Baseball Nets in Chicago? OMG!!

CP Members reaction
https://media.giphy.com/media/Djk9ilQA2jjOg/giphy.gif

**** Chicago. Worthless City full of trash that spawned the biggest turd piece of trash to ever travel east to Washington DC.
Every time they kill each other in that town we should all throw a party.

Their fans are used to having to watch things from behind bars so what difference does a net make?

Netting wouldn't stop fan liability. You can still get smashed with a pop up while texting and it would be entirely your fault. As it should be. What the netting prevents is a lot of those screamers that are hard to prevent even when paying attention. Hell, you can even get hit with a hot dog to the eye from a mascot showing off and the fan is liable.

At least one: https://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/...t-force-injury

And 2 people were taken to the hospital so far this season.

And how many games do you pay to go see a year?

This is 100% factual.

The little girl was the last straw. They need more netting. Maybe all the way to the foul pole is over kill but more is needed.

If it keeps meth fueled Chisox fans from beating up our first base coach, I'm all for it.

Sadly, we live in the age of cell phone zombies. People just don't pay attention to shit like they used to.

Also, I've seen somebody get hit with a screaming line drive up close. I was paying attention and honestly I don't know if I could have reacted in time to avoid getting hit.

I see both sides, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Also, keep in mind this is a great way to keep knuckle dragging Chicago fans from storming the field and beating up elderly coaches.

I more or less support the view of baseball teams being able to continue without it, but if they want to spend the money and put it up. That is on them. What I don't like is the repeated social pressure media tries to put on stuff like this. Basically, society latches onto a non-important issue compared to the grand scheme of things, and bullies said organization or person until they do what they want. And it's all based on an emotional response that lacks logic.

Why doesn't the media put pressure on cars? Bears? Gym equipment? Escalators? Escalators injure 2100 children and 2600 senior citizens a year.

Because gym equipment and facilities that use escalators assume liability if something bad happens. Which means as risk management, they have incentive to try to find ways to make these things safer. Nobody expects that any of these things can be 100% safe. But the thought is that most companies are at least trying.

Baseball has an unusual rule where they assume almost no liability for a fan getting hurt. They have had no motivation to make the game safer for fans because they don't pay consequences if they fail in doing that.

You would be surprised. Nobody assumes any liability unless a civil court says they do. I would imagine the majority of cases with escalators are people with loose clothing getting caught or people avoiding not in service signs - all of which would make the owner of said property not liable.

There is no reason to negotiate with the injured party unless there is a precedent or case law supporting that you will lose in court.

Sure, but that's clearly different than a legally-binding agreement with your ticket purchase that specifically says the stadium and team isn't responsible if you get hurt.

Just making a sign or placing something on a ticket that you didn't sign isn't necessarily legally binding contract and it is not the end all be all.

You think I can put a sign up at my house that says "I am not liable for anything that happens to you at my house" but I have a crazy dog that is known for biting people randomly. If he bites you, I'm still likely liable.

Sure. But they would have significantly more liability if they had a known risk and solution, and chose to ignore it. They're free to ignore it, but they should assume liability if an avoidable injury occurs. If a facility has some risk of financial damage if someone gets hurt, they're at least self motivated to fix some things.

Baseball should do the same. Not that they're liable for anybody getting hurt. But they should be at least liable for injuries that could have been stopped if a nets there. They're free to ignore that risk if they think the payouts would be low and that putting up nets would lose them fan money. But they need to have at least a tiny bit of skin in the game.

They should not.

A liquor manufacturer makes liquor knowing full well that some people will use it irresponsibility and their product will cause death. When Johnny Lowlife drinks two packs of Busch Light and beats his wife - it's not Busch Light's fault nor should it be just because it is an expected outcome.

If some people sit in areas with a high propensity of foul balls - they know this risk before hand - and still choose to accept it. If they had no way of knowing this risk, perhaps they might have a case.

