Red Sox to expand netting behind home plate

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
In 2005, I had my best seats in over 50 years of attending games at Fenway Park, Dugout box 76, second row. During the game, Gabe Kapler hit a line drive that was heading straight at me. As I dropped my scorebook ready to attempt to catch it?, the fan in font of me reached his hands up and deflected it down where it hit me square in the chest. It then bounced back off me to where he was sitting. It left a purple mark on my chest for two weeks. I think the fan in front had a broken finger. The only change I would have made to this is if I was sitting that close again, I would bring a glove. I can still picture the ball coming with absolutely no spin on it.
That's all well and good, but what about people who bring cameras to games? Think about how they must feel!
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
I stand by my original recommendation: make bubble wrap available for all fans as they arrive at the ballpark. Or maybe for when they leave the house? Can we get stats on accidents en route to the park? I mean, we went to Yankee Stadium a couple weeks ago and saw someone fall off a bicycle trying to avoid an oncoming car in the parking lot.
I find it hard to wrap my head around this sort of slippery slope argument. The idea that accidents can happen anywhere/anytime shouldn't mean we refuse to take basic steps towards improving public safety. That's a brutal, cold way to look at this whole society thing we have going here.

By this rationale, I guess we also shouldn't be fixing potholes or re-painting crosswalks. A ballpark isn't any different because you choose to buy a ticket, go to the game, and sit close to the field.

It's true that we assume risk all the time, but the notion that this is somehow different because it's baseball and it's a spectator sport and you've probably paid a good amount of money to experience is just so thuddingly cold-hearted to me.

What I'm hearing is essentially: "This is the way I enjoy baseball games the most, and this is the way it's always been. I will lose a tiny bit of my appreciation for seeing a baseball game live if there's extended netting, and that tiny bit of my appreciation is worth more than the added safety of others."

I mean, you can dress that up with arguments about taking risks and having personal responsibility all you want—and you might actually draw people into a discussion about slippery slopes and all of that. But when we've exhausted all of the broad philosophical angles ("hell, you could break your neck on your way to the ballpark!") you're still basically saying this: "The way I enjoy my baseball game is more important than reducing the risk of life-threatening injury to thousands of people per year."

And all this for a net. It's just a net.

In fact, it's the best type of net for people's eyes and brains to ignore, and I'm sure we'll only get better at making nets like this in the future.

I dunno. This is pretty cut and dry to me.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
I find it hard to wrap my head around this sort of slippery slope argument. The idea that accidents can happen anywhere/anytime shouldn't mean we refuse to take basic steps towards improving public safety. That's a brutal, cold way to look at this whole society thing we have going here.

By this rationale, I guess we also shouldn't be fixing potholes or re-painting crosswalks. A ballpark isn't any different because you choose to buy a ticket, go to the game, and sit close to the field.

It's true that we assume risk all the time, but the notion that this is somehow different because it's baseball and it's a spectator sport and you've probably paid a good amount of money to experience is just so thuddingly cold-hearted to me.

What I'm hearing is essentially: "This is the way I enjoy baseball games the most, and this is the way it's always been. I will lose a tiny bit of my appreciation for seeing a baseball game live if there's extended netting, and that tiny bit of my appreciation is worth more than the added safety of others."

I mean, you can dress that up with arguments about taking risks and having personal responsibility all you want—and you might actually draw people into a discussion about slippery slopes and all of that. But when we've exhausted all of the broad philosophical angles ("hell, you could break your neck on your way to the ballpark!") you're still basically saying this: "The way I enjoy my baseball game is more important than reducing the risk of life-threatening injury to thousands of people per year."

And all this for a net. It's just a net.

In fact, it's the best type of net for people's eyes and brains to ignore, and I'm sure we'll only get better at making nets like this in the future.

