Mark Teiria bat flys into the stands BUT fan gets a Game Issued!!!

[suicide_squeeze]

Look, I agree its great for the fan to get to keep the bat. If I got one I would want to keep it also. And I thought it was great when the Rangers let the fan keep the Hamilton bat he let go of that flew into the stands. But the people who simply say that they are going to keep the bat no matter what had better realize they could be dealing with security and could be prosecuted for theft, although I doubt a team would do it, if they tried to run off with the bat. If a team lets a fan keep the bat, its their gift to the fan. Its not because the fan owns it.

cjclong,

I am speaking as a Dodger's fan who understands the rules at Dodger Stadium. The ticket, if you read the back, has a few sections. One of them addresses the inherent risk of entering Dodger Stadium. It states very clearly that you accept all risk associated with any bat or ball thrown in to seats, and do not hold any Dodger representative or player responsible.

NOWHERE does it address what happens to a specific item that flies into the seats. That means......if it enters the seats, and you get your hands on it, it's YOURS. Period.

Your argument about a players glove is just greasping for straws.....and if someone is stupid enough to be in a position where they are hurling their wallet onto the playing field, then they deserve to lose it.

Gloves are pretty sacred, and if a player's glove ended up in the seats for any reason, you can darn sure bet there is a PLAYER attached to it. I can't imagine any fan would be stupid enough to try to make off with a player's glove while the player was trying to make a spectacular play.

The bat flying into the seats?......THAT'S a diffeent story.

If it comes my way.........."FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS" is the only way ANYBODY is taking it from me. Security will be told, in NO uncertain terms, where they can get off if they come up to me while I'm holding that bat. It's my right to keep it at that point. If I'm agreeing to the inherent risk of being possibly injured by some dumb player who can't grip his bat correctly, then he had better accept the fact that his projectile is fair game for anyone assuming that risk.

For you to say someone in that position is facing theft charges is completely false, and silly. Where and what are you basing that on?

You are mistaken.....at least as far as Dodger Stadium is concerned. And I'm sure most, if not all, ballparks are the same. As I said earlier on in this post, the only fans that would give the bat back are ones that just don't care to keep it, are too timid to argue the issue, or just don't know any better.

[mattmueller]

Your ticket gives you the right to enter the stadium and to view the game. Period. It does not give you the legal right to possession of anything that you may happen to come across while in the stadium, batted ball, thrown bat, or otherwise. The team or player, as owner of any item that happens to make it into the stands, has every legal right to ask for it back. Why? Because they own it.

If you go to the movies, do you think your ticket allows you the right to take the popcorn machine home with you because you think it would be nice to have it in your home?

Matt

[suicide_squeeze]

Your ticket gives you the right to enter the stadium and to view the game. Period. It does not give you the legal right to possession of anything that you may happen to come across while in the stadium, batted ball, thrown bat, or otherwise. The team or player, as owner of any item that happens to make it into the stands, has every legal right to ask for it back. Why? Because they own it.

If you go to the movies, do you think your ticket allows you the right to take the popcorn machine home with you because you think it would be nice to have it in your home?

Matt

Matt,

With all due respect......you are mistaken. You are trying to make a comparison to something that has no similarity whatsoever.

Listen, if your argument holds water, then why don't security guards, or team personel/representatives, demand back milestone homerun balls when hit? What thet do is send out gophers (a rep from the front office, a MLB authenticator, and security) to "make a deal"....an offer for the ball with the fan that caught it.

Why? Why not just demand it back?


Because it's not theirs to make those demands. Once a ball goes into the seats, it's the property of the fan who caught it. They have the rights to that seat.....like rental rights.......for that game. If they end up with a souvenir because of being there....fabulous!!!

That's why there was a law suit over the right's of ownership for Barry Bonds' 73rd home run ball of 2001. Two guys claimed they owned it. You didn't see Giants management step in and say "Hey, we own that ball, so hand it back!"

The same goes for any object leaving the field. ANY OBJECT. I mentioned earlier, of course that doesn't include a player. And a glove is usually on the hand of a player if that ends up in the stands.

But a bat, let go by the guy at the plate.......TOO BAD! That's one of the benefits of being at a game.

Is has alway been a nice gesture on the part of the fan to hand the bat back to a player who wants it.....but not a requirement. Look into it....you'll see.

[David]

As noted above, that the fans got to keep and resell the Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire's record setting home run baseballs proves the point. If the Giants or A's could have demanded the balls back they would have, if only to give them to the players. Additionally note that one of the Bonds home run balls when through the courts for the purpose of deciding ownership, and the judge decided that a fan was the proper owner.

[Fnazxc0114]

teix wasnt well respected in texas so im not surprised.

[mattmueller]

Not a lawyer, but let me expand my earlier statements on ownership of things in the stadium. MLB or the team (varying depending on the item) does have ownership of the item. If I recall reading the legal issues on the McGwire and Bonds cases correctly, it is my understanding of the legal principles that allows fans to keep balls that make their way to the stands via home run, toss by player after a foul ball etc. is that of intentional abandonment. The team/MLB owns the ball, but has intentionally given up the ownership rights to it once it reaches the stands because they let the ball go without any intention of retrieving it. This abandonment premise has been built based on 100+ years of this tradition of fans keeping the balls, as well as in part codified by teams that put statements on signs and backs of ticket stubs indicating ~"fans may keep balls hit into the stands".

This is much different than bats, helmets, jerseys, etc. which make their way into the stands. Because there is consistent history of teams retrieving these items (e.g. NOT intentionally abandoning them) if they get to the seats, and because there are no signs or tickets that say "you can keep bats that end up in the stands", teams have consistently invoked their rights to retain the property. Therefore, there is no common law abandonment case, and those items remain the property of the team / MLB.

Again, not a lawyer, just my understanding of the legal arguments behind the Bonds HR ball case and as it applies to random equipment ending up in the stands.

Matt

[cjclong]

Mattmueller, very good analysis. Suicide Squeeze says because there is nothing on the ticket about objects in the stands he gets to keep it. The other side of the coin is that nothing on the ticket says he does get to keep it. Using that logic nothing on the ticket says he can't get a screwdriver and unscrew his seat and take it home after the game. Want to use the nothing on the ticket says I couldn't take the seat home defense? A number of players buy their own bats for whatever reason. If the player accidentally drops (throws) a bat in the stands how is the player any less the owner. Using Squeeze's logic if he followed someone down the street and they droped something he could pick it up and run off with it Accidentally losing something is not abandoning ownership. I think it is great if teams let people keep bats thrown into the stands. But Squeeze seems to think he has a second amendment right to keep a bat that goes into the stands and I think if a team ever contests it he would find out they could take the bat from his hands whether they are cold and dead or not. And I would advise him not to slug a security person unless he wants a conviction for assault.

[saybow69]

no its actauly not a fact that the bat is yours! buddy at tiger`s game 3 weeks ago caught marcus thames bat, ushers took him and he had to give marcus thames bat back, was given a signed ball instead? players usually go over to stands themselves and ask for bat back and give the fan a batting practice bat instead to look good and not get booed for taking bat back, without giving fan something in return, but more and more now, ushers are taking care of this, i have talked to another fan who caught bat, had to give back and got an old bp bat instead, but NO! a bat is not a fans!! must give back! 99% of time they do get to keep or our given another bat or ball, but there is no rule that player has to to do this! but there is a rule that fan must give bat back to player! usher told friend! so know for fact!! a ball yes!! but bat is not yours!!