The horrifying images of a bleeding fan being stretchered out of Fenway Park are probably burned into your memory by now. It was a terrible moment, one that any reasonable baseball fan can agree should never happen at a ballpark. In a perfect world, no fan would be in danger of being severely injured or even killed at a baseball game.
But we don’t live in a perfect world, and there are no perfect solutions. The danger of being struck by a foul ball or a broken bat are very real, and fans assume that risk when they sit in seats that aren’t protected by the netting behind the plate.
The calls to do something after the Fenway incident are getting louder, though, and the one thing most fans and writers seem to think would help lessen the danger would be extending the netting behind home plate. Some have said the netting should go from dugout to dugout, while others have pushed for it to extend from foul pole to foul pole. The thinking being that with more netting, the chances of something flying into the stands and injuring a fan would be cut significantly.
But like with all proposed solutions, there are pros and cons to discuss. Is extended netting the answer to protecting fans? Or is the idea an overreaction to a freak occurrence? Let’s dive in.
Con: It’s an overreaction
No one has died from a flying object striking them at a baseball game since 1970. Yes, there have been injuries – severe injuries – but the risk of death at a ballgame is minimal at best. The Fenway incident was horrific, but it was an outlier rather than part of a trend. Baseball has overreacted to things before, such as the tragic death of minor league first base coach Mike Coolbaugh resulting in all base coaches having to wear helmets. Coolbaugh’s death was awful, no question. But it’s fair to ask if a helmet with no ear flaps is really going to protect a base coach getting hit on the side of the head by a screaming line drive, isn’t it? So did baseball make that change for show, just to say they did something? Sometimes a freak occurrence is just that: a freak occurrence. It doesn’t signal the start of a larger trend, nor does it mean that the sport should making sweeping changes. Sometimes things just happen, and reacting after the fact doesn’t accomplish anything other than trying to save face.
Pro: Once is enough
It’s not an overreaction if you’re trying to protect your paying customers, especially from something that seems easily preventable. It’s dangerous sitting near or over the dugout since there’s no protection from 100-plus MPH line drives or jagged pieces of broken bats flying into the stands. They’re expensive seats, and people paying the money to sit there should expect a reasonable level of protection with their ticket price. One fan being almost killed by a broken bat should be enough for baseball to take the steps necessary to ensure something worse doesn’t happen in the future. Extending the netting from dugout to dugout seems completely logical. It doesn’t impair the view of the game, as any fan who’s ever sat behind the plate will tell you. It won’t affect play, since infielders can’t lean in to get pop ups beyond the dugout anyway. The only thing it will do is make fans safer, and how can that be a bad thing?
Con: Fans know what they’re getting into
If you buy expensive tickets down the line, chances are you know there’s not going to be any protection there. You know you’ll have to pay attention and be on your toes, and you know that there’s a chance a ball or bat will come flying your way. Again, chances are minimal that a fan is going to get nailed by a foul ball or bat while sitting in the seats. It simply doesn’t happen as often as one might think. And fans that pay the kind of money it takes to sit in those seats probably don’t want more netting blocking their view; otherwise, they would’ve bought seats behind the plate. Fans know there’s a risk sitting in those seats, and sit in them anyway knowing the chances of anything catastrophic happening are slim. Shouldn’t people be trusted to make their own decisions about their personal safety?
Pro: Saying “pay better attention” is unrealistic
Not everyone who comes to the ballpark hangs on every single pitch with their attention riveted to the action. People are on their phones, or talking to their friends, or getting money out of their wallet to buy a bag of peanuts, and so on. Distractions happen, even when someone is paying attention 90% of the time. And sometimes paying attention isn’t even enough, like the case of the Dodgers fan a few years ago who was following the action on the field and didn’t even notice a broken bat hurtling towards her face. There are simply too many things that can distract even the most attentive of fans to suggest that paying better attention is the magic bullet to prevent these kinds of injuries from occurring. Baseball should take the steps needed to protect all of its fans, whether they’re paying attention or not. It’s good business.
Con: Where does it end?
What happens if a fan in the upper deck falls down to the lower level while chasing after a foul ball? Would baseball install netting up there, too? What if a vendor with his back turned far down the line takes a ball off the head? Would baseball ban vendors from the stands? Is a fan just as likely to die from slipping and falling down the concrete steps of a ballpark than he is from a flying ball or bat? There are probably hundreds and hundreds of ways to get hurt at a ballpark that we haven’t even thought of yet. How do you prevent all of them? Should baseball try to prevent all of them? When is risk acceptable, and when isn’t it?
Pro: This is an easy fix
Sure, there are a ton of ways you can injure yourself at a ballpark. The difference is, the kind of injuries that people are talking about now can be cut down significantly with a single change. You can’t make sure that all concrete steps are dry and not slippery, and you can’t force vendors to walk backwards up the steps so they’re always facing the action. What baseball can do is take the steps necessary to prevent a tragedy that seems almost inevitable after last week’s scene at Fenway. Baseball can’t protect fans from everything, but from obvious threats? That seems like a no-brainer.
So where do you stand on the subject? Is more netting the answer, or are people overreacting to a freak occurrence?
