Nobody is suggesting this protects *everybody* who could get severely hurt. And I don't this qualifies as "arbitrary."Probably not but one thing about those areas is you can lose sight of the ball even if you're paying attention. Or you can be down the right field line while the sun is setting and completely lose it in the sun. Probably not as hard but if you think the net is going to cover everyone who can get literally killed or severely concussed you're kidding yourself.
An arbitrary decision was made before about how much netting is needed.
An equally arbitrary decision will be made now about how much netting is needed.
Both decisions will consciously not protect people who could get severely hurt.
It might be one half that's just not hanging at the moment. That looks to be grounds crew time, not game time. And the stuff in the foreground (down the LF line, looks like its trying to keep fans in as much as balls out.)Here are some examples in Japan.
I don't understand the full height netting in the photo above - it doesn't appear to be centered behind home plate
If this had been there the past many years then Derek Jeter is Just Another BallplayerSam Kennedy on WEEI paraphrasing:
- Netting will likely look like current material and "don't hold him to it" but exploring 5-6 feet high - current backstop net is 9.8 feet high for reference.
- Sox exploring retractable netting to allow fans connection to the field before/after games, but Kennedy feels this is not likely to be feasible.
- Net will extend 70 feet per the MLB guidelines from section 29 to 61.
- Red Sox calling all season ticket holders and offering chance to relocate or full-refund if not satisfied with new seating experience. Kennedy also said the team will give all current season ticket holders the chance to visit the ballpark to see new view firsthand to help inform this decision.
- Sox have considered netting in the areas where seats jut out into foul territory just beyond the dugout, but the team has no plans currently to put netting in these areas feeling a connection to the field is important for fans.
If the decision on where to stop the netting wasn't arbitrary then please explain the basis for it.Nobody is suggesting this protects *everybody* who could get severely hurt. And I don't this qualifies as "arbitrary."
I saw someone get smashed in the nose in an explosion of blood in the 2nd row of the Monster. I don't know if it was any worse, or better, than anything that happened in the areas where mlb is now trying to protect people from who choose to sit close to the field.You have? Like we've seen happen in the places MLB is concerned about?
I wasn't there, but I assume they took into account things like the areas where injuries have occurred in the past. "Arbitrary" suggests (to me, anyway) that they considered nothing. I doubt it was scientific. But I dont think it was arbitrary.If the decision on where to stop the netting wasn't arbitrary then please explain the basis for it.
Not sure I agree. People are not always able to self-assess risks accurately, and people who are in positions of responsibility for activities involved have the responsibility to insure that people are not harmed by their inability to properly assess risks. Lots of examples. Diving into a pool that is deep but not quite deep enough. Skating on thin ice. Going out in a boat during a hurricane. Etc. Many people do these things and get away with them. Occasionally not. At Fenway, people think their reaction times are better than they actually are, and think that they will be paying more attention than they actually do. It is reasonable to take the areas of highest statistical danger and remove the decision from the attendees who may not appreciate the true risk. And for the rest of the park, the old adage does still hold...understand the risk and accept it accordingly.The whole question boils down to whether people ought to be protected from obvious risks, or whether they ought to have the right to assume those risks. There are reasonable arguments on both sides.
I'm trying to determine whether you're posing a serious point.But hockey has always had the boards and the glass. There was zero chance a player (or even a ballboy) would hand a 5 year old kid a "foul puck" at a hockey game. That kind of thing happens dozens of times a game in baseball, but with a net it will have to be thrown over the net and you'll see 45 year old men shoving kids out of the way for a souvenir.
Right. But there are a lot of safety features in cars that make them less risky to drive. Seat belts, air bags, stronger cages, better wheels and other things make it a lot safer to travel by car today than it was 20 or even 10 years ago.I don't even think it boils down that much. I think it boils down to, as usual, risk and cost. My least favorite post in this thread is the douchey Corsi post. I could post accident victims in the last 24 hours that have it a lot worse - should we put a moratorium on driving? Of course not, and that tells you that for every risky behavior there is a cost to eliminating it that society isn't willing to pay.
