Renewed push for protective netting

[MrTPlush]

. I don't have a problem with it. On the other hand there are millions of people each year who sit in "dangerous" seats (none of whom watch every single pitch closely, as someone already mentioned) and there are only a handful of serious injuries as a result each year. .

 

there are over 1500 reported injuries per year from foul balls at MLB games. How many are serious? Not sure. But that's a lot, and they could be prevented.

 

I could say that about anything in life.

[DuWayne Steurer]

. I don't have a problem with it. On the other hand there are millions of people each year who sit in "dangerous" seats (none of whom watch every single pitch closely, as someone already mentioned) and there are only a handful of serious injuries as a result each year. .

 

there are over 1500 reported injuries per year from foul balls at MLB games. How many are serious? Not sure. But that's a lot, and they could be prevented.

 

I could say that about anything in life.

 

So, let's definitely not do anything about it? That seems to be the insinuation. A net that is not an obstruction at all, and could prevent 1500+ injuries per year and could be added to every park at reasonable (and practically no cost, comparitively speaking) but the argument against it is "other things in life are dangerous too"?

 

That doesn't even make sense. By that token I could say we shouldn't have airbags or seatbelts in cars, because other things are dangerous too.

[MrTPlush]

No, not what I am saying. It is the fact your odds of being seriously injured by a foul ball at a baseball is pathetically low. Let's poke fans on this board and see how many have been hit by a foul ball. Anyone here been hurt by a foul ball?

 

You know what is more dangerous at a baseball game? Other fans especially after they drive away drunk. Should we ban beer sales?

[bani1717]

 

So, let's definitely not do anything about it? That seems to be the insinuation. A net that is not an obstruction at all, and could prevent 1500+ injuries per year and could be added to every park at reasonable (and practically no cost, comparitively speaking) but the argument against it is "other things in life are dangerous too"?

 

That doesn't even make sense. By that token I could say we shouldn't have airbags or seatbelts in cars, because other things are dangerous too.

 

I think that comparison is a bit extreme compared to the point I was trying to make.

 

While the net is not a visual obstruction in terms of viewing the game, it is an obstruction with regard to things like getting autographs and foul balls, some types of interactions with players, etc. Those types of things mean more to some people than others so they would probably be more bothered by the net. They may say that the small risk of injury is ok if it makes their gameday experience better. Others may say that even a small risk of injury is too great and that the netting needs to be up.

 

Ultimately I don't have a strong opinion either way but I do think there are arguments to be made on both sides. It all depends on an individual's view of risk/reward.

[rickh150]

The Loge level could use some netting/ better guard rails below row 1, not in line of view but in case someone falls over catching a ball.

[gypcasino]

"Brewers announce they will extend protective netting at Miller Park for 2018 season"

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2017/10/13/brewers-announce-they-extend-protective-netting-miller-park-2018-season/761418001/

[bjkrautk]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/mlb/brewers/2017/10/13/brewers-announce-they-extend-protective-netting-miller-park-2018-season/761418001/

 

Thank goodness that many more fans will have worse viewing, because some people are unwilling to actually pay attention during a ballgame they paid to attend.

[TURBO]

It takes about 15 seconds to get used to the net being there, it doesn't effect the viewing experience at all.

 

If it makes everyone safer, then I'm all for it!

[bjkrautk]

It takes about 15 seconds to get used to the net being there, it doesn't effect the viewing experience at all.

 

If it makes everyone safer, then I'm all for it!

 

Pina Go-Ahead Homer by Benjamin Krautkramer, on Flickr

 

Walker's first Brewers hit by Benjamin Krautkramer, on Flickr

 

Agree to disagree.

[homer]

You are using a camera with a very fast shutter and focal length different than the human eye. For photography, yes this is not that great. For humans, I don't think it's a big deal.

[MadScientist]

With 1500 injuries a year, it should be easy to look at all instances over the last couple of years and plot out where the foul balls went, how fast they were going and how long the fan had to react. This should be used to determine how far the netting should be extended to maximize safety and minimize impact of the netting.

 

Bats in stands should be checked as well, but if the nets are extended for the dangerous fouls, that will most likely take care of the the bats as well.

