Fan hit by foul ball

[TheHeel]

NHL and NFL have netting where the ball/puck are likely to land. MLB needs the same.

[AnthonyCorona]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

NHL and NFL have netting where the ball/puck are likely to land. MLB needs the same.

Another sign mlb fans are old, too scared of a little change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flkrsn5]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how this happens. Has this always happened or are we just hearing about it more often? A part of me wonders if people are too engaged on their phones during the game. I use to be against netting, unfortunately though if the reason it’s happening is people aren’t paying attention, then it’s needed.

[MCyganik]

Originally Posted by Flkrsn5

For the life of me, I cannot understand how this happens. Has this always happened or are we just hearing about it more often?

Both. Spectators have always been at risk of being hit by wayward baseballs. It’s not just phones, it’s how fans take in a baseball game today vs in the past. There’s more distractions in the stadium and many fans get restless easier which decreases reaction times because fans are not paying attention to every pitch and where the ball is going. Also doesn’t help that balls are coming off the bat in record speeds.

[doowopbruce]

Originally Posted by Flkrsn5

For the life of me, I cannot understand how this happens. Has this always happened or are we just hearing about it more often? A part of me wonders if people are too engaged on their phones during the game. I use to be against netting, unfortunately though if the reason it’s happening is people aren’t paying attention, then it’s needed.

Netting is for people who aren't fans, aren't paying attention to the game and will be to the detriment of people who are

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by Flkrsn5

For the life of me, I cannot understand how this happens. Has this always happened or are we just hearing about it more often? A part of me wonders if people are too engaged on their phones during the game. I use to be against netting, unfortunately though if the reason it’s happening is people aren’t paying attention, then it’s needed.

Yes, this three year old was either talking on the phone or trying to wave down the beer guy.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by doowopbruce

Netting is for people who aren't fans, aren't paying attention to the game and will be to the detriment of people who are

This pretty much encapsulates how I feel.

Foul balls have been going into the stands at high speeds since time immemorial. Maybe the speeds weren't quite as high as they are now, but they were pretty close.

The biggest difference is that whereas in the past, most fans were there to watch baseball, and therefore paid attention to every pitch, today fans are much less attentive to what is taking place on the field, and therefore at higher risk.

Up until the 2000's, it was common to see a majority of fans sitting near the field wearing a glove. Nowadays, you hardly ever see anyone bringing a glove to games.

To put things in a little bit of statistical perspective, there are probably 500 foul balls hit into the stands on any given day where there is a full slate of games, and probably 10,000 in a month and 50,000 in a season. We hear about probably 5-10 serious injuries a season.

So you're talking about maybe 1 serious injury for every 5000-10,000 foul balls.

[jbrown36836]

I still think the blame falls on the parents at this point. If you bring your kid to a game, you better pay attention to the game and to the child.

Until the netting is extended, it's 100% on the parents because they know the risks, and everyone knows that the netting isn't there right now.

I guess I'm for extending netting, but until it's in place, you need to pay attention to the game.

[Noles939913]

Originally Posted by TheHeel

NHL and NFL have netting where the ball/puck are likely to land. MLB needs the same.

LOL I don’t think the field goal netting is to protect fans from a football.

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by AnthonyCorona

Another sign mlb fans are old, too scared of a little change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really seem to dislike older people sometimes. For the record, I'm 58 and have no problem with safety netting.

I also noticed no one responded to my earlier post.......

Aren't the seats behind home plate expensive and desirable?

Those so adamantly opposed to the netting, would sitting behind home plate be out of the question for you?

I mean that pesky fence blocks your view as well right?



So I'll ask everyone opposed to netting a question. If you were given the choice of free tickets behind home plate behind the fencing, or tickets elsewhere without netting, which free tickets would you choose?
I know where I'd be sitting, right behind home plate.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by Astros19

You really seem to dislike older people sometimes. For the record, I'm 58 and have no problem with safety netting.

I also noticed no one responded to my earlier post.......

