, but some (more than some in my estimation) of this falls on the shoulders of the adults who brought a 2 year old to the game and sat in high risk seats.....they need (or needed) be be more diligent, or just make a better choice, perhaps not sit in a high risk section. If you as a parent decide to take that risk, then you damn well better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect your kid from any harm.
Teams are hesitant to tell fans they are sitting in high-risk areas because that implies that other seats are low-risk, when the message should be that everyone needs to be at least somewhat vigilant.I agree with what you are saying but the ball club should also realize it`s a high risk area. A casual fan may not think about it at all. When buying a seat in a high risk area something should be communicated to the buyer.
Before the netting mandate, there used to be signs in Seattle for the fans in high-risk seats. I don’t recall the exact wording, but it was something like, “You are close to the action. Beware bats and balls leaving the field.” Before the game, there would be an announcement on the PA to the effect, “if you’re afraid of getting clocked by a bat or ball leaving the field, take your ticket to guest service for a free swap to a seat in the 300 level.”Teams are hesitant to tell fans they are sitting in high-risk areas because that implies that other seats are low-risk, when the message should be that everyone needs to be at least somewhat vigilant.
I’m in favor of expanded netting, but there will always be some risk at the margins, and precautionary measures will never eliminate the need for fans with young children to exercise a modicum of common sense.
Huh?A team that admits there are "high risk areas" is a team that has admitted it is aware of the high risk and has decided to do nothing about it.
It’s on the back of every ticket in tiny print along with a ton of legalese - what fraction of people do you think read that?Huh?
They admit it on the back of every ticket they sell.
Have you read one lately? The Holder voluntarily assumes all risks incident to attending a game of Baseball, whether occurring before, during, or after the game, including specifically (but not exclusively) the danger of being injured by bats, balls or other objects leaving the field, or by others in attendance. The Holder agrees that Major League Baseball, the Seattle Mariners (the “Club”) and its opponent, and the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District, and all individuals affiliated with such organizations, are not liable for injuries, expenses, claims or liabilities resulting from such causes.
And if you'll read my earlier post #75, you'll see that they did quite a great deal more than nothing to acknowledge and offer to mitigate that risk. But people assume bad things won't happen to them.
There are plenty of seats at every ballpark where fans are at zero risk of being struck by a ball or bat. Most seats are perfectly safe.I think multiple people in this thread have made a case for people not bringing their kids to games because of danger.
I think the press around this issue will have an effect on people taking their kids to games because of danger.
Sure, but you'd be surprised at how poorly casual fans are at differentiating between the safe and dangerous seats. My wife is an English teacher, and a few years ago, her department planned a meet-up at a Louisville Bats game, families included. It was obviously going to be a casual event, with a number of non-fans attending for the social aspect. The section they bought tickets in was 10-15 rows deep behind 3rd base. The organizers had no idea. Nor did anyone in attendance before I mentioned that we better keep our heads up. Sure enough we had 5 or 6 screamers in our direction that luckily only scared the hell out of people. You can't assume everyone's going to know where the dangerous areas to bring a kid are, and MLB really wants people to continue bringing kids to ballgames. Extend the damn nets.There are plenty of seats at every ballpark where fans are at zero risk of being struck by a ball or bat. Most seats are perfectly safe.
No, I wouldn’t be surprised. My only point is that if you want a safe seat at a ballpark, there are plenty of them.Sure, but you'd be surprised at how poorly casual fans are at differentiating between the safe and dangerous seats. My wife is an English teacher, and a few years ago, her department planned a meet-up at a Louisville Bats game, families included. It was obviously going to be a casual event, with a number of non-fans attending for the social aspect. The section they bought tickets in was 10-15 rows deep behind 3rd base. The organizers had no idea. Nor did anyone in attendance before I mentioned that we better keep our heads up. Sure enough we had 5 or 6 screamers in our direction that luckily only scared the hell out of people. You can't assume everyone's going to know where the dangerous areas to bring a kid are, and MLB really wants people to continue bringing kids to ballgames. Extend the damn nets.
