Red Sox to expand netting behind home plate
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
- Status
Ugh. I hate this. I can't stand sitting behind the net. I mean, I get it from a safety/liability standpoint but I still hate it
Total overreaction by MLB. When I chose my season ticket location, I deliberately chose seats that were not behind the plate. Anybody who says looking through netting is no big deal hasn't spent much time at Fenway. Sam Kennedy says the new netting will go dugout to dugout and obviously it depends upon how high the netting will be. All fans really need to do to protect themselves is PAY ATTENTION!
New Alert: "MLB has dictated that since escalators pose a huge safety risk, particularly if they break down, trapping thousands of fans between levels, all stadium escalators will be removed and replaced with chair lifts. MLB will continue to investigate other risks, including the tripping hazard posed by stairs."
I applaud the move. Fan safety has to come before sight line inconveniences. I do wonder what kind of plan they have in place to move the season ticket holders who do not want to sit behind the net. I know I don't like sitting behind nets at games, but I understand the necessity of having them.
My family has a weekend package in section 26, I think that's right at the edge of the opposing dugout. Hope things aren't too obstructed
I was at this game, but seated in the bleachers. It was a long delay and I were wondering what was going on. Was very sad to read about it later in the evening and can't imagine having that happen to a close family member.I'm sure she agrees.
It's easy to pick on "fans" for having their heads in their phones or not paying attention some other way, but I'm not sure this was avoidable. Spectators shouldn't have to worry about life threatening injuries.
I've sat behind home plate, but higher up in the grand stands. The net has never bothered me there. I've also sat 4 rows behind the sox dugout - and I'm glad there wasn't a net there in the past. It kind of sucks that it's expanding that far, but it's the right thing to do. Those tickets were given to me and I'll probably never have seats that good again. Like most people, I watch many more games on tv, anyway. I attend only 1-4 at the park per season, and most of the time, I'm just happy to be there.
So, we remember the scary incidents, but there is not a lot of evidence that foul balls are a huge risk. We discussed this in the other thread: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?threads/class-action-lawsuit-against-mlb-re-fan-safety.10231/
The data we do have say that there are two injuries every three games, but those could be any type of injuries, and it's also not clear that these would be prevented with netting behind home -- balls down the line get there in a real hurry as well. And there has apparently only been one death at an MLB park ever due to a foul ball. My feeling is that it's a greater risk driving to or from the park, especially if you or others have been drinking, or even climbing the stairs in a park if you are at risk of a heart attack.
I hope that MLB gathered good data and made an informed recommendation here.
The data we do have say that there are two injuries every three games, but those could be any type of injuries, and it's also not clear that these would be prevented with netting behind home -- balls down the line get there in a real hurry as well. And there has apparently only been one death at an MLB park ever due to a foul ball. My feeling is that it's a greater risk driving to or from the park, especially if you or others have been drinking, or even climbing the stairs in a park if you are at risk of a heart attack.
I hope that MLB gathered good data and made an informed recommendation here.
Which is why you have a CHOICE where you sit.
If you've got multiple kids, sit with them some place where you aren't in the line of fire.
If you want to sit up close and be part of the action you should have that right like baseball fans have had for over 100 years.
My eyes are glazed over from "working" all day, and I read the thread title as "Red Sox to install exploding nets behind home plate" and I thought, so they're finally spicing it up...
Overall though, I'm all for it. A bit of an overreaction? Sure. But imagine that's a kid in that stroller with the busted face. It's not that much of an overreaction that it's worth getting upset over at all, and I'd rather see this too early than too late.
Overall though, I'm all for it. A bit of an overreaction? Sure. But imagine that's a kid in that stroller with the busted face. It's not that much of an overreaction that it's worth getting upset over at all, and I'd rather see this too early than too late.
If you're too weak to catch a line drive with your teeth, then maybe you ought to just watch shuffleboard.
Me, too.
As a legally blind person this makes me feel so much safer. I have to sit close to see, but the downside is that often puts us in direct linedrive foul ball territory. This makes that safer.
I have zero issues seeing through nets, after half an inning I forget it's even there.
I have zero issues seeing through nets, after half an inning I forget it's even there.
I think the worry isn't death - which would be an extreme outcome - but unnecessary injury. If the netting prevents even just a few injuries a year, it's probably worth it. It's a pretty minimal inconvenience. Worst case scenario is someone's view is slightly effected, but a slightly effected view doesn't seem to prevent the seats behind home plate from being among the most desirable in the park.
