Nets

14Red

New member
Ok, this seems to be the raging topics today is the story of the little 4 year old girl who was hit last night at the Astros/ Cubs game. Albert Almora was visibly shaken, as was other players.

So there is now this talk of mandating netting all the way down to the foul poles. Should this be done?
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
I don't think they need to go down to the foul pole but I do think they should be extended further. There's no reason not to.
 

14Red

New member
So let's look at this from a "probability" standpoint. Yes, the video of the Albert Almora emotions after hitting that 4 year old is tough to watch. But the knee jerk reaction to just extend netting immediately seems to be a little much.

First of all, how many people get serious injuries getting hit with foul balls. Now the key is "serious". A bump, or a sore spot doesn't count. You go to a baseball games, balls are hit into the stands, this happens everyday, every games since baseball was invented. There is a level of exposure when you walk into the stadium.

And before you go bonkers, look at the rest of our lives. We KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt that helmets prevent accidents and deaths of motorcycle riders. Yet helmets are not mandatory. The rider assumes a level of danger when they ride.

We know, KNOW, that slowing down the speed limit saves lives on the roads. This little girl, who seems to be doing ok now...had a better chance of a a serious injury or being killed going to a from the stadium in a car, than getting hit and injured by a foul ball. That's the percentages.
 

Taco MacArthur

Active member
So let's look at this from a "probability" standpoint. Yes, the video of the Albert Almora emotions after hitting that 4 year old is tough to watch. But the knee jerk reaction to just extend netting immediately seems to be a little much.

First of all, how many people get serious injuries getting hit with foul balls. Now the key is "serious". A bump, or a sore spot doesn't count. You go to a baseball games, balls are hit into the stands, this happens everyday, every games since baseball was invented. There is a level of exposure when you walk into the stadium.

And before you go bonkers, look at the rest of our lives. We KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt that helmets prevent accidents and deaths of motorcycle riders. Yet helmets are not mandatory. The rider assumes a level of danger when they ride.

We know, KNOW, that slowing down the speed limit saves lives on the roads. This little girl, who seems to be doing ok now...had a better chance of a a serious injury or being killed going to a from the stadium in a car, than getting hit and injured by a foul ball. That's the percentages.
So because driving/riding in a car is more dangerous than going to a ball game, we shouldn't make it safer to attend a ballgame? :confused:
 

14Red

New member
So because driving/riding in a car is more dangerous than going to a ball game, we shouldn't make it safer to attend a ballgame? :confused:
No, all I just use that as an example of why major league baseball shouldn't be required to put netting to the foul poles.

Do you leave your house Taco? Or are you scared something may happen to you? Do you not go to baseball games because you may get hit by a foul ball?
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
"Probability" is irrelevant. I just want to know if there are any good reaons to NOT extend the netting. So far I haven't heard one that would trump fan safety.
 

14Red

New member
"Probability" is irrelevant. I just want to know if there are any good reaons to NOT extend the netting. So far I haven't heard one that would trump fan safety.
I haven't heard any good reasons to not require motorcyclists to wear helmets, but there is no laws that say that.

Just because there are no good reasons doesn't mean it should happen, we see this in everyday life.

How can you say probability is irrelevant? It's the basis of how most laws / policy is made??

Ok, here's one, how are you going to handle foul balls near the fans? You extend netting, you'll have wires and extra poles along the foul side, could cause interference. Steve Bartman's life sure would be a lot different if there was netting to the foul pole.
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
In what ways is this comparable to helmet laws? One is a choice that only effects the individual while the other is not.

How can you say probability is irrelevant? It's the basis of how most laws / policy is made??
What laws are based on probability? I thought laws were based on societal values and protection from others.

Ok, here's one, how are you going to handle foul balls near the fans? You extend netting, you'll have wires and extra poles along the foul side, could cause interference. Steve Bartman's life sure would be a lot different if there was netting to the foul pole.
What are you confused about? There's been a net in play behind home plate for decades. Same rules would apply. Are you trolling?
 

wolves82

Active member
I haven't heard any good reasons to not require motorcyclists to wear helmets, but there is no laws that say that.

Just because there are no good reasons doesn't mean it should happen, we see this in everyday life.

How can you say probability is irrelevant? It's the basis of how most laws / policy is made??

Ok, here's one, how are you going to handle foul balls near the fans? You extend netting, you'll have wires and extra poles along the foul side, could cause interference. Steve Bartman's life sure would be a lot different if there was netting to the foul pole.
Having been exposed to your posts for far too many years, I realize that logic is not your thing. Let me help you...

A motorcyclist not wearing a helmet is endangering only himself. It is a conscious choice by that individual.

Each of the fans attending baseball games for enjoyment have a couple of choices: Don't go to the game, sit in the cheap seats, or sit in the better seats. Many casual fans going to games once or twice a year are not even very aware of the risk of sitting down the lines.

Baseball needs to protect its customers. Period. A lady died in Boston last year.
 

14Red

New member
In what ways is this comparable to helmet laws? One is a choice that only effects the individual while the other is not.