What is the risk management solution other than telling customers to avoid liquor? Here, the stadiums have a clear choice and they're choosing to ignore it. Again, it is not punting all liability to the stadiums. It's only making them liable for avoidable risk such as a 100 mph line drive. They know the risk, have a clear solution, and have chosen not to deal with it. That's like coordinating a marathon, knowing theres a major pothole and choosing not to fix it, then forcing the runner to assume all liability because the runner signed a waiver.

It seems the only real argument against this is...

It obstructs the view (most fans will barely notice)

Fans won't catch screaming line drives. Maybe a few pop ups.

Less fan interaction or can't catch ground balls (this seems the biggest issue, but probably some creative ways around it).

Baseball purists don't like change.

I wonder if people would bitch about the netting if it had been the standard in stadiums since 1912?

it took someone to die in hockey to put nets uo

Final proof that there's more balls in the LPGA than in the MLB.

I bet you like soccer

Can confirm and agree with your comment.

I been behind the netting and behind without no netting. Very minimal obstruction anyways, that it's hardly noticeable.

****in' chodes.

I must be the exception because I find the nets annoying as **** and they are a distraction.

A baseball killed a woman at Dodger Stadium, MLB’s first foul-ball death in nearly 50 years

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...um-family-says

This is why nets are a JOKE and everyone on here who thinks it's such a good idea are truly NOT close to Alphas, Not Betas, Not Cvcks, not Deltas, not even Epsilons...........weak, worthless as Doug Neidermeyer said.

Just last year TWO people died from exploding Vape Pens.....do we need to put nets around those too? :rolleyes:

While I would like to watch every pitch, I also realize with kids, phones, bathroom breaks I can't. I buy tickets where I know high speed foul balls won't be hit. Stop ruining the experience for others because you are too ignorant to research where it's safe for kids to sit.

It also works the other way around. Kids love sitting that close. Why ruin the experience for kids or parents because a few people are slightly inconvenienced? Even though I'm pretty sure after a few games most people wouldn't even notice.

There is no "ruining" your experience with the new netting. Have you seen the new netting? Been twice in minor league parks. Didn't even notice the netting after a little while. They have got the size small enough to do the job and the color right to blend into the baseball field.


Hockey has thick plexiglass thats hard to see through. Are hockey fans a bunch of wimps?

I love the women World Cup.

Think I've read that the eye naturally adjusts to block out the netting. Yeah if people are going to fixate on how much they hate it they'll notice it. But most fans won't. Id hope that soon enough they can raise the nets between innings or if a player or ball boy wants to toss a ball into the stands. Seems the main problem is maybe missing a foul ball or ground ball or two.

In the meantime, you can actually grab a beer, look at your scorecard, go to the bathroom, talk with your neighbor. And you can actually let your kid sit close and see their favorite players up close. there are positives beyond fan safety to this too.

I can’t believe people are being ****y over this. It’s a no-brainer.

People who bring children under 5 or 6 and babies to a ball park are asinine and even bigger jackasses if they sit where the chances of a foul ball coming at them are high, like the 3rd base line.

All this outrage over a 2 year old getting beaned. The father should be in jail for being a bad parent. :rolleyes:

Fixed.

I'm not sure "**** people who take their kids to a game" is a compelling marketing strategy.

Never said that. You thinks kids 2-4 years old belong at a baseball game? Or babies?

You know how this EASILY could have been solved: NO CHILDREN seating areas that are restricted for people over a certain age.

Problem solved with common sense, not more PC overreaction BS. :shake:

I've seen a 2 year old sitting first row behind the net at a hockey game. Players can come over in pregame and literally be inches away. He seemed like he was having a great time. Without the glass, that wouldn't be possible.

I just don't understand why you're so adamant that kids don't belong.

Are we talking about children in general? Because children 5-12 can be even more difficult to manage in those seats because they can actually move around. I can't imagine a worse marketing strategy than for the mlb to make the game less accessible for young fans.

...but if it saves even one child...

Because it's his way or the highway.

I can't imagine being so upset about a net.

Extending netting is pc overreaction bs but putting age limit restrictions on certain sections of the ballpark is somehow better? Seems one of those solutions impedes the freedom of the consumer much more than the other.

