BREAKING NEWS: Chicago White Sox to put up netting all the way to foul poul

[scho63]

Well this is shit and completely a pussy move supported by Kevin Keitzman, a douche!

[Frazod]

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.

[BWillie]

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BWillie

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BWillie

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by DaFace

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BWillie

You would be surprised. Nobody assumes any liability unless a civil court says they do.

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.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by BWillie

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.

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

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.

[Johnny Vegas]

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

[Demonpenz]

it took someone to die in hockey to put nets uo

[CrazyPhuD]

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

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by loochy

Indeed. However, they'd only have to pay attention for about 3 seconds every two minutes thanks to the snail pace of the game.

I bet you like soccer

[Coach]

Originally Posted by MMXcalibur

The NHL added nets above the glass on each end of the rink and you can barely notice them when you watch the play live.

I'm willing to bet this is the same here.

You chodes simply hate change.

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.