As a season ticket holder in FB 50, for years the first section NOT covered by netting on the 3B side... I am bummed. The free and clear access to the field was a rush every time. So, selfishly, I do sort of hate this. There's no way it didn't just reduce the aesthetic and financial value of my seats.
But... it's just one of those things. It's too obvious an idea to not implment. There's no arguing with the reasoning: whether you agree or not with the decision (personally I begrudgingly do), the move to protect the people who love the game, and the financial interests of those who finance the game is pretty much a slam dunk easy decision. The only people who might be peeved are people like me who, let's be real, aren't going anywhere. Maybe they won't increase ticket prices as an apology (HA!)
So it goes, guys. It's really not a big deal. It's netting. If you think this is bad wait until you see football in 2020.
edit: whether/weather because I am dumb.
But... it's just one of those things. It's too obvious an idea to not implment. There's no arguing with the reasoning: whether you agree or not with the decision (personally I begrudgingly do), the move to protect the people who love the game, and the financial interests of those who finance the game is pretty much a slam dunk easy decision. The only people who might be peeved are people like me who, let's be real, aren't going anywhere. Maybe they won't increase ticket prices as an apology (HA!)
So it goes, guys. It's really not a big deal. It's netting. If you think this is bad wait until you see football in 2020.
edit: whether/weather because I am dumb.
Could not agree with you more. Personally, I find it heartbreaking to look at those pictures in Corsi's and Buffalo Head's posts. Blaming the victims after the fact seems callous.
P.S. I was at that game in 1982 when Rice jumped into the stands to save that young kid. It's one of my formative memories as a Red Sox fan.
Last edited:
I'm one of the assholes who thinks this sucks and it's stupid. Maybe they need to put a chain link fence around the Grand Canyon to keep people from falling off. The more "safe" you make things, the more stupid people get because the default condition is "I don't need to take care of x myself because I'm in America and they keep me safe". I'm in a business that can provide a multitude of examples. I'm sorry it's too much to ask for a baseball fan to pay attention 2 seconds out of every 30 (which is what the game is about, anyway) and be alert to a flying ball or bat. I'm sorry that people who don't want to pay attention can't just buy cheaper tickets and sit in the safety of the grandstands and leave the better seats to others. Maybe put down your phone for a second, or make sure both your hands aren't occupied with hot dogs and beer...or, if you're concerned, ask the people around you to look out for you because (for a reasonable reason) you can't defend yourself or your kid (I've had people behind me ask just that).
I don't like everything being "safe", particularly when there's no statistical backup. It's like learning defensive driving - you can't always rely on others to keep you whole.
I don't like everything being "safe", particularly when there's no statistical backup. It's like learning defensive driving - you can't always rely on others to keep you whole.
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.
Aren't there forms of netting that cause less visual obstruction than others?
My son plays hockey and many rinks now have netting all around, not just in the attack zones. Some of the netting is practically imperceptible, others are much more noticeable.
My son plays hockey and many rinks now have netting all around, not just in the attack zones. Some of the netting is practically imperceptible, others are much more noticeable.
Because it's a trivial price to pay to make sure people don't get hurt. Because people can get hurt even if they're paying attention. What the hell world am I living in that this has to be explained?
This is what I'm thinking. Why can't they make fishing line mesh or a plexiglass-like wall to reduce the visual distortion of the protection? Necessity = invention. And have more players sign autos longer in designated areas to improve fan-player interaction.
A world where people's selfishness takes precedent over another person's safety. That "Poor me!!" attitude really annoys the hell out of me, and frankly those people really need to take a good, long look at themselves and realize that it isn't about THEM! So sorry that you have to sit behind a net, how about you find that poor woman who got a bat to the face last year and ask HER if she'd have an issue sitting behind a net. this is my first post to this forum, and quite frankly I was fine remaining a lurker, but the entitlement of this thread just sickens me. Smarten up, people!
)
This is ridiculous. No one sees every pitch of every game they attend. You never miss a pitch trying to find a vendor, or paying for food, or pulling a sweater out of your bag, or handing money down your row, or checking the lineup on the scoreboard, or trying to help your child keep score, or checking out a fight in the stands? It is spectacularly easy to miss one pitch and have that be the pitch that gets fouled into your face. I'm pretty comfortable that it's not just "stupid" people who "don't take care of themselves" who get hit by foul balls, which is why they're doing this.
