Red Sox to expand netting behind home plate

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 2, 2014
20
Sam 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.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
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.
Nobody is suggesting this protects *everybody* who could get severely hurt. And I don't this qualifies as "arbitrary."
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
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
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
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
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.)
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sam 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 this had been there the past many years then Derek Jeter is Just Another Ballplayer
 

NJ_Sox_Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 2, 2006
10,736
NJ
You have? Like we've seen happen in the places MLB is concerned about?
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.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
A kid was actually killed at an NHL game. And even after that I had to listen to every fucking "real Canadian hockey fan" bitch about the nets for one whole summer. Then half a season later nobody remembered. Everyone got used to looking through the net. I have probably watched my kids play 300 games through the nets and I noticed it maybe the first three games. It is just pure luck nobody has been killed by one of those maple bats shattering into razor sharp lawn darts. I am shocked Millar never maimed anybody in 3rd base stands.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
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.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,243
If the decision on where to stop the netting wasn't arbitrary then please explain the basis for it.
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.
 
Last edited:

GlucoDoc

New Member
Dec 19, 2005
74
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.
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.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
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.
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
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.
I'm trying to determine whether you're posing a serious point.

Are you really equating the reduction in risk of a person getting hurt by a ball or bat being drilled into the stands with not being able to grab a foul ball? A beat-up piece of cowhide that costs about $8 and is available for retail at any sports store?

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.
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.

That's all MLB is doing with these nets, adding a safety feature. This isn't the old 600 Club where the entire lower bowl is going to be encased in glass. It's netting, which like Reggie said, you won't notice after a few innings at the park.

This isn't the wussification of America, it's just common sense.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
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.
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.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence appreciates the risk of sitting in the field boxes between the backstop and the dugout. Judging by the relative price of those tickets, compared to comparable seats that are protected by the backstop, many (most?) ticket buyers are willing to trade the protection for the view. And given how rarely serious injuries occur, I don't think that's an irrational decision -- people routinely take small risks of calamitous injury to optimize their enjoyment of their favorite activities, and we generally don't stop them from doing so.

There are arguments that we shouldn't give fans the choice in this case -- some fans are children, some haven't to the park before and don't appreciate the risk, hawkers should have the safest possible work environment, etc. And of course, the Red Sox are free to make their own choice -- if I were John Henry, I'd rather piss off some fans than deal with images of a critically injured fan on the news again. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to bemoan the loss of unobstructed views from the infield field boxes (even though I personally prefer to sit behind the backstop).
 
Last edited:

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
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.
You would have to explain to my son that the puck Brad Marchand tossed over the glass to him is an illusion then.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,087
Rhode Island
I guess hockey fans are more civil. He had some clown reach over him to grab a ball a 1st baseman flipped to him at a Pawsox game, so he's got that going for him as well.

The reality is that the price of the seats that will be affected by this are so outrageously expensive that there just aren't many families with little kids going to be sitting close enough to have a ball flipped to them. There are more balls that get tossed into the stands beyond the dugout than within 70 feet of the plate. There are a lot of reasons you can use for hating this, but getting the next generation involved is old man yelling at the clouds type of reasoning.
 

GlucoDoc

New Member
Dec 19, 2005
74
...Or maybe a player could gently loft the ball over the netting and have a kid catch it a bunch of rows up. (and with all due respect to the kids whose parents or grandparents have season tickets right in front, they likely already have a ball collection.)
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
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.
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.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
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.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
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.
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.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
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.
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.
 

Flynn4ever

Member
SoSH Member
I've been to many games in Japan where the nets do extend well beyond first and third base. There's definitely an annoyance factor to it. However, in Japan most pro teams operate as a corporate loss leader (think Wrigley Gum owned Cubs.) I suspect MLB teams would spend the extra cash to minimize the sight line obstruction.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
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.
Really? That's not what I've seen, but I guess there's a lot of other factors involved in stubhub ticket pricing.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
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.
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.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
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.


