I'm terrified of such a thing happening to me, and it is Extremely Rare that I would ever attend a professional sporting event. I'd be curious to know where in the stadium the girl was sitting. Did the adults accompanying her understand the potential danger of a foul ball going into the stands, no matter how slim? And yes, why aren't the team and stadium owners doing more to protect fans? I suppose netting is for 'sissies'?... it takes away from the authenticity of the games?? Why do some people worship pro sports and the players so much? Some people really need to get a life.
It's not a question of paying attention - those foul balls get on you real fast, and after hearing the sound a ball made when it hit the chest of the guy in the next box over at the old Stadium, I could go for additional netting. When you're that close to the action it's not a big deal.
Foul-pole-to-foul-pole nets would prevent plays like the legendary Jeter dive, so ending the netting at the far end of each dugout seems reasonable.
Next time ticket prices are set, offer lower kids' admission prices that aren't available at field level.
And leave the nets down until game time to allow for autographs.
Shame on baseball. Nuff said.
1
The Yankees need to fix this. Put up the netting and stop being such jerks about it. No one can get out of the way of a 105 mile hour foul ball coming right at them,
3
Just check out all the people glued to their phones at a game. I don't know why they even bother to go. It's obviously not to watch the game...taking a selfie with their hot dog and sending it to some idiot who finds that 'awesome'.
This feels like the next AstroTurf moment for some enterprising inventor to develop a nearly invisible netting capable of stopping fly balls.
Obviously. The Yankees were negligent, and should be treated accordingly.
1
Like health care in general this all revolves around money. It is sickening that people's safety and well being are influenced by the money end of the business. It is also obscene that people and institutions that are so rich refuse to provide safety nets, and I mean that in our health care system and the installations of safety nets in ball parks. What is it about the psyche of rich folks that make them more of a money grubber than poor folks? I listened to a program on MSNBC where Joy Reid put forth that the rich GOP backers are pressuring the GOP lawmakers to pass this stupid Cassidy/Graham bill because they were promised tax cuts, and damn, they want their tax cuts. So the safety nets in ball parks and the general healthcare propositions are united by one thing, money. My heart goes out to that injured child and her family. No one should go to a ball game and wind up being killed or maimed for the lack of a net. No one should be excluded from healthcare so a rich person can get a tax break. Parts of this country have lost the proverbial moral compass tot the proverbial purse.
I just read a comment below that puts the blame on the adults near the child. Apparently it is their fault that they didn't block the foul ball and keep the child from being hit.
I think the vast majority of adults and most especially a grandfather would sacrifice their own safety to protect a child given the opportunity. But a 105 mph baseball gives a person next to no time to react. It's 90 feet from home plate to 3rd base. If the girl was sitting behind the visitors dug out, 100 feet away from home plate, the fans sitting near her would have had 2/3rds of a second to react. For a highly trained professional 3rd baseman on the balls of his feet with his glove ready and an unobstructed view of the batter and the ball leaving his bat, that may be enough time to protect himself from a ball hit at his face. For a sitting fan not expecting to have a ball hit directly at them, that is no time at all. Barely enough time to register the trajectory of the ball and to attempt to raise an arm.
Now put a soda or beer or hot dog or cotton candy in their hands too, and their chances of reacting at all decreases substantially. And how many times have fans had their view of home plate obstructed by a fan standing up in front of them to cheer or when returning to their seats. And let's face it, baseball is a slow game that people attend with friends and family socially. 100% vigilance at all times just isn't realistic.
Extend the nets and stop making excuses.
3
Yes, you assume a risk when you sit anywhere near any field of play. That said, everything should be done to minimize that risk. Although teams announce a warning about the possibility of fly/foul balls going into the stands prior to games, and tell people with children to act accordingly, I can't believe that they would hesitate to take the extra step of putting up safety netting. Would that really be that cost-prohibitive or inconvenient? Rob Manfred's tepid comments on this are dismaying, and tells fans plenty about his concern.
In the meantime, those planning to take children to the ballpark should maybe look for seats elsewhere than directly behind home plate or in foul territory, or maybe just not go at all. What a way to promote your sport among future fans. Put up nets and be done -- good will, good PR, good deal. Win-win.
2
In my neighborhood, a kid, cut was down, killed, at an intersection without STOP signs in 1964. For years people were calling for installation of those signs. Finally, they put up after his death. Safety changes in everything only happen after a disaster.
Any team that does not put up extended nets would be like that STOP sign never going up, even after the death of a child. SHAME on those MLB teams!
There are plenty of seats at every ball park that are out of harms way. I go to ball games to see the game, not the game filtered through a net, not a game where I can't even hope to get a foul ball. Am I taking a risk? Sure, but it's probably much less of a risk than being hit by a drunk driver on the way home. Check the number of fans hurt by balls and bats over the years and compare that against those hurt as the result of alcohol induced fights, falls, and crashes. If it's just the injuries that are of concern, better that M.L.B. start by banning the sale of alcohol at the games.