I dunno. This is pretty cut and dry to me.
Speaking only for myself, the thing that bothers me about it is the futility of trying to guard against every small-sample size event whenever one pops up on TV. You could positively impact 100's more lives for the money spent on netting by spending it elsewhere.
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
I’m not sure you could buy more safety for the cost of a net which costs, what, a couple grand?
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
In which way is that money spent better than preventing a little girl's face being caved in? And why are the two mutually exclusive?
Hey, way to completely ignore my larger point in service of being sanctimonious! How utterly out of character.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
You could positively impact 100's more lives for the money spent on netting by spending it elsewhere.
You could say this about anything, though.

Again—you can dress this up a thousand different ways but at the end of the day the argument against it is, "I don't like it and that matters more to me than the positive impact it might have."
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
You could say this about anything, though.

Again—you can dress this up a thousand different ways but at the end of the day the argument against it is, "I don't like it and that matters more to me than the positive impact it might have."
That's certainly not my argument. You can tell, because there's a sentence I wrote directly in front of the one you quoted that pretty clearly states my problem with this sort of thing.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
Speaking only for myself, the thing that bothers me about it is the futility of trying to guard against every small-sample size event whenever one pops up on TV. You could positively impact 100's more lives for the money spent on netting by spending it elsewhere.
You are right about small sample sizes, but where the result in each of those rare events is catastrophic, it seems like a relatively minor cost.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
That's certainly not my argument. You can tell, because there's a sentence I wrote directly in front of the one you quoted that pretty clearly states my problem with this sort of thing.
This sentence?

the thing that bothers me about it is the futility of trying to guard against every small-sample size event whenever one pops up on TV.
First of all, extending the netting isn't futile. It reduces the risk of injury.

I mean, that's all that really needs to be said here, but beyond that, we can look at your attitude towards it, which seems to have something to do with how the media coverage exacerbates problems when they happen to be televised, which... I mean, I guess more people know about these things when they happen on TV and delay a game, sure. But what does that have to do with anything?

What should the (relatively small amount of) money be spent on instead? Why not spend money on those things and the netting?

Your issue seems to lie in how everyone arrived at the decision to extend the netting, which is a separate conversation altogether. That conversation has nothing to with whether or not the extended netting helps (it does), nor does it have anything to do with the cost (it's low), nor does it have anything to do with how much it detracts from seeing a game live (not a whole lot).

Really feels like you and everyone else against this landed on "this is stupid" and are now hunting for ways to prop that sentiment up with logic instead of emotion.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
I really don't see this as people overreacting to a small sample. If this was a freak accident that isn't likely to be repeated, no one makes a move. These incidents just bring into light how dangerous the old way was. These aren't the only times someone has been hurt by a foul ball. These examples just stand out.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Frankly, I don't care about the net. I care about the theater of protection here when most injuries at Fenway are not the result of batted and thrown balls or bats hitting spectators. But you'll never see them do anything about those causes.

Major League Baseball is BIG and POPULAR and WELL COVERED that every one of these incidents makes the news, but the number of fans and kids getting hurt from balls and bats that can be protected against is so damn tiny compared to other things we can do to protect people and kids from injury that concentrating on this is just theater.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
Frankly, I don't care about the net. I care about the theater of protection here when most injuries at Fenway are not the result of batted and thrown balls or bats hitting spectators. But you'll never see them do anything about those causes.
One thing at a time. One particular unsafe thing has been identified and will likely be rectified. Then they can move onto the next thing.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
One thing at a time. One particular unsafe thing has been identified and will likely be rectified. Then they can move onto the next thing.
So they're gonna ban alcohol?


My main point, and I think Bergs is going the same route is that $100,000 spent on improving crosswalks, to use Zero's example, will save a ton more lives than $100K spent on expanding the net at Yankee Stadium.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
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.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Any time one side is consistantly arguing in broad generalities about ambigious impact to society, you can be pretty sure that's a brief you don't want to walk into the courtroom with. Yes, safety in civilized society is a bit of a one-way march towards mommy state, but it's just willfull blindness to not understand why leisure industries are often incentivized to react to these black swan events in a way that doesn't jive with an economist's cost/benefit analysis. Put up the damn nets.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
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.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
Lose, you're losing me.