Going in a boat in a hurricane puts other people at risk, which is why we don't allow it. Thin ice and the not-quite-deep-enough pool are examples of non-obvious risks.Not sure I agree. People are not always able to self-assess risks accurately, and people who are in positions of responsibility for activities involved have the responsibility to insure that people are not harmed by their inability to properly assess risks. Lots of examples. Diving into a pool that is deep but not quite deep enough. Skating on thin ice. Going out in a boat during a hurricane. Etc. Many people do these things and get away with them. Occasionally not. At Fenway, people think their reaction times are better than they actually are, and think that they will be paying more attention than they actually do. It is reasonable to take the areas of highest statistical danger and remove the decision from the attendees who may not appreciate the true risk. And for the rest of the park, the old adage does still hold...understand the risk and accept it accordingly.
You would have to explain to my son that the puck Brad Marchand tossed over the glass to him is an illusion then.But hockey has always had the boards and the glass. There was zero chance a player (or even a ballboy) would hand a 5 year old kid a "foul puck" at a hockey game. That kind of thing happens dozens of times a game in baseball, but with a net it will have to be thrown over the net and you'll see 45 year old men shoving kids out of the way for a souvenir.
The chance of getting hurt by a flying object at a baseball game is really low. But we've seen the worst case examples of what happens. For failure analysis for example, you take the chances of a failure, and weight it by the severity of the outcome. If you create a metric where the chance of getting hit by a ball and dying (or requiring surgery, or needing a hospital visit) gets weighted by a large enough number, you eventually get to a point where even the small occurrence events become a large enough concern that you take care to prevent them. Baseball got to the point where incredibly rare events happened often enough (because there are a lot of MLB games in a year), and looked bad enough, that they did something about it. And one 5 year old with a smashed in face is all they need to be on TV in a negative light, and they just don't need that crap. And the cost to the teams and to us as fans is pretty minimal. There will still be kids getting balls flipped to them, just farther down the stands. There are already nets up, and it doesn't look like home plate seats are a hard sell. And as it was said above, kids get pucks flipped to them over hockey glass, I think people can figure a way around the new nets.I don't even think it boils down that much. I think it boils down to, as usual, risk and cost. My least favorite post in this thread is the douchey Corsi post. I could post accident victims in the last 24 hours that have it a lot worse - should we put a moratorium on driving? Of course not, and that tells you that for every risky behavior there is a cost to eliminating it that society isn't willing to pay.
Some people think the cost of extra netting is really low, and others think it is quite a bit. The problem in this thread is that people are exaggerating the level of risk to make their point. You should really just concentrate on this type of action being a simple way to mitigate the existing risk, rather than trying to give people heart palpitations about how risky it is to sit at a ballgame.
Not so. I looked at this on StubHub when the idea of expanded netting started to get traction a few months ago. Box seats behind the backstop (and under the netting) are consistently a little less expensive than comparable seats that aren't under the net.The complaint about getting souvenir pucks was a central part of the argument against nets. It was far more necessary in hockey. My point is that it is not so bad to watch through a net. The seats behind home plate, looking through the screen, I assume are the most expensive.
I don't really understand the point you're making here.Your kid is lucky some guy next to you or behind you didn't grab it.
Losing the experience of a kid getting a ball tossed to him by an on deck hitter or even from a ballboy is not going to help keep that next generation involved.
Here are some examples in Japan.
I don't understand the full height netting in the photo above - it doesn't appear to be centered behind home plate
Here are some examples in Japan.
I don't understand the full height netting in the photo above - it doesn't appear to be centered behind home plate
Really? That's not what I've seen, but I guess there's a lot of other factors involved in stubhub ticket pricing.Not so. I looked at this on StubHub when the idea of expanded netting started to get traction a few months ago. Box seats behind the backstop (and under the netting) are consistently a little less expensive than comparable seats that aren't under the net.