What laws are based on probability? I thought laws were based on societal values and protection from others.



What are you confused about? There's been a net in play behind home plate for decades. Same rules would apply. Are you trolling?
If your goal is for no one to ever get hurt or killed, we'd drive 20 MPH and everyone would be required to wear helmets. Good heavens think logically just a little.

.00000001% and maybe even less than that, are SERIOUSLY injured or killed getting hit by a foul ball!! Name other things that are safer than that??

Yes, it was sad the other night, but it was an accident!
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
The point is nothing is given up by extending the nets further. That's why there's no reason not to do it. You act like the fans are losing basic freedoms by teams extending the nets further.

Did you whine this much when they mandated extended netting last season?

And can you give me some laws that are based on probability?
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
Gee, who would have guessed this thread would devolve into an old guy rant by 14red. Ultimately, baseball will make a decision based on market feedback/concerns for fan safety and the market will likely vote for a net.

I mean, why did mlb force batters to where helmets? I rarely see a guy hit in the head. Statistically it just doesn’t happen that often. :shrug:
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
If your goal is for no one to ever get hurt or killed, we'd drive 20 MPH and everyone would be required to wear helmets. Good heavens think logically just a little.

.00000001% and maybe even less than that, are SERIOUSLY injured or killed getting hit by a foul ball!! Name other things that are safer than that??

Yes, it was sad the other night, but it was an accident!
Lol.
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
Guys I think rape should be made legal. I mean think about it, how many rapes occur compared to the number of times normal sex occurs? Such a small percentage! After all, laws are based on probability. 14Red said so.

No way this guy is real.
 

14Red

New member
The point is nothing is given up by extending the nets further. That's why there's no reason not to do it. You act like the fans are losing basic freedoms by teams extending the nets further.

Did you whine this much when they mandated extended netting last season?

And can you give me some laws that are based on probability?
I just did! Speed limits!! We acknowledge that "X" number of people will die annually in car crashes. You lower the speed limit, you save lives. However, we've decided over time that our ability to get places quicker vs. the number of traffic deaths is negotiable.

And look, I'm not whining...I'm fine if they leave the nets right where they are. The media, and many sports shows are whining, like they can just wave a magic wand and nets just drop out of the sky?? And I love the analogy, if it saves one life, than it's worth it?? Really?? There is nothing that anyone can ever do that's fullproof. There is always a sliding scale of risk vs. cost in everything we do.
 

ronnie mund

Well-known member
Got it, speed limits are what you could come up with in regards to this statement, "How can you say probability is irrelevant? It's the basis of how most laws / policy is made??" :laugh:
 

thavoice

Well-known member
Go ahead and do it. I wondered if it would hurt the view at hockey games and it didn't, nor does it affect the view at baseball games either so there really is no reason NOT to do it.
 

wolves82

Active member
If your goal is for no one to ever get hurt or killed, we'd drive 20 MPH and everyone would be required to wear helmets. Good heavens think logically just a little.

.00000001% and maybe even less than that, are SERIOUSLY injured or killed getting hit by a foul ball!! Name other things that are safer than that??

Yes, it was sad the other night, but it was an accident!
What a dumb clown. "it wasn't on purpose, so it's OK. That 5 year old should have known better."

For minimal cost baseball can protect its fans. Why not do it?

I know why 14Red doesn't want to do it. He's the old man clown with his glove at the game and he wants a foul ball!!!
 

14Red

New member
Having been exposed to your posts for far too many years, I realize that logic is not your thing. Let me help you...

A motorcyclist not wearing a helmet is endangering only himself. It is a conscious choice by that individual.

Each of the fans attending baseball games for enjoyment have a couple of choices: Don't go to the game, sit in the cheap seats, or sit in the better seats. Many casual fans going to games once or twice a year are not even very aware of the risk of sitting down the lines.

Baseball needs to protect its customers. Period. A lady died in Boston last year.
Really? You're going there? First of all, a motorcycle rider is affecting himself, and his family and anyone that relies on that person. Secondly, if the motorcyclist is killed because they are not wearing a helmet, AND the accident is caused by a motorist, it becomes vehicular manslaughter and not just an accident where someone is injured.
This is a GREAT comparison, because it is about percentages and probabilities.
As sad as this event was in Houston, it's so, so, so rare that you can't make an automatic assumption to put nets down the lines.
 

14Red

New member
Guys I think rape should be made legal. I mean think about it, how many rapes occur compared to the number of times normal sex occurs? Such a small percentage! After all, laws are based on probability. 14Red said so.

No way this guy is real.
Ridiculous comparison... Rape is a crime against a person. If you can prove Albert Almora intentionally hit the ball into the stands to hit people, then you can make that comparison.
 

14Red

New member
Hey, I got one for you knuckleheads....

Any golf match you watch on TV...the shot where the guy is teeing it up and the gallery is like 15-20 ft. from the right/ left of the golfer...should we put nets up there on each hole??? Let's get that one passed.

Or should we require a roof be put over all the galleries so fans don't get hit by a ball?