Aren't the seats behind home plate expensive and desirable?

Those so adamantly opposed to the netting, would sitting behind home plate be out of the question for you?

I mean that pesky fence blocks your view as well right?



So I'll ask everyone opposed to netting a question. If you were given the choice of free tickets behind home plate behind the fencing, or tickets elsewhere without netting, which free tickets would you choose?
I know where I'd be sitting, right behind home plate.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Since nobody responded to your first post, I'll respond to this one, then

You take an interesting angle in terms of bringing up the issue of choice.

For example, given that foul balls are (and always have been) a "known risk" of sitting close to the field at baseball games, shouldn't the people who choose to buy those tickets anyway have been considered to have knowingly and consciously "accepted" that risk? After all, there are plenty of places to sit in a baseball stadium that are at little to no risk from foul balls, in fact, probably 70-80% of the seats in a stadium.

I'm not against the idea of netting in general, but I don't want to see stadiums swathed in it. I think the current policies are probably a good balance, with netting to the end of the dugouts. If you want/need to be protected from foul balls, then you can sit in the sections protected by netting.

But for those of us who are willing to accept that risk, leave some of the sections in the lower deck close to the field without netting.

[jbrown36836]

Originally Posted by Astros19

You really seem to dislike older people sometimes. For the record, I'm 58 and have no problem with safety netting.

I also noticed no one responded to my earlier post.......

Aren't the seats behind home plate expensive and desirable?

Those so adamantly opposed to the netting, would sitting behind home plate be out of the question for you?

I mean that pesky fence blocks your view as well right?



So I'll ask everyone opposed to netting a question. If you were given the choice of free tickets behind home plate behind the fencing, or tickets elsewhere without netting, which free tickets would you choose?
I know where I'd be sitting, right behind home plate.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I think most people would sit right behind home plate.

I really just wish parents would pay more attention to their kids. I have taken my son to games, and even let him play with the phone when he got a little bored. However, I didn't leave him alone while he was doing so, and I was always paying attention. Protecting him is my responsibility. If a ball had come our way I would've easily sacrificed myself to protect him.

And for all those saying, "There's no way you can stop a ball coming in at 100mph you with no glove," I PROMISE you I would have. Would it have hurt? Hell yes. Would I have caught it? Most likely not. But I guarantee he wouldn't have gotten hit with the ball, no matter how much it hurt me.

Netting will help some, but you can't fix stupid.

[Astros19]

I will say this, I'm not judging those of you who do, but I would never bring a 3 year old to an MLB game. To be honest, my reasoning has more to do with not wanting to babysit more so than for safety reasons.

[Big35Hurt]

Originally Posted by jbrown36836

I think most people would sit right behind home plate.

I really just wish parents would pay more attention to their kids. I have taken my son to games, and even let him play with the phone when he got a little bored. However, I didn't leave him alone while he was doing so, and I was always paying attention. Protecting him is my responsibility. If a ball had come our way I would've easily sacrificed myself to protect him.

And for all those saying, "There's no way you can stop a ball coming in at 100mph you with no glove," I PROMISE you I would have. Would it have hurt? Hell yes. Would I have caught it? Most likely not. But I guarantee he wouldn't have gotten hit with the ball, no matter how much it hurt me.

Netting will help some, but you can't fix stupid.

Exactly. No one is blaming the 3-year old kid or saying something stupid like he was talking on the phone or waving down the concession guy. Even if he was paying full attention, a 3-year old kid is not going to have the reflexes to move out of the way. Parents need to be more responsible in protecting their kids at these games. If you need to check your phone, do it between innings or while a batter is doing his home run trot.

Demanding more netting is just an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Balls have been flying into the stands for decades. Whether the ball is traveling 90 MPH or 100+ MPH into the stands, people in unprotected areas just need to pay more attention to what's happening. I guess saying this makes me old, huh?

[Astros19]

Originally Posted by jbrown36836

I think most people would sit right behind home plate.

