How Would You Feel About Protective Netting to the Foul Lines?

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

I have 2 young daughters and specifically buy seats under the netting when I take them to games. They pay moderate attention to the games and I spend more time tracking down food vendors for them than actually watching the game. Being under the net means I still have good seats and I don't have to worry if I'm distracted that my kid will get hit by a ball or tackled by three drunk guys who are all fighting for a $10 souvenir. I'd rather see more netting, but only because that would give me more choice in seats for my own personal preferences.

[Pugger]

it would also prevent players from going into the stands trying to catch a ball and potentially getting hurt. so player and fan safety? its a no brainer.

 

Could netting have prevented Hector Gomez from flying face first into the stands in St. Louis?

[jerichoholicninja]

it would also prevent players from going into the stands trying to catch a ball and potentially getting hurt. so player and fan safety? its a no brainer.

 

Could netting have prevented Hector Gomez from flying face first into the stands in St. Louis?

 

A wall that was built with sanity in mind instead whatever the hell they have in St. Louis would have prevented that from happening. Remember it took Lyle Overbay getting a nice gash on his face for them to remove the plexiglass they had there.

[RightFieldCoder]

My gut reaction was to be against the netting.

 

Then I thought, why do they have netting behind home plate? Because they recognize that balls could enter that area at a dangerous velocity. If the same is true throughout the infield, why aren't there nets in the entire area?

[homer]

People harping on personal responsibility need to take inventory next time they go to a game: do you really pay attention to each and every pitch? All 250+ of them? I doubt it. Even the old timers that keep score and listen to Uecker on their 1989 Sony Walkman miss a pitch while tallying up some random stat or updating their scorebook when a hit is changed to an error. Also, I don't care who you are if you have less than a second to react you aren't always going to get out of the way regardless of whether or not you are paying attention.

 

The most expensive seats at the ballpark are behind netting. No one would stop coming to games if they extended it out past the dug out.

[torts]

it would also prevent players from going into the stands trying to catch a ball and potentially getting hurt. so player and fan safety? its a no brainer.

 

Could netting have prevented Hector Gomez from flying face first into the stands in St. Louis?

 

well, yeah, because he wouldnt have tried to make a play he had no chance on

[Invader3K]

As the game evolves, so do safety measures. Back in the day, batters didn't wear helmets. I'm sure when MLB forced all players to wear them, some people said it was unnecessary, or it was "ruining the game" or whatever. Times change.

[Jimbo]

I find netting distractive. When I sit in the Loge Infield, I choose to be behind the dugout. At hockey games, I avoid the ends.

[JimH5]

I have been behind the home plate screen lots of times and after the first couple of batters, I don't even see the screen. We've all watched games on TV and have seen people flinch when a ball comes back at them. The screen becomes invisible.

 

My current seats are up above the screen on the Loge level, and foul balls have rocketed to us several times with little time to react.

 

So, I would be fine with extending the screen to include everything through the dugout areas. The last thing people want is to suffer a gruesome injury when out for a fun night.

[1992casey]

I think homer nailed it. You could be glancing at your scorecard, passing someone's money to the beer vendor (or passing the beers to the customer), getting up to allow people to reach their seats, become distracted by a fan's antics, or whatever.

 

At any rate, I'm not bothered by a net. Railings are an entirely different story, though. I wondered about railings when Gómez fell into the stands. But a railing would have directly blocked the line of sight for fans in the front row.

[AZBrewCrew]

might as well put netting between the pitcher and home plate...theres a higher probability of a pitcher getting hit by a line drive and being killed from commotio cordis than there is a fan being hurt/killed by a broken bat or foul ball

[splitterpfj]

might as well put netting between the pitcher and home plate...theres a higher probability of a pitcher getting hit by a line drive and being killed from commotio cordis than there is a fan being hurt/killed by a broken bat or foul ball

 

That's a different topic, but don't think the discussion of protective headgear for pitchers is anywhere close to over.

[Point Beer Is Best]

I have 2 young daughters and specifically buy seats under the netting when I take them to games. They pay moderate attention to the games and I spend more time tracking down food vendors for them than actually watching the game. Being under the net means I still have good seats and I don't have to worry if I'm distracted that my kid will get hit by a ball or tackled by three drunk guys who are all fighting for a $10 souvenir. I'd rather see more netting, but only because that would give me more choice in seats for my own personal preferences.

 

I would echo this. I have two young boys and there's just no way to have eyes watching them, the game, and unruly fans who may be sitting near you. At their ages (3 & 4), there's no way I'm going to put them too close to harm's way, but that means sitting far enough away that they quickly lose interest in the game.

 

To me, the tradeoff is this: if you put up the nets, you'll have a few people get grumpy, but are they really going to stop going to the games because of the nets? I would tend to think they would gripe about it for awhile, but they're not going anywhere. I would argue that you would make those seats much, much more attractive to people/families that are concerned with safety. Maybe those people will now be drawn to field level seats behind those nets instead of roosting up in the terrace level, which ultimately means more $$ for the team.

[Brewtraveler]

I don't think it's necessary. Random thoughts....

- It would eliminate some of the most exciting plays in baseball when a player isn't able to go into the stands to make a catch.

- It's not aesthetically pleasing.

- I don't like looking through a screen.

- Worried about flying bats and balls? Don't sit on the field level.