You're missing the point. I grew up immersed in the game. I take my 18-month-old daughter to games, because I want her to love it as much as I do. And I know where it's safe for her. But you can't expect the average fan to have that knowledge. And if we want baseball to grow, people need to be comfortable taking their kids to games. And right now, lots of people aren't comfortable. And I can hardly blame them.No, I wouldn’t be surprised. My only point is that if you want a safe seat at a ballpark, there are plenty of them.
I’m not the one missing the point. I don’t expect all fans to know which seats are safe for small kids. Or safe for anyone. Again, all I’m saying is that there are plenty of safe seats at ballparks. If people want to buy tickets in safe sections it’s easy to do. I’m not making an argument against netting.You're missing the point. I grew up immersed in the game. I take my 18-month-old daughter to games, because I want her to love it as much as I do. And I know where it's safe for her. But you can't expect the average fan to have that knowledge. And if we want baseball to grow, people need to be comfortable taking their kids to games. And right now, lots of people aren't comfortable. And I can hardly blame them.
It's easy to do for you and I. We know the safe sections. It's not so easy if you didn't grow up with the game and are just trying to have a fun night at the ballpark with your kids.If people want to buy tickets in safe sections it’s easy to do. I’m not making an argument against netting.
Disagree. It’s very easy. Buy tickets in the upper decks or back rows of the grandstands. Or bleachers seats. The cheap seats are almost always safe. Or box seats close up behind the screen. This is all common sense and requires almost zero baseball knowledge.It's easy to do for you and I. We know the safe sections. It's not so easy if you didn't grow up with the game and are just trying to have a fun night at the ballpark with your kids.
It's still just an idea which hasn't been proven, and they aren't even sure what the cause of the better centering could possibly be. The pill hypothesis came out as a possible next area for investigation from the initial study after they ran out of time and failed to find the cause for the higher velocities.If you believe, as Manfred does, that a more precise centering of the ball's pill is causing less drag, higher exit velocities (with more home runs and fan injuries a result) isn't part of the solution returning to a slightly off-center pill? At least until sufficient netting is in place? Unless I am completely missing the posts, I'm surprised this revelation by MLB as related to fan injuries hasn't been discussed in here. And I'm blown away that MLB attorneys apparently didn't consider the potential liability this admission represents.
It's common knowledge to you and I, because we know the game. It wasn't common knowledge to the person organizing my wife's school's outing, because they just wanted to get good seats. It 100% requires baseball knowledge. If you're in the section between 3rd and home, you're unlikely to get any hard-hit fouls. If you're in the very next section behind third, you're in a dangerous area.Disagree. It’s very easy. Buy tickets in the upper decks or back rows of the grandstands. Or bleachers seats. The cheap seats are almost always safe. Or box seats close up behind the screen. This is all common sense and requires almost zero baseball knowledge.
The safest seats at minor league parks are usually the closest seats to the field because there's a net. I've attended a few games at Hadlock Field this year with my 70 year old father. The first game we were in box seats behind the 1B dugout and he was disappointed by the netting because he wanted to catch a foul ball and had assumed he'd be in prime position. The subsequent games we sat in the general admission bleachers that mostly are above the netting and we witnessed some screaming liners over the top of the net that almost always caught the folks in the target area by surprise. No serious injuries that I'm aware of but this is where most of the groups (business outings, youth sports outings, school outings, etc) sit. Half the kids are playing around paying no attention the field. It wouldn't take much for one of them to get clocked in the back of the head by a ball.It's common knowledge to you and I, because we know the game. It wasn't common knowledge to the person organizing my wife's school's outing, because they just wanted to get good seats. It 100% requires baseball knowledge. If you're in the section between 3rd and home, you're unlikely to get any hard-hit fouls. If you're in the very next section behind third, you're in a dangerous area.
Also, the danger is just as real in minor league parks. Where they're all "cheap seats", and more likely to attract people attending games as a social event.
Fuck I'm never driving againTerribly sad story, and I understand your disgust, but unless you keep your child in bubble wrap, you can’t protect them from everything.
taking your child to a MLB game, the drive to/from is likely more dangerous than the game itself