[istanbultaye]

When I look at those pictures, I just see evidence that the protective netting really doesn't have a dramatic impact on a person's ability to view the action. If a person finds the protective netting to be outrageously distracting, I can only wonder how they handle a screen door.

[stoutdude04]

When hockey added netting it made no difference for viewing. I'm okay with it.

[hurricanecrush]

1500 injuries each year seems like a lot to me. Statistically, each team would participate in 100 games each year where someone was injured. I’ve attended a lot of games in my life and watch almost every Brewer game on TV and I don’t recall seeing at most a handful of injuries over the years. It seems like if there were almost 2 injuries for every 3 major league games that this would have addressed already, that’s a lot of liability.

[dlk9s]

Netting will take away the opportunity for dads to heroically catch a foul ball while holding their baby in the other arm.

[adambr2]

1500 injuries each year seems like a lot to me. Statistically, each team would participate in 100 games each year where someone was injured. I’ve attended a lot of games in my life and watch almost every Brewer game on TV and I don’t recall seeing at most a handful of injuries over the years. It seems like if there were almost 2 injuries for every 3 major league games that this would have addressed already, that’s a lot of liability.

 

Actually the number I see most frequently cited is 1,750 per year. That doesn't mean 1,750 wound up in the hospital. Many probahly just sought first aid at the stadium for a bruise or bump.

 

And an MLB ticket purchase generally comes with an assumption of risk on it which disclaims liability for the team.

 

I mean, you can still try to sue, I'm sure people have, but you have virtually no chance of winning.

[FVBrewerFan]

1500 injuries each year seems like a lot to me. Statistically, each team would participate in 100 games each year where someone was injured. I’ve attended a lot of games in my life and watch almost every Brewer game on TV and I don’t recall seeing at most a handful of injuries over the years. It seems like if there were almost 2 injuries for every 3 major league games that this would have addressed already, that’s a lot of liability.

 

Actually the number I see most frequently cited is 1,750 per year. That doesn't mean 1,750 wound up in the hospital. Many probahly just sought first aid at the stadium for a bruise or bump.

 

And an MLB ticket purchase generally comes with an assumption of risk on it which disclaims liability for the team.

 

I mean, you can still try to sue, I'm sure people have, but you have virtually no chance of winning.

 

Not that simple. There would be very few lawsuits won by any consumer if a company just basically slaps a warning label on something.

 

Have the Brewers taken reasonable steps to avoid injuries? Could easily be argued no, and cite examples of other stadiums that have extended the netting. And if someone is badly injured, any jury will try to find any way to pay a big settlement.

 

Not saying I agree with all that or not, just a reality.

[jerichoholicninja]

The number of "injuries" a study reports is going to depend on the bias of whomever is doing the study. If someone gets drilled in the face and needs to go to the hospital, everyone is going to consider that an injury. If some guy tries to catch a high fly foul ball and the ball lands squarely on his palm and an usher gives him an ice pack for his hand is that an injury too? Totally depends on what point you're trying to make.

[homer]

The number of "injuries" a study reports is going to depend on the bias of whomever is doing the study.

 

These guys counted all the people that have died either playing or watching baseball. Pretty sure there's no bias in death.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2009/05/youre_out.html

 

And most studies will tell you right off the bat how they count an "injury". The definitive study that most people refer to was done by Bloomberg but the original article is behind a pay wall so I can't tell you how they determined what an injury was.

[adambr2]

1500 injuries each year seems like a lot to me. Statistically, each team would participate in 100 games each year where someone was injured. I’ve attended a lot of games in my life and watch almost every Brewer game on TV and I don’t recall seeing at most a handful of injuries over the years. It seems like if there were almost 2 injuries for every 3 major league games that this would have addressed already, that’s a lot of liability.

 

Actually the number I see most frequently cited is 1,750 per year. That doesn't mean 1,750 wound up in the hospital. Many probahly just sought first aid at the stadium for a bruise or bump.

 

And an MLB ticket purchase generally comes with an assumption of risk on it which disclaims liability for the team.

 

I mean, you can still try to sue, I'm sure people have, but you have virtually no chance of winning.

 

Not that simple. There would be very few lawsuits won by any consumer if a company just basically slaps a warning label on something.