If this really is about vocally rejecting the idea of "theater of protection," why are you bringing up the cost of the net? (Whether the net is $2,000 or $200,000, I think we can all agree that it's not going to restrict the club financially).

And if your problem here really is about the theater of protection, why do you keep doing the whole slippery slope thing where this week it's the net and next week it's alcohol and bubblewrap!

And if the problem really, truly, honestly is about the theater of protection, doesn't it ultimately not matter to this discussion? Who cares why the net is there and the motivations behind extending it, so long as it gets results?
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
My main point, and I think Bergs is going the same route is that $100,000 spent on improving crosswalks, to use Zero's example, will save a ton more lives than $100K spent on expanding the net at Yankee Stadium.
You're right—there are starving kids in Africa.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
So they're gonna ban alcohol?
My main point, and I think Bergs is going the same route is that $100,000 spent on improving crosswalks, to use Zero's example, will save a ton more lives than $100K spent on expanding the net at Yankee Stadium.
That is likely true. But I dont think its an argument against the nets.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
It comes down to this: Do you want to have the opportunity to voluntarily place yourself in a dangerous situation and maintain all the responsibility that goes with that, or do you want someone else to deny you that option on the basis that you're not competent to judge the risk. If the situation is deceptive - meaning there's no way anyone could understand the likelihood of injury, that's a different story. If you're not allowed an option to voluntarily reduce the risk, that's a different story.
How about children? I mean, obviously we shouldn't let kids sit anywhere where there's a possibility of foul ball, as they're clearly not able to competently judge risk.

Lets be real here - the vast majority of Americans don't have the coordination, reflexes, or athletic experience to protect themselves from a hard hit ball - especially when you add in the fact that they often change trajectory at a few feet away. This isn't just an issue of people not paying attention - its a legitimately dangerous situation.
 

scotian1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
16,324
Kingston, Nova Scotia
While they are expanding the netting perhaps MLB can do something about the bats. Perhaps banning Maple or the hollowed out top of bats to keep them from launching dagger-like splinters which are just as dangerous as the ball. Sitting in the Loge boxes earlier this year, I did not find the netting to be much of an issue.
 
Last edited:

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
That is likely true. But I dont think its an argument against the nets.
True, but you can't do EVERYTHING. So you might as well do the things that give you the best bang for the buck. Like better crosswalks outside the stadium, etc.

They extended the nets once. Sure, extend them again. And again. Have you seen guys in the Monster seats try to catch line drive homeruns? I have. I've seen a broken finger up there. We need a net there, too.
 
Last edited:

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
True, but you can't do EVERYTHING.
They extended the nets once. Sure, extend them again. And again. Have you seen guys in the Monster seats try to catch line drive homeruns? I have. I've seen a broken finger up there. We need a net there, too.
No one is trying to do everything. Or prevent *all* injuries. I think the incidents they are trying to prevent here are the ones that can fairly be labelled as catastrophic. Thats why in Texas they raised the height of the railing after the guy fell. It only happened once, but it was a relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive way to lessen the chance of a rare, but potentially repeatable, incident that almost certainly would result in (another) death or serious injury.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
And I know this should be obvious but the difference between the netting behind the plate and the monster seats is a few hundred feet worth of reaction time.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,448
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.
What do you propose? BP protection during real games?



Ale Xander's order of need:

1) Ban alcohol
2) Better crosswalks and/or cut off traffic within 1/4 mile of stadium (or build new stadium in a pedestrian only zone)
3) Ban seats with a huge drop (Monster, Arlington etc.)
4) Home team fans (for hats/jerseys etc.) only for rivalry games (SFG/LAD, NYY/BOS mainly).
5) Extend net
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
And you just want to do everything possible and visible, but not do anything about the cause. Pure theater.
The cause is that balls come off bats at 100+ mph and fans have about the same time to react as professional athletes whose primary skill is reacting to fast travelling balls. There's really nothing that can be done about the primary cause.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
And you just want to do everything possible and visible, but not do anything about the cause. Pure theater.
What is the cause? Major League hitters are still going to smoke line drives foul. I doubt that's gonna change any time soon.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,448
The cause is that balls come off bats at 100+ mph and fans have about the same time to react as professional athletes whose primary skill is reacting to fast travelling balls. There's really nothing that can be done about the primary cause.
Those people can sit in the bleachers or watch at home. It is a lot more paying attention than reaction time.
Making a recorded announcement to pay attention in between innings costs a lot less than the net.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
No one is trying to do everything. Or prevent *all* injuries. I think the incidents they are trying to prevent here are the ones that can fairly be labelled as catastrophic. Thats why in Texas they raised the height of the railing after the guy fell. It only happened once, but it was a relatively inexpensive and unobtrusive way to lessen the chance of a rare, but potentially repeatable, incident that almost certainly would result in (another) death or serious injury.
There's also the elephant in the room which is: once something happens, the team is on notice that it is a possibility, so they are obligated to take measures that prevent the known possible harm from occurring again.

Safety is incentivized by threats of liability. That's a feature of the civil legal system, not a bug. It has a way of prioritizing things. If the crosswalks caused an accident, they would be the next to get upgraded.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
What is the cause? Major League hitters are still going to smoke line drives foul. I doubt that's gonna change any time soon.
And you can extend the nets a certain amount but you don't need to do so to the foul poles. If the Yankees didn't extend nets like everyone else did this last time around, that sucks for them and I hope they get sued and do something about it. But you can't remove all risk in the ballpark just like you can't remove all risk anywhere.

Besides. We have this guy here to catch those smashes

 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
Those people can sit in the bleachers or watch at home. It is a lot more paying attention than reaction time.
Making a recorded announcement to pay attention in between innings costs a lot less than the net.
So we're back to cost? But also personal responsibility.

Neither of those things holds water. Cost of a net versus cost of, uh, more ballpark PA announcements is a red herring. There's also evidence to suggest that nets work more than "pay attention" campaigns because one of these things is an object that stops other objects.

You started with "I don't like this" and worked backwards from that. The netting detracts from your fun and you don't like the team/the sport/society/the government acting like a nanny. Just say that.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
Those people can sit in the bleachers or watch at home. It is a lot more paying attention than reaction time.
Making a recorded announcement to pay attention in between innings costs a lot less than the net.
So good seats should be reserved for amazing athletes with cat-like reflexes like yourself then? Should they have some kind of reaction time test before allowing you to buy tickets? How will this affect the re-sale market if only peak athletes can sit close to the action?
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Those people can sit in the bleachers or watch at home. It is a lot more paying attention than reaction time.
Or they are standing up to go to the bathroom, or their view was restricted by someone in front of them, or the ball bounced in a weid way, or they are getting a hotdog, or they are recording the previous play in their scorebook, or they are explaining something to the person next to them, etc.

No person is immune to the possibility of being struck by an unexpected foul ball.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
So they're gonna ban alcohol?


My main point, and I think Bergs is going the same route is that $100,000 spent on improving crosswalks, to use Zero's example, will save a ton more lives than $100K spent on expanding the net at Yankee Stadium.
And as I said - and was accused of being sanctimonious for doing so - they can easily do both.

No, netting doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dolllars. Here's a company https://www.networldsports.com/baseball/baseball-backstop-nets-4958/baseball-nets-custom-sized.html

A 50 foot high net, 300 feet long costs $2400. So double that and add install pricing, which could and would likely be done by the grounds crew. You're talking about maybe $20k.

No, it's probably not the most effective way to gain an overall higher sense of safety, but it's a drop in the ocean, it's easy and it's something that can be done with no financial impact on the team (like stopping beer sales) and no interaction with the city (crosswalks).