I really just wish parents would pay more attention to their kids. I have taken my son to games, and even let him play with the phone when he got a little bored. However, I didn't leave him alone while he was doing so, and I was always paying attention. Protecting him is my responsibility. If a ball had come our way I would've easily sacrificed myself to protect him.

And for all those saying, "There's no way you can stop a ball coming in at 100mph you with no glove," I PROMISE you I would have. Would it have hurt? Hell yes. Would I have caught it? Most likely not. But I guarantee he wouldn't have gotten hit with the ball, no matter how much it hurt me.

Netting will help some, but you can't fix stupid.

I appreciate your sentiment as far as your desire to protect your loved ones, but let's be honest, that ball that comes towards you and ricochets off a hard plastic armrest..... no way you're going to stop that ball every time.

[jjas311]

Originally Posted by MCyganik

Both. Spectators have always been at risk of being hit by wayward baseballs. It’s not just phones, it’s how fans take in a baseball game today vs in the past. There’s more distractions in the stadium and many fans get restless easier which decreases reaction times because fans are not paying attention to every pitch and where the ball is going. Also doesn’t help that balls are coming off the bat in record speeds.

This. I'm not saying there weren't players who could crush the ball in 1920, but on average players are stronger and equipment is more technologically advanced. It's a different game. For those of you saying it's only a few mph faster than it was decades ago...5-10mph makes a BIG difference when reacting to a well hit ball. Hell, 1-2mph makes a big difference.

Originally Posted by jbrown36836

I think most people would sit right behind home plate.

I really just wish parents would pay more attention to their kids. I have taken my son to games, and even let him play with the phone when he got a little bored. However, I didn't leave him alone while he was doing so, and I was always paying attention. Protecting him is my responsibility. If a ball had come our way I would've easily sacrificed myself to protect him.

And for all those saying, "There's no way you can stop a ball coming in at 100mph you with no glove," I PROMISE you I would have. Would it have hurt? Hell yes. Would I have caught it? Most likely not. But I guarantee he wouldn't have gotten hit with the ball, no matter how much it hurt me.

Netting will help some, but you can't fix stupid.

By any chance have you ever played baseball at a competitive level? Have you ever seen a ball coming off a bat at 100+ mph? It's incredibly tough to judge a ball like that and react. Even getting your body in front of it in time is tough.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by jbrown36836

Netting will help some, but you can't fix stupid.

See, why is this necessary? People aren't stupid just because they weren't able to protect their child from a line drive. Do you know that the father was even there? Did Grandma take the grandkids to a ball game? Was dad getting hot dogs? Did the person right in front of them duck at the last second? You have no idea what was going on, so don't call people stupid.

FYI, you have no idea what you would do in that situation. People are really tough online without that line drive coming at your face.

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by MCyganik

Both. Spectators have always been at risk of being hit by wayward baseballs. It’s not just phones, it’s how fans take in a baseball game today vs in the past. There’s more distractions in the stadium and many fans get restless easier which decreases reaction times because fans are not paying attention to every pitch and where the ball is going. Also doesn’t help that balls are coming off the bat in record speeds.

Well, given that we have no data about how fast balls came off bats prior to about five years ago, we don't know if today's balls are coming of the bat at "record" speeds, just that some of them are coming off pretty fast....

[mfw13]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

See, why is this necessary? People aren't stupid just because they weren't able to protect their child from a line drive. Do you know that the father was even there? Did Grandma take the grandkids to a ball game? Was dad getting hot dogs? Did the person right in front of them duck at the last second? You have no idea what was going on, so don't call people stupid.

FYI, you have no idea what you would do in that situation. People are really tough online without that line drive coming at your face.

Personally, I think the "stupidity" is in the choice to ignore the known risks of high-velocity foul balls and buy tickets in a "dangerous" area of the stands.

Given that there are now plenty of lower deck sections that ARE PROTECTED by netting, it is pretty stupid for people bringing small children/senior citizens to a ball game to then consciously choose to buy tickets in an UNPROTECTED section.