From what I understand, there is no shortage of folks wanting to sit here. From my own experience it's not even something you notice once the game begins. On the flip side of this if you don't want to sit behind a net, don't buy tickets there...It's not like you're assigned seats randomly.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
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.
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.
 

gmj1

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
2
I have season tickets directly behind home plate, and I've been sitting there for over 15 years. So I can tell you from the personal experience of someone who's spent a ton of time at Fenway that the netting is no big deal. Seriously ... you don't even see it after the first five minutes. I've taken dozens of people to games over all those years, and not one person has ever said anything except how fabulous the seats are. The sections all around us are corporate season tickets, so there are different clients/customers/etc sitting there all the time. I've never heard a single one of them complain about the netting, or say pretty much of anything except how fabulous the seats are. In fact, when balls get fouled back and come screaming up the net, lots of people mention how glad they are that there's a net between them and the rocket heading over them.

Maybe sitting under the net isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it's not a universally despised experience either. You can even catch foul balls from my seats ... after they come screaming up the net, they frequently drop through the space where the net connects to the seats above us.
 

fyrefonz

New Member
Nov 16, 2015
2
I was at bryce florie game. Worst sound ive ever heard. Its tragic and i understand why the red sox will comply. I just hope they do the bare bones minimum on this. I also dont get 70 feet. Ive seen bullets in left field as far back as section 32 almost take peoples heads off. Fact is fenways best quality is proximity. And monster seats too. Willy mo pena almost killed someone. If you actually want to protect people youd put netting everywhere. People behind net not close to field will get hosed most with view. Are they calling those ticketholders? The safety police win again because you get crucified arguing against it...even if numbers are on your side. Red sox arent going to fight it but please do as little as possible. Maple bats separate issue those are really dangerous. We should do a sobriety test every 3 innings too to prevent possible injuries going up and down the aisle. Now that we have a net does this mean we can put up more tvs? And please more neil diamond!! After so good! I want to hear cracklin rosie get on board! Say it loud! Crackling rosie get on board...
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
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'm going to cross-post a quote from another thread, since this seems to be a recurring theme:
Do you get the gist of what (we) are saying or do want to get into a pedantic debate?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Come on! It was a joke! Man, this is a Very Serious discussion board.

:fonz:
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.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
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.
I agree - and I suggest you take your own advice and examine your own pedantry before you post.
 
Last edited:

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
There is a wall. She was on the wrong side of it (not that the wall would have stopped a diving Lebron). Is there really a need to be that close to the court, though? I think the location of those seats (which I blame on the Cavs and the arena, not Mrs. Day) is the problem there.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
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.
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.

I'm fine with doing what is necessary to protect fans (and players as well), but there's still a line in which the best means of protection is removing the fucking seats.
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
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.
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.
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
More than making sure they don't get rocked by one? And as was mentioned upthread, they'll still be able to toss them over. This is 100% the stupidest objection you could have to the netting.
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
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.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

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

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? That even if you're not looking at your cell phone, if you bring kids to a game, there is likely to be distractions that prevent you from emitting a force field that protects them from all matter that may come hurtling in your direction. If a sawed off bat barrel comes at you, short of being a Jedi, there's limitations to your ability to defend yourself and or your children even if you are paying attention to every second of the game.

You say if people are that worried, don't go to the game. I say, if you think a net is obstructing your view that much, sit in a different section or watch on tv.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,900
Alexandria, VA
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?
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.

There are on the order of a billion spectators in MLB history; one of those has been killed by a batted ball. And that one wouldn't have been saved by the kind of nets proposed--Alan Smith was seated farther up the first base line than the new netting. There are more who are seriously injured by balls but not killed, but it's still a tiny percentage. The time and money spent on nets would literally be better spent putting up lightning rods (weirdly, Manny Mota-who hit the ball that killed Alan Smith--lost his nephew to an on-the-field lightning strike).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.