Fan falls at Ranger game

[Mark17]

And one more thing Mark. Your analogy of prohibiting people from dangerous sports doesn't hold up. If people want to risk their lives skydiving or mountain climbing or what have you most of us feel that is their business. This doesn't prohibit people from doing anything. It would ALLOW more people, including little leaguers and other kids to see a game in safety. IF you have some desperate need to catch a hard hit ball get some friend or hire someone to stand about 40 feet from you and hit balls at you as hard as they can. You can have your fun and most other sane people will be safer with the met.

It prohibits people from being able to view a baseball game on a nice summer day without having to look through a fishnet.

[cjclong]

Mark, I understand the pros and cons of safety. If we wanted to have every kid absolutely safe we would not let anyone play little league baseball or even high school football. I don't think most of us want to do that. I don't know that it would be necessary to put nets all the way down the first and third base lines, although I think I would be in favor of that. But as a compromise I do think the nets ought to go past the dough outs. I have seen too many balls that are hit like bullets in that area. Maybe I am influenced by a game I went to in Arlington when Pudge was still with the Rangers. They were playing the Yankees and there was rain during the game. Because of that there were empty seats in front of me when Pudge came to bat. We were sitting in the middle to the stands probaby about row 20 and 20 feet past the dough out down the first base line.The Yankee pitcher got a fastballl by Pudge and he swung late and hard and got absolutely all of the ball. It came at me like a bullet and I was bracing myself to try to catch it with my glove. The ball hit the very top of the empty seat in front of me and richotted over my head in a split second. My relexes are decent but there was no way I could have caught that ball. It could have hit either me or my wife. As I said, I try to be responsilbe, keep up with the game on the field and bring a glove. But that ball could have nailed me or anyone else sitting there. I think we need to expand the net area beyond home plate. How far I would be open for discussion. But I think in this modern era with really stong batters drilling balls into the stands we need to expand the nets. I'm sorry if it would interfear with your enjoyment of the game. It doesn't bother most fans who would gladly sit in the area behind home plate where the net is if given the chance but can't afford it. I'm waiting untill a 6 or 8 year old boy is killed or critically injured. Then you are going to see either nets put up further or kids banned from good seats in the infield. I say move the nets at least past the doughouts.

[Mark17]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Part of what you said is this:

I'm waiting untill a 6 or 8 year old boy is killed or critically injured. Then you are going to see either nets put up further or kids banned from good seats in the infield. I say move the nets at least past the doughouts.

Sadly, that will undoubtedly happen someday. But when it does, it won't be anyone's fault. It will be an accident. They happen all the time, suddenly, and no, they aren't fair, but little in life is.

[cjclong]

It will be an accident, but a preventable one. And when something can be prevented and you chose not to prevent it, it has less the character of an accident. I guess a VERY MINOR intrusion into my enjoyment of something isn't worth the life of a child, but we all have our own values.

[Mark17]

It will be an accident, but a preventable one. And when something can be prevented and you chose not to prevent it, it has less the character of an accident. I guess a VERY MINOR intrusion into my enjoyment of something isn't worth the life of a child, but we all have our own values.

Some accidents are preventable, of course. the MAIN way to prevent accidents is to not make stupid decisions. Relying on government, or some other authority, to save you from yourself is not a good path to go down, because it never ends. You've got a young child with you, don't sit in the first few rows. Common sense. Also, don't drink beer to dull your reflexes.

If the life of one child is valued as much as another, wouldn't we save more lives by requiring everyone wear life vests in their pools? And for young children, maybe even bathtubs? Toddlers sometimes drown in the tub when their parents get distracted by a telephone or doorbell. If you think that is a dumb idea, then I suppose I could throw your admonishion back at you: "we all have our own values."

As I said before, you can't child-proof the earth. And if you could, it would be a miserably constricting place to live.

[flota89]

As some others have already pointed out, it is a choice to go to a game. When a person goes to a game, they know there is a small possibility of a ball being hit to them. When they sit in the front row of a balcany, they should know that there is a chance they could fall off. If you want your reflexes, then don't drink. It really is simple stuff. I would hate having a net extended around the field. After all, for some of the real baseball fans, catching a foul ball is something you will always remember. Just because Nancy with her 3 kids with video games wasn't paying attention, should everyone be punished?

Pretty simple.

Don't eat if you don't want a chance of choking.

Don't run if you don't want a chance of falling.

Don't go to a baseball game if you don't want a chance of getting hit, and don't sit first row unless you are OK with the chance of falling off.

