Extending the Netting at Major League Ballparks: My View
After fellow Swingin’ A’s writer Katrina Putnam’s piece earlier this week, “Oakland Athletics Fan Involved In Ballpark Netting Lawsuit Has a Point“, I feel compelled as a long-time fan – I might even call it a ‘surviving’ fan – of baseball to voice my opposing view to expanding the existing netting that is up around MLB ballparks.
The nanny society, consisting of many helicopter parents and a small percent that think they know what’s best for everyone, is at it again. This time, they are alleging that baseball doesn’t do enough to protect fans in the stands from flying bats and balls. Athletics’ season ticket-holder Gail Payne, along with others, has filed a class-action suit in San Francisco to protect fans from those flying bats and balls. They hope the court will order MLB to extend the safety netting at its ballparks along the entire length of the foul lines.
More from White Cleat Beat
- Zach Logue yet another disappointing Oakland A’s trade return
- Luis Barrera heading to familiar foe in Los Angeles Angels
- Looking back at Ruben Sierra with the Oakland A’s
- San Francisco Giants showing Oakland A’s offseason could be worse
- Lucas Luetge what Oakland A’s need in bullpen
What I initially found interesting when this story was released was that Ms. Payne has season tickets in Section 211. That’s right; Ms. Payne sits in the second deck, with her section just past first base. Given the Coliseum’s wide foul territory and layout, those seats are more than 250 feet away from the batter, and she is claiming that she needs protection from not only foul balls, but broken bats as well?
As one who doesn’t skimp when it comes to prime seats, I love the unobstructed view that comes with being close to the field. Not just being able to hear the cleats crunch on the dirt and smell the mowed grass, but also being able to be on top of the action, with nothing between me and the game I love.
Supporters of the netting have pointed to the National Hockey League, which order its teams to install netting above the glass behind the nets in 2002, after a 13-year-old girl was killed by a deflected puck at a Columbus Blue Jackets game. I’d like to point out that MLB already mandates that the screening be 60 feet high behind home plate. Those fast, unavoidable objects flying behind home plate in baseball are basically the same threat and direction as pucks behind the goals in hockey. For now, baseball remains wary of ruining the vantage point of fans, especially those like me who want to sit close and unobstructed.
Risk is a part of everyday life. We are at risk when we drive to the ballpark. We are at risk walking through the parking lot, or walking down the stairs to our seat, or even choking on whatever we’re bringing back from the concessions stand. These risks are even more likely than getting hit by something flying out of the field of play. Any time you enter into a situation where there is a known risk, like at a sporting event, you assume the risk at your own safety.
At many MLB (and even minor league) stadiums that I’ve visited, signs close to the field of play warn fans: “BEWARE OF BATS AND BALLS LEAVING THE PLAYING FIELD.”
When purchasing a ticket, you are accepting that there is a possibility that you could be hit with an object coming from the field of play – especially if you’re not paying attention to the game that you are there to watch. Your purchasing of that ticket eliminates liability from any lawsuit. Hard-hit foul balls and broken bats are a part of the game, and even suit-happy attorneys know that makes it difficult to hold facilities and clubs accountable, since those incidents are reasonably foreseeable.
It was calamitous when Red Sox fan Tonya Carpenter was severely injured by a piece of a broken bat at Fenway Park on June 5 in the game against the Athletics. Any time that an injury occurs is an unfortunate event, especially when it’s a serious one. But fans with children, or those who plan on drinking too much to pay attention – or even just those who are easily distracted – may want to take accountability for themselves and sit in a much safer location – say, Section 211, where you’re nearly a football field away from the batter.
Nobody forces you to sit so close—or to even go to the game for that matter. Stay at home and watch on your HD TV – but watch out for toe stubbings on the coffee table.
This issue is a classic example of a lawsuit trying to make a change to satisfy a few over the desires of the many, spoiling the experience for me and other fans of the game, all because they can’t handle where they sit.
Lawyers and fans who refuse to pay attention to their surroundings are ruining things for those of us with common sense.