The dude ****s hookers.....what do you expect?

Maybe a company will invent a more transparent net. Something easy to see through.

What does one thing have to do with another? :rolleyes:

I think a lot of you guys are jealous cause you have fat ugly wives and girlfriends you're stuck ****ing or not even ****ing or just no money to pay for good looking pussy.

That's the only response I see from you and Jewishrabbi :shake:

Fishing line?

Or they put up a wall, and then project everything behind the wall onto a TV screen that exactly matches the size and perspective of the picture with what's happening behind the wall.

I see that you're opposed to nets, but I hope you're not opposed to fishnet stockings. Those look good on a woman.

You think there are 200 foul balls per game?

So do crotchless panties....

How is that any different than the numbers you came up with earlier in this thread?

Dude there was a woman killed less than a year ago from a foul ball. It took 4 days for her to pass from the head injury.
A little over 1.5 years ago a 2 year old girl suffered critical injuries from a ball to the face.
You need to rethink your thoughts of been this way for 60 years mindset. Batters swings are faster, pitchers are throwing harder, etc.
If the teams had to pay out for damages from foul balls they would put the nets up overnight.

I'm a big baseball fan and think this makes sense.

Maybe I'm just a pussy in my old age.

It’s way past time that the media needs to put some pressure on bears. They clearly won’t police themselves so we need to do something about them constantly stealing food. They are basically overgrown chipmunks at this point begging and waiting for scraps. This generation of bears has no idea what the older generation had to endure.

As mentioned the NHL has it and I never even think about or notice the nets when I am sitting behind goal in the upper deck. Perhaps this is slightly different netting/angles etc but my guess is the only people that will notice are the ones that want to. I would expect down the line that the generation that grows up with the netting won't have an issue with it.

How high is it going anyway? I'd expect the only foul balls this actually takes away from the crowd are the line drives.

I was at a Yankee game as a teenager sitting right behind the dugout and watched a line drive drill a girl right in the face. She was taken out and never came back. I would have been ok going back in time and rewatching the game through a net so that she didn't take that ball off the face.

scho63, You might want to fix all your posts in here that are guilty of filter evasion.

Is it just me or is it strange that this thread is consistently at the top of the Lounge the last four days?

This shows real personal growth!! Beautiful :)

Does that mean you have to remove your name from the ALPHA list? ROFL

DONE

I can guarantee this will happen eventually.

A force field! I'm on it. Although I can't think of any other practical applications for it other than a baseball game.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oFlKdzdnPVw" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In a few years every team in baseball will have this. The fans will barely notice it and no one will remember this was even controversial - just like 99% of safety features in sports.

White Sox fall to the outraged brigade.

lol

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yo1AkhYPsME" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Boy dies after falling in trampoline park :(

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2019/0...xp-pkg-vpx.hln

Damn, if only they had a net.......:rolleyes:

Kid fell 10 to 15 feet while on a rock climbing wall and died. Damn, that's pretty shitty. That isn't very high but he had brain injuries from it so that's what will get ya. Like taking a foul ball to the dome.

And if the accident was due to the park not addressing safety concerns, someone will pay for it. That's the way this works. Except in baseball.

A ball breaking a seat would make sportscenter.....this is bull shit

Why would a broken seat make SportsCenter? You don't think a hard hit baseball can crack or damage a plastic seat if it hits it just right? Probably happens frequently, and repairing the damage is just a normal part of stadium maintenance.

I assume that if it had exploded like a bomb on impact, he would have mentioned that.

ROFL Yeah, it just cracked the seat back. It wasn't like a bomb went off.

The interesting part is that it went through the rib cage of the person in the seat.

Not really. They could just sit behind the ample space that already provides protection with nets.

Or just put in the nets and anyone can sit wherever they want. Who's excluding who at this point? By the way, another fan got drilled by a line drive in LA today.

You don't notice the nets at all. There is no reason to not have them.

Do you even care how many dolphins are killed by nets each year?