Well said. I for one am willing to gamble my health and well being on a perfect view of the game, but that doesn't mean everyone around me should be subjected to the same risk.
That said, the human eye is a remarkable organ. It's capacity to adapt around some netting is being severely underestimated.
I'm being an angry old man, I agree. In all honesty, on the few occasions I've lucked into a great seat near the dugout, I actually DO pay attention, but only on the relevant-handed batter, not every at bat.
Let me try to be more reasonable. Should there be an optional section, say the first 20 rows in one area between today's net and the dugout that requires a special purchase? Maybe the patron signing an acknowledgement of hazard.
I'm concerned that this will inevitably morph into full netting around the field. Things never revert, they only grow.
Also, why isn't this being imposed on Minor League teams?
But people can still get hurt. And it's not clear that this is a major problem or how much of it will be fixed by this change. Show me that HitFX data on foul balls and I could be convinced, but until then this is anecdotal.
If we wanted to prevent deaths on our roadways, we would mandate and strictly enforce 20 mph speed limits or less. But we have decided as a society that getting places faster and being able to live in the suburbs is "worth" hundreds of thousands of injuries and tens of thousands of deaths each year. It's not a perfect comparison as automobile transportation provides more benefit than watching a game without a screen, but there is some benefit to the latter and driving is hugely risky by comparison. Yet everyone does it without being scared.
Cute response but people buying those seats may not want nets.
I'm not saying this is a bad idea. I AM saying people paid a lot of money for a product that has changed materially. Some fans may have invested differently if they knew they would have to look through a net. I guarantee some season ticket holders will want to make a switch.
You do know that people voluntarily choose to sit where they sit, right?
Not in Cleveland. Most of the fans there have been convicted of low level crimes and they are forced to sit in certain seats as the penalty for their offense.
Many/most of those who are paying even rapt attention to a game probably can't get out of the way of a line drive at their head.
What? I can see, just not too well.
But the netting lines disappear after a few outs for us and it's a non-issue. YMMV
The installation of netting at NHL arenas caused a similar outcry. That debate has largely dropped off to nothing and the NHL is charging more than ever for the seats. There is no doubt it lessens the experience for those whose view will change, but they will adjust.
I stood next to a guy when he broke a finger trying to catch a BP HR up there. Had his hand right up against the wall that makes the front of the row behind him.
"Trying to catch" and "unable to get out of the way" are two different issues.
This is a no-brainer. Safety first. A number of years ago I was sitting in the roof seats down the right field line with 6 kids with me (my sons and their friends.) Probably about 8 to 16 yrs of age. I was sitting at the end of the row. Mike Greenwell hit a vicious foul line drive that came at us faster than I could believe and fortunately hit the steps to my left and then careened harmlessly about. A few feet more to our side and me or one of the kids would likely have been hit, and kids that age, no matter how you tell them to pay attention, don't. Add the cell phones today. Unavoidable, but normal human behavior. Forget about trying to catch (which can be nuts sometimes). Humans will not always be able to get out of the way, even in areas that they think are safe. We need the netting at the high risk areas, and we also need to keep reminding ourselves (and being reminded) that you can get hit anywhere in the park. I am a physician. Trauma is not my specialty, but I see the impact of trauma on people's lives (usually not brought on by anything they did that was negligent) all to often. There is no question that this protective netting needs to be installed.
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.
Yeah, I always thought about the fact that pitchers, who are professional athletes 100% focused on the game at all times with complete freedom of movement and a glove to protect them, are regularly (seems like at least a few every year) struck or even beaned by batted balls. Granted, they're 60 ft away but the recommendation is netting only within 70 ft of the plate. That seems entirely reasonable. If it's something a professional athlete is frequently inable to dodge, a regular person confined to a seat is likely at even higher risk. Batting practice pitchers aren't idiots - they pretty much always use protective screens.
I remember, even at the height of my baseball abilities, playing catch with a guy who threw like 85-90 or something, and not being 100% confident about being able to see/catch everything he was throwing at me. I'm not even sure how I caught some of the stuff he was throwing. I remember at one point I just heard a hissing noise and then the ball was suddenly in my glove somehow. And that was a ball with a fairly predictable trajectory. The game moves fast, even for the high-level athletes.
Last edited:
- Status