I know, anyone under 18 years old who attends a golf or baseball event must wear a helmet??
 

wolves82

Active member
Ridiculous comparison... Rape is a crime against a person. If you can prove Albert Almora intentionally hit the ball into the stands to hit people, then you can make that comparison.
Wow, you still don't recognize sarcasm do you. I am actually starting to feel sorry for you.
 

wolves82

Active member
Hey, I got one for you knuckleheads....

Any golf match you watch on TV...the shot where the guy is teeing it up and the gallery is like 15-20 ft. from the right/ left of the golfer...should we put nets up there on each hole??? Let's get that one passed.

Or should we require a roof be put over all the galleries so fans don't get hit by a ball?

I know, anyone under 18 years old who attends a golf or baseball event must wear a helmet??
It is starting to seem like you need to wear a helmet just to navigate daily life.

A few other people on here asked you specifically, what is your logical reason for not wanting to put the nets up at baseball stadiums? Do you have an answer?

It is obviously impractical at golf courses. It is very practical and comparatively inexpensive at baseball stadiums. Why are you so opposed?
 

14Red

New member
It is starting to seem like you need to wear a helmet just to navigate daily life.

A few other people on here asked you specifically, what is your logical reason for not wanting to put the nets up at baseball stadiums? Do you have an answer?

It is obviously impractical at golf courses. It is very practical and comparatively inexpensive at baseball stadiums. Why are you so opposed?
My logical answer is.... because we don't need to. It's really as simple as that.

If you are dead set against someone who willingly comes into a ball part to be protected from any peril, then God love you. You know, I bet if you look at statistics, more people trip and fall or have heat induced medical emergencies than people who are SERIOUSLY injured at baseball games. Probably 10 to 1. So are you ok with escalators or moving conveyors that move people rather than take a chance they walk? Or do we enclose the entire stadium so it can be climate controlled??

The more you think about this, the sillier it gets. Life has some risks...period.
 

wolves82

Active member
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/blogs/daugherty-blog/2019/06/05/tml-baseball-netting-rob-manfred-carson-palmer-reds-win-bengals/1351487001/?fbclid=IwAR0eVaJoU6ZO_od7y5nMVnk38PTlUCs5BWE0n_cjG4q_XfSUq-5W0N_Cv2Q

Not a big Paul Daugherty fan, but he hits the nail on the head here. At what lengths are you willing to trade freedom for safety? Can you make life fullproof?
WTF does freedom have to do with this issue? Are you totally deranged? Do you go to a baseball game only because you have the "freedom" to catch a foul ball?

please explain how this safety net impinges your freedom?

FYI I went to about 20 NHL games this year. They added full-height nets on both ends of the rink one season after a 13 year old girl got killed by a puck in Columbus. I am frequently sitting behind these nets. Viewing the game, I see everything, and I feel very free.

Lady got killed at a Red Sox game last year by a foul ball. MLB remains silent on the issue. No wonder they are thought of as a dinosaur.
 

wolves82

Active member
For all the geniuses against safety netting, some stats from Bloomberg:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/us/baseball-stadium-foul-ball-dangers/index.html


"About 1,750 fans are hurt each year by foul balls at MLB games, citing an analysis by Bloomberg, said a study Grow and another academic published last year in the William & Mary Law Review. This equates to a rate of roughly two injuries per every three games, making a fan injury from a foul ball a more common occurrence than a batter being hit by a pitch."

MLB and foul balls
-- 1,750 -- The number of fans hurt each year by foul balls
-- 100 to 110 mph -- The speeds at which baseballs enter the stands
-- $8,000 to $12,000 -- The cost of protective netting per 60 feet
-- $10 billion -- MLB's gross revenue for 2018
 

Auggie

Active member
I think another angle to this story that has not been discussed is that many of these folks getting hurt seriously from foul balls are kids under the age of 5. MLB games are the most affordable of the 4 major pro sports and many parents bring their toddler aged kids to the ball park for their 1st pro sport experience. Back in the 1st half of the 20th century kids were never seen in a ballpark but since the '60s the age has gotten gradually younger to the point now that babies are actually being seen at the ball park. A 4 year old doesn't have the attention span to be awake for an entire game let alone the reflexes to be able to react to a blistering liner into the seats. Maybe there should be an age restriction for those sitting in the lower deck between the foul poles?
 

eastside_purple

Well-known member
I think another angle to this story that has not been discussed is that many of these folks getting hurt seriously from foul balls are kids under the age of 5. MLB games are the most affordable of the 4 major pro sports and many parents bring their toddler aged kids to the ball park for their 1st pro sport experience. Back in the 1st half of the 20th century kids were never seen in a ballpark but since the '60s the age has gotten gradually younger to the point now that babies are actually being seen at the ball park. A 4 year old doesn't have the attention span to be awake for an entire game let alone the reflexes to be able to react to a blistering liner into the seats. Maybe there should be an age restriction for those sitting in the lower deck between the foul poles?
Or extended safety net. :shrug:
 
.
Top