I have noticed many fans, often in the most vulnerable seats, busily doing something other than watching the batter, usually fiddling with one of their electronic gadgets. Much like crossing a busy street, you need to pay attention to what is going on around you. If it is more important to do other than watch the batter, sit in the 3rd deck or the bleachers. Or stay home and watch it on your TV, not at the park on your phone.
Yes, there are some places where even attentive fans will have no time to react, which is why there is netting behind home plate. And, yes, a case can be made for keeping children too young to react or to understand from vulnerable areas.
This incident is truly a sad tragedy, and several lives will likely never be the same. However, that would be true whether the person was hit by a ball or by a drunk driver in the parking lot.
2
"So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq." http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34996604
Foul ball injuries? Really? I'm not saying it's not tragic, it is. I'm just saying this country is crazy.
1
Short of "ruining" views, how about in every ball park, a competent engineer determines the seats that are out of harms way and kids under 16? or so are only allowed to sit in these areas. Adults, beyond the age of consent can sit anywhere they want with the understanding that if they get hit in the face with a broken bat or ballistic foul ball, they've got their monies worth.
1
'I bet it could be a three-hour job if that little girl in the stands on Wednesday night was your child.'
Best wished for a quick recovery for the little girl. It goes without saying that this was unfortunate. However, the game already does well to balance the need for fans' safety and enjoyment.
Everything entails risk. It is printed on the ticket; fans accept that they are in an environment where events cannot be perfectly predicted or eliminated; they are willing to take that risk for entertainment. Americans are so precious. They are mollycoddled by the desire to remove tiny chance of a one in a million negative outcome, to the point where the entire reason for said event becomes pointless. Stay home and watch on tv if you are not prepared to look after those in your charge during a game.
Why does anyone patronize baseball anymore? Dopes who support doping players? Since when did cheating become the American past time. Owners do not care about the fans--just money, money, and more money.
It's not the greed owners that holds back extension of netting. It wouldn't cost as much as a fraction of salary of the last player on the bench. The source of the reluctance to change this safety situation is the expressed sentiment of some people that they don't want to look through netting, or be deprived of the chance to catch a foul ball (the importance that grown adults put on this random event is absurd IMHO but that's up to them). Then of course there is the question of whether it is "statistically relevant". Since children are led into these target seats regularly, I'd say a few hospitalizations is plenty relevant. The baseball teams are not the government. They are free to do whatever they want. And eventually they will find it good business to take care of people. Good. I have always loved baseball and played it and the rare chances I've had to sit close behind the dugout at a MLB game would not have been less fun behind netting. That netting is easy to see through. It isn't chain-link fence like at your local rec field. Can't hope for a foul ball behind a net? Sit farther back towards the foul pole. It's not the most important thing to most people who don't want the ticket to include a statistical chance to see an injured child carried out, even if it is more rare than your big chance to catch a ball.
1
Is it possible that clear netting or some other see-through solution exists to protect fans? Poor view of the game seems to be the only reason people are objecting to additional safety measures. I'm sure the answer exists or can be discovered.
Only adults should be allowed to sit in seats in high risk areas. A toddler has no business sitting where a line drive can be hit. She was too young to react defensively (blocking or ducking). If an adult wants to take a risk that is his/her choice. The grandfather is guilty of child endangerment.
1
"One of the injured fans said he suffered a traumatic brain injury, and this year finally settled a lawsuit with Nascar."
I agree that it was a good idea to move the stands back, but I don't get why fans who know how close they were sitting to a track where crashes and debris flying happens with some frequency didn't know they shouldn't sit so close...
Please lets not make this a political issue. Its not left vs. right in this case. I was at Miller Park last week immediately past the netting. A solid 10-20% of the people in front of me did not watch the game and better than half spent a lot of time looking at their phones. If you can't catch (or at least deflect) a foul ball, sit with someone who can or where it is not an issue. One more suggestion: try watching the game! By the way, the folks sitting next to me were very into the game and got to take home a foul ball as a souvenir.
1
I recently went to my first - and last - game at the new Yankee Stadium. Way too loud, tickets are way too expensive, can't see except from the best, most expensive seats (bring binoculars), and the food is the same expensive garbage. I also noticed that most people aren't even watching the game. They're either talking to their seat mates, talking on the phone or they're staring at their cell phones. You want to enjoy a game? Watch it on TV or listen to it on the radio.
1
There are more than 50,000 seats in Yankee stadium. A good number of them are far/high enough from the plate so that there is zero chance of a ball or a bat getting anywhere close. If you are not willing to pay enough attention to the game to see when a ball is coming at you (or your kid), then sit upstairs.
I was at that game last week and I had no idea that someone had been injured. I may have been in the ladies' room at the time or buying a hot dog, but I don't know for sure. I may have just not been paying attention. That's why I sit upstairs.
Who took a toddler to the game and didn't protect them? This is reminiscent of the parent that bought the lawn darts.
I've had access to very nice seats behind the backstop at a major league stadium for many years, and there's no way to avoid looking through the netting in those seats. I can't believe that netting elsewhere will materially change the view - you adjust to the focal point on the field, not the net and it becomes minimal in terms of obstruction of view. On the other hand, it's literally child abuse to bring a defenseless child to the park to sit in the riskier