If someone doesn't like it, then they should just sit at home on the couch to watch the game. (That is, unless they are afraid of falling through a magical hole in the couch. )

[cjclong]

Mark, in part of your argument you are arguing something you I and I AGREE on. You can't make this a perfect world. But we do trade offs. If we limited every driver to 10 mph on the highway we would , I am sure, have thousands less people killed in wrecks than the current 60 or 70 mph limits. We have chosen to make a decision that getting people around the country faster is the trade off, and most of us don't argue with that. What I don't understand is that you seem to accept we should have nets behind the plate.. IF you are so against ANY net why? Eighty years ago baseball people, and without any government decision you seem to hate, made the sensible decision on their own to put nets behind home plate. My only argument is that the way balls are hit in the stands now it makes sense to extend them somewhat farther, my suggestion was past the dug outs. That would still leave more than half the stadium, including around half the first base and third base lines with no net. It just seems to me that the trade off of moving the nets further down to protect people is worthwhile Every argument you are making for not moving them at all could be made for just taking them down behind the plate and not have them protecting people from their stupid decision to sit there with the nets gone and get smoked by fouls hit back at max velocity. I mentioned the speed limit trade offs. I think most people would agree that we don't want people driving 150 miles and hour just as we don't want to limit them to driving 1o miles an hour. Extending the nets but not all the way seems like a reasonable trade off. Its not perfect, but it will keep people from getting hurt or killed. You seem to think only irresponsible people will be hurt so they desreve it. Maybe you are a gold glove guy but their are plenty of people who are good athletes who will get hit. Even major league players get hit sometimes and they are far better than the average fan. And if you suggest only star athletes go to games you will be lucky to have 5,000 people. I'm not asking for perfection, just make things a little safer.

[Mark17]

I think your argument is reasonable, I just disagree with it. So, I'll try to respond to your latest well-thought out reply.

Mark, in part of your argument you are arguing something you I and I AGREE on. You can't make this a perfect world. But we do trade offs. If we limited every driver to 10 mph on the highway we would , I am sure, have thousands less people killed in wrecks than the current 60 or 70 mph limits. We have chosen to make a decision that getting people around the country faster is the trade off, and most of us don't argue with that. What I don't understand is that you seem to accept we should have nets behind the plate.. IF you are so against ANY net why? Eighty years ago baseball people, and without any government decision you seem to hate, made the sensible decision on their own to put nets behind home plate. My only argument is that the way balls are hit in the stands now it makes sense to extend them somewhat farther, my suggestion was past the dug outs. That would still leave more than half the stadium, including around half the first base and third base lines with no net. It just seems to me that the trade off of moving the nets further down to protect people is worthwhile Every argument you are making for not moving them at all could be made for just taking them down behind the plate and not have them protecting people from their stupid decision to sit there with the nets gone and get smoked by fouls hit back at max velocity. I mentioned the speed limit trade offs. I think most people would agree that we don't want people driving 150 miles and hour just as we don't want to limit them to driving 1o miles an hour. Extending the nets but not all the way seems like a reasonable trade off. Its not perfect, but it will keep people from getting hurt or killed. You seem to think only irresponsible people will be hurt so they desreve it. Maybe you are a gold glove guy but their are plenty of people who are good athletes who will get hit. Even major league players get hit sometimes and they are far better than the average fan. And if you suggest only star athletes go to games you will be lucky to have 5,000 people. I'm not asking for perfection, just make things a little safer.

First, we agree some nets are good, and then there's a point where they would become intrusive. In one of your previous posts you said you don't favor nets in the outfield (thank goodness for that... but I'm sure somewhere in America there are people who do.) You prefer nets behind the plate and along the infield to the dugouts, but not in the outfield. I prefer them behind the plate only.

To me, there is a purity in being able to watch an outdoor baseball game without having a net in front of me. You downplay this. We simply disagree on how important it is.

You're distorting my comments when you say: "You seem to think only irresponsible people will be hurt so they desreve it." That is not at all what I said. I said accidents happen all the time, virtually everywhere. We need to use common sense to minimize the risks, not think some governing body can remove them for us so we can walk around like idiots and not have to take precautions ourselves.

You say: "My only argument is that the way balls are hit in the stands now it makes sense to extend them somewhat farther, my suggestion was past the dug outs. That would still leave more than half the stadium, including around half the first base and third base lines with no net."

Well, why do I have to sit in the upper decks, or way down the foul lines, to have an unobstructed view of a baseball game? Why don't the people who are concerned for their safety sit farther away and let the rest of us take our chances?

In 1982 I was playing softball and attempted a pop-up slide at 2nd base. The infield was sandy, my elbow caught, and I dislocated my shoulder. In 1987 I was playing tennis, and running back to get to an overhead lob, I slipped on wet leaves that were well back of the court, and blew out my ACL. I was self-employed at the time, and my insurance policy had a high deductible, so I couldn't afford surgeries to get either injury repaired, until I got a job with benefits in 1996.

Until then, I lived many years with a knee that buckled at unpredictable times, and a shoulder that rolled out of its socket a couple times a year and hurt so badly that I began to go into shock a couple times, struggling to get it back in place.

You know who's fault that was? Nobody's. Well, either that, or my own. Same thing, really. I just accepted it. I didn't go to the softball field and tell them to put up a warning sign, and I didn't sue the city for the wet leaves. It's called taking personal responsibility, and accepting the fact we are not in full control of our environment.

You can put up your nets as you suggest, but what happens when a peanut vendor's strap breaks and his case of peanuts falls and kills some toddler? Then do we put foam padding on the underside of all the vendors' cases?

Well, if you think that would be unnecessary, then I guess you don't care much about the life of that toddler.

:-) I am kidding with that one.

Look, we've probably bored to death everyone else on the forum but I've enjoyed the discussion. We just disagree. Let's let it go. I'll give you the final word.