I don't know about you, but when I go to a game, I bring my wife and kids. That's true for most people, as far as I know.Going in a boat in a hurricane puts other people at risk, which is why we don't allow it. Thin ice and the not-quite-deep-enough pool are examples of non-obvious risks.
Why? It's a terrible idea that ruins some of the best seats in any stadium. If you don't feel safe there (not you personally), don't buy tickets there ... It's not like you're assigned seats randomly.
I realize people do get hurt, but they also get hurt in other parts of the stadium as well. I've seen people get blasted in the face on top of the Monster for example.
Well, I'm pretty sure I've never brought your wife and kids to a game. I would guess that most of the people on this board haven't either, although I don't know how you all live your lives.I don't know about you, but when I go to a game, I bring my wife and kids. That's true for most people, as far as I know.
I'm going to cross-post a quote from another thread, since this seems to be a recurring theme:Well, I'm pretty sure I've never brought your wife and kids to a game. I would guess that most of the people on this board haven't either, although I don't know how you all live your lives.
Do you get the gist of what (we) are saying or do want to get into a pedantic debate?
Come on! It was a joke! Man, this is a Very Serious discussion board.I'm going to cross-post a quote from another thread, since this seems to be a recurring theme:
Figured that out, did you?Come on! It was a joke! Man, this is a Very Serious discussion board.
I agree - and I suggest you take your own advice and examine your own pedantry before you post.Figured that out, did you?
There are subforums on this board to make awful jokes or get into pedantic debates to satisfy your own personal desires. They are filed under the "Other Crap" forums. On the main board, a good rule of thumb is that if you don't have something to contribute, don't post. So before you hit "post", consider if the words you typed are advancing/contributing to the current discussion; if they are valuable but an off topic tangent that might derail the purpose of the thread; or if they offer nothing of substance to others who may read them.
In the first case, go ahead and hit post.
In the second case, quote the post that led to your off topic tangent, start a new thread and allow the discussions to have their own place.
In the third, delete your post and move on.
Where would they build the wall in front of the seat she was sitting in? That's my point in that instance. Any protection erected in front of those seats, without moving those seats further from the court, would impinge on the game play. There's what, 3 feet between her feet and the sideline? Enough room for a player to stand and in-bound a ball without tripping over anyone, and that's about it.And there is netting at baseball games that you can chose to sit behind.
The revenue the NBA makes on those seats (over $1K/game) is not going to be eliminated. Same in baseball where the front row creeps closer and closer to the sideline every year.
Seconded. If you're a little kid lucky enough to sit that close, who cares if you get a ball? I used to beg my dad to take me to RFK and watch Chad Cordero blow saves from the $3 seats that might as well have been in Virginia. At some point you either like baseball or you don't.I don't really understand the point you're making here.
What does it mean for a kid to feel "involved" at a game, and does it actually matter?
I never had a ball tossed to me as a kid in the RF or IF grandstand seats we used to sit in, about 100 rows back. I didn't really feel "involved" but I still enjoyed it enough to watch many more thousands of games and attend hundreds more as I got older.
The usual. This country knee jerks decisions all the time. There will be a boulder that kids have played on for 100 years, 1 numbnuts falls off, they remove it from the park.
If you're that worried, don't go to the game. There is risk stepping outside everyday, we can't pad the world.
You realize that's not true, that people are arguing that the probabilities have to be weighed when making those decisions as well as the outcomes? What you're alleging is akin to claiming that a parent who drives their child to school when it rains is saying it's more important for their kid not to get rained on than to be protected from a fatal traffic accident.Yes. This situation is completely analogous to "one numbnuts" falling off a boulder in a park.
You realize people are actually arguing that it's more important for a child to get tossed a game ball than to be protected from a screaming line drive, right?