Dangerous high-speed foul balls are an EASILY AVOIDABLE risk.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by jjas311

By any chance have you ever played baseball at a competitive level? Have you ever seen a ball coming off a bat at 100+ mph? It's incredibly tough to judge a ball like that and react. Even getting your body in front of it in time is tough.

Truth, especially when it's not expected, you're sitting in the middle of a crowd, and you're possibly holding something.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by mfw13

Personally, I think the "stupidity" is in the choice to ignore the known risks of high-velocity foul balls and buy tickets in a "dangerous" area of the stands.

Given that there are now plenty of lower deck sections that ARE PROTECTED by netting, it is pretty stupid for people bringing small children/senior citizens to a ball game to then consciously choose to buy tickets in an UNPROTECTED section.

Dangerous high-speed foul balls are an EASILY AVOIDABLE risk.

And they will have many more options when the extra netting goes up, thank you.

It's no surprise that you're the first to contradict yourself. You went out of your way to show us the minuscule odds of getting hit, then you tell us how dangerous some sections are.

[coachnip13]

mfw13: there is one serious injury to one person in 150-300 MLB games
Also mfw13: people with kids should not sit in dangerous sections of the stadium

[griffan15]

I'll support the argument that it's the parents fault for not being able to protect the 3 year old. I took my 2 year old to roughly 40 games along the 1st baseline at Nats Park a few years ago.

First, I always sat closer to the plate (one seat to her left) so it's easier to stop anything coming our way. I never let her wander around the rows/stairs/ground as I asked to stay seated while the game was going on (also to not distract others around us). Finally, no phones/tablets during the game. I get that kids get bored and that's normal. But if my daughter was being a little disruptive or getting agitated, we would just leave. I actually left in the 2nd inning once as she was just not doing well for some reason.

If you can't protect your kids along the foul lines, sit up higher or in the outfield.

This isn't an issue at just sporting events, its a universal parental failure. More and more parents just don't pay enough attention to their kids and things like this happen as a result. I've seen unattended toddlers in the streets, running around restaurants and even running around on a plane. Parents just don't seem to care in general and their kids are lucky more bad things don't happen to them.

Since these parents aren't going to be any better at being a parent, I'm all for the netting all the way around to protect people (and their kids) from themselves.

[coachnip13]

Originally Posted by griffan15

I'll support the argument that it's the parents fault for not being able to protect the 3 year old. I took my 2 year old to roughly 40 games along the 1st baseline at Nats Park a few years ago.

First, I always sat closer to the plate (one seat to her left) so it's easier to stop anything coming our way. I never let her wander around the rows/stairs/ground as I asked to stay seated while the game was going on (also to not distract others around us). Finally, no phones/tablets during the game. I get that kids get bored and that's normal. But if my daughter was being a little disruptive or getting agitated, we would just leave. I actually left in the 2nd inning once as she was just not doing well for some reason.

If you can't protect your kids along the foul lines, sit up higher or in the outfield.

This isn't an issue at just sporting events, its a universal parental failure. More and more parents just don't pay enough attention to their kids and things like this happen as a result. I've seen unattended toddlers in the streets, running around restaurants and even running around on a plane. Parents just don't seem to care in general and their kids are lucky more bad things don't happen to them.

Since these parents aren't going to be any better at being a parent, I'm all for the netting all the way around to protect people (and their kids) from themselves.

Another assumption that there was poor parenting going on.

Get off your high horses, folks. You have no idea what was happening.

[griffan15]

Originally Posted by coachnip13

Another assumption that there was poor parenting going on.

Get off your high horses, folks. You have no idea what was happening.

Sure, I don't know what was going on.

BUT, the odds of something like this happening are A LOT smaller with proper parental guidance.

Accidents happen all the time to children, it's part of life. But a lot more (and it's not even close) can be prevented under the correct supervision. That's a fact that can't be argued against.