 

 

I agree with everything you said. Problem is you send common sense and many in the world today cannot do that. So they need government to make laws to protect themself from themself. Catchers cant block the plate, Kids can't play dodgeball, rubber playgrounds, and on and on. One incident and they goofy people think we need nationwide change to the way things have been done for many years. Instead of each individual making a decision to block the plate, play dodgeball, play on concrete, etc...

 

Nobody wants any responsibility and wants to sue or make somebody pay for their accident. If you don't want to get hit, go do something else

[FVBrewerFan]

Honestly, I really don't care either way.

 

On one side, I see nothing wrong if the Brewers or MLB put in nets all the way out to the dugouts. Realize seats are much closer to the field than the last generations of stadiums. Plus, it's not just balls- bats are flying into the stands way more than in the past. And no, you can't be "paying attention" 100% of the time.

 

On the other hand, there is risk in most things we do. The odds of being seriously injured or killed by a foul ball or bat watching a MLB game is wayyyy down the list. I would bet anything it's in the "struck by lightning" range.

 

But, as I said, I just can't get worked up either way. I love to sit behind home plate at HS games, TRats games, etc. Would at MP too, if it wasn't for the cost. Net doesn't bother me.

[DuWayne Steurer]

It's interesting that people say the risk of getting injured is very low at a baseball game. Individually, I'm sure that's true. (not even sure.....the numbers bear that out). However, the risk of "someone" getting injured (even a minor injury) is pretty high. didn't the article say that there were 2 injuries that required treatment of some sort out of every 3 games?

 

Again I say, if there's something that CAN be done about that, why not do it? Something as simple and cost effective as putting up a net.... why not do it?

 

As people have pointed out, nobody can pay attention 100% of the time. That's just not feasible. It's not. No, you can't prevent every injury. You can't build the stadiums out of nerf, or jell-o, or put 4 foot high barriers all around the upper deck, or whatever......but a net is a cheap and easy solution to preventing injuries to spectators that happen (quite literally) every single day at major league parks.

[FVBrewerFan]

Oh, no question people get minor injuries quite often. For those of you who go to TRates games, more often than not a fan gets hit by a ball at lest once a game. Not as often at MP, but I'm sure it still happens often enough. But since serious injuries almost never happen, there just hasn't been any outcry to put up more nets I guess.

[MrTPlush]

MLB has refused to crack under the pressure of some fans and will not change netting guidelines drastically. They have recommendations, but I don't think they are much different than before. To the end of the dugout on homeplate side and anything within 70 feet. They will try to get information out to fans so they know what is or isn't behind the netting however which is new. Sounds like it will be similar to when you go to buy tickets and it says "blocked view" etc.

 

You can read about it below where they posted a picture of the news release:

 

[homer]

[JackNicholson1974]

Can we be both FOR netting and AGAINST sitting front row with your nose in a smartphone? Come on kids....

[pacopete4]

The kid with a smartphone is the epitome of today's society. Pay that money to sit there and look at the screen on your phone rather than actually learn the game of baseball. A negative about the man saving his is that the kid won't learn his lesson because the bat didn't hit him. He probably thinks it's "cool."

[tmwiese55]

I used to be against any expansion of the netting but having sat behind the netting several times the last few years it really isn't much of bother, you actually end up forgetting it's even there. You probably don't need it the extent it is behind the plate but a few feet tall of it going down the line a bit won't hurt anything. My biggest complaint was the same as yours, you should be watching the game, etc. However, at this point we have to accept the preponderance of smart phones (and their use for enhancing the game by looking up stats or other info, and they're likely to be used soon to order food/drink to your seat). Honestly this could happen to even the most adamant watchers of the game as they look away to pay for a beer, read a text, look up OBP, how old a player is, check their fantasy team, wash their kids face off, and may other perferctly routine things. Why not put a little extra net up to reduce the chances greatly.

[RobDeer 45]

I too think they could probably come up with a clear netting of some sort. Braided fishing line! I would like to also see it go to the dugout or end of the dugout. I think that would block plenty of fans from the most dangerous balls and bats that go in to the crowd.

[MrTPlush]

The annoyance of the netting depends on where you sit. Loge level you are far enough away that you can't count the individual squares so it looks like it isn't there, but within the first 10 rows on the field level are the worst. That's where I cannot stand sitting because the net is quite annoying. I don't really like watching the game on a grid.

 

The farther you sit back the less the net becomes a viewing issue.

[MKE81]

The kid with a smartphone is the epitome of today's society. Pay that money to sit there and look at the screen on your phone rather than actually learn the game of baseball. A negative about the man saving his is that the kid won't learn his lesson because the bat didn't hit him. He probably thinks it's "cool."

So a still photo allowed you to draw the conclusion that this kid stares at his phone for 3hrs straight and also has zero knowledge of the game? If today's technology was available in 1980 people would be doing the exact same thing. I'm sure this kid wouldn't have exponentially increased his knowledge of the game if he was watching this pitch then bat flying at his face. He probably would have sat there like a deer in headlights - and if that happened what would your response be then? Fans who pay attention get drilled all the time by balls and bats. HE'S A KID. They don't have the attention span adults do. He just as easily could have been watching his favorite player in the field to see how he's moving defensively and setting up in position, which means he's not watching the pitch nor the bat flying at his face. But because he happened to be looking at his phone instead EVERYTHING changes even though the outcome wouldn't have.

 

And I have no problem sitting directly behind a net because it's never an issue unless you actively focus on the net, which some people can't help but do.