When the biggest reason against it is taking photos and fan interaction with players (which is the primary reasons many in this thread complained when the plan came out), sorry if it sounds sanctimonious, but I think that's bullshit to be honest. There's certainly other things to be addressed but this is an easy solution and a child can be watching intently and still get hit. One step at a time. It doesn't need to be reduced to theater.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,448
Or they are standing up to go to the bathroom, or their view was restricted by someone in front of them, or the ball bounced in a weid way, or they are getting a hotdog, or they are recording the previous play in their scorebook, or they are explaining something to the person next to them, etc.

No person is immune to the possibility of being struck by an unexpected foul ball.
Nor being struck by lightning. You can't remove all risk. Lose is right.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
So, because they can't do everything, they should do nothing.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,191
Nor being struck by lightning. You can't remove all risk. Lose is right.
Nope you can't mitigate all risk, but people seek shelter in lightning storms don't they? Maybe we should all stand on rooftops swinging 9 irons because I mean you can't mitigate all risk and something will get us eventually.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
And as I said - and was accused of being sanctimonious for doing so - they can easily do both.

No, netting doesn't cost hundreds of thousands of dolllars. Here's a company https://www.networldsports.com/baseball/baseball-backstop-nets-4958/baseball-nets-custom-sized.html

A 50 foot high net, 300 feet long costs $2400. So double that and add install pricing, which could and would likely be done by the grounds crew. You're talking about maybe $20k.
Really? $20K? That may buy the netting but it won't come close to installing it in such a way that it's safely anchored when the next drunk fan decides he wants to play King of the Mountain and start climbing the damn thing.


So, because they can't do everything, they should do nothing.
Absolutely no one is saying that.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
Nor being struck by lightning. You can't remove all risk. Lose is right.
This is such a narrow, cynical, and ultimately cruel brand of reductive reasoning that it sincerely makes me sad.

It's so easy to understand and justify the extended netting that any argument against it is immediately identifiable as what it actually is: the "pussification of America" concept, naked and bare for all to see.

You can dress it up with cost analysis and slippery slopes and "theater of protection." Hell, you can even complain about people looking at their smartphones instead of the game. But what this really comes down to is "people got hurt, it changed the way I go to the ballpark and watch a game, and now I'm being punished for other people's misfortune."

It's selfish and bitter and seriously upsetting.
 

Doc Zero

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2007
12,435
No one is saying that. People are saying to prioritize based on math.
"Prioritize based on math" is a red herring. You are upset because the Red Sox are dumbing down your experience just 'cause people got hurt and it was on TV and we can't stop everyone from getting hurt so fuck 'em.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Really? $20K? That may buy the netting but it won't come close to installing it in such a way that it's safely anchored when the next drunk fan decides he wants to play King of the Mountain and start climbing the damn thing.
Well, $5k will buy it. I haven't ever seen a drunk fan try to climb the previous or current netting, but I'm also not a season ticket holder so I could have missed that. How often does that happen?
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,448
"Prioritize based on math" is a red herring. You are upset because the Red Sox are dumbing down your experience just 'cause people got hurt and it was on TV and we can't stop everyone from getting hurt so fuck 'em.
No, I'm "upset" because it is a completely inefficient and reactionary way of protecting people who come to the ballpark.
 

scott bankheadcase

I'm adequate!!
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2006
3,057
hoboken
Nor being struck by lightning. You can't remove all risk. Lose is right.
Tell that to people who want to bring their kids to a game. Now tell MLB that parents are afraid to bring their kids to the game when the MLB's median aged fan is in his/her 60s and the NBAs is in his/her 40s. Now look at how your insurance premium will likely go down enough to makeup for the drop in the cost of nets.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Well, $5k will buy it. I haven't ever seen a drunk fan try to climb the previous or current netting, but I'm also not a season ticket holder so I could have missed that. How often does that happen?
Every year someone tries to climb the screen behind home plate. And if anyone tried to climb the new netting it's got serious guy wires attaching it to the bones of the ballpark. The lawsuits if someone fell or the netting fell with someone climbing on it (attractive nuisance) would be ridiculous

(this pic is old, of course)

 
Status
Not open for further replies.