 

Have the Brewers taken reasonable steps to avoid injuries? Could easily be argued no, and cite examples of other stadiums that have extended the netting. And if someone is badly injured, any jury will try to find any way to pay a big settlement.

 

Not saying I agree with all that or not, just a reality.

 

I never said it was that simple or that they could just slap a warning label on and be done with it. They need to provide protective netting in front of the most dangerous seats, which all teams do.

 

A lawsuit which cites other stadiums that have extended netting will likely lose. There is something called the 'baseball rule' which has long been enforced by courts. Basically, any fan that isn't behind protective netting assumes risk for potential foul ball injury. How severe the injury is, isn't really relevant. A fan in LF could take a screamer off the head and suffer a broken skull and most likely the team would still not be held liable for injury because of the assumption of risk.

 

Personal injury lawyers literally turn away many clients with these kinds of injuries just because the cases are so hard to win. You'd have to have some special circumstance in play. Like if the netting was defective and a ball came through and struck a fan, that would definitely be a case. There is a fan currently suing a team because his view was obstructed by umbrellas so he's suing based on their umbrella policy. Possibly a case there. But 99% of foul ball injuries, there's really no legal recourse.

[MadScientist]

Not that simple. There would be very few lawsuits won by any consumer if a company just basically slaps a warning label on something.

 

Have the Brewers taken reasonable steps to avoid injuries? Could easily be argued no, and cite examples of other stadiums that have extended the netting. And if someone is badly injured, any jury will try to find any way to pay a big settlement.

 

Not saying I agree with all that or not, just a reality.

 

I never said it was that simple or that they could just slap a warning label on and be done with it. They need to provide protective netting in front of the most dangerous seats, which all teams do.

 

A lawsuit which cites other stadiums that have extended netting will likely lose. There is something called the 'baseball rule' which has long been enforced by courts. Basically, any fan that isn't behind protective netting assumes risk for potential foul ball injury. How severe the injury is, isn't really relevant. A fan in LF could take a screamer off the head and suffer a broken skull and most likely the team would still not be held liable for injury because of the assumption of risk.

 

Personal injury lawyers literally turn away many clients with these kinds of injuries just because the cases are so hard to win. You'd have to have some special circumstance in play. Like if the netting was defective and a ball came through and struck a fan, that would definitely be a case. There is a fan currently suing a team because his view was obstructed by umbrellas so he's suing based on their umbrella policy. Possibly a case there. But 99% of foul ball injuries, there's really no legal recourse.

Possibly, but you never know with lawsuits. If the injured party can show that the configuration of a newer stadium puts fans along the base paths closer, and the exit velocity of the hits has increased, they have a possible case to say that the existing netting is not protecting a sufficient part of the danger zone. Adding that other teams have increased netting areas would help their case.

[Samurai Bucky]

I was at a game this year in the Loge level on the third base side when Vogt hit a foul ball our way. I instinctively yelled, "heads up," but fortunately it missed the beer vendor who had his back to the field, and the people waiting for their beer. Not sure I want netting up at the loge level ;-).

 

I wonder how much frustration there has been among hockey fans about netting.

[MrTPlush]

The number of "injuries" a study reports is going to depend on the bias of whomever is doing the study.

 

These guys counted all the people that have died either playing or watching baseball. Pretty sure there's no bias in death.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2009/05/youre_out.html

 

And most studies will tell you right off the bat how they count an "injury". The definitive study that most people refer to was done by Bloomberg but the original article is behind a pay wall so I can't tell you how they determined what an injury was.

 

We are talking about watching baseball...not playing it. That article hardly speaked of fans watching the game. Of the thousands upon thousands of baseballs thrown in the history of baseball one person has died. Even serious injuries requiring immediate hospital care...how many? I just think the whole netting thing is massively overblown.

 

You know what is more dangerous than foul balls? Low railings and intoxicated fans. Sitting in my seat at a baseball game is probably one of the safest things I do in my life.

[homer]

I think the argument that netting will ruin the fan experience is overblown.

[FVBrewerFan]

Rare topic where I think both sides are right. Need for expanded netting overblown? Yes. Will it have a dramatic effect on fan experience? No. I just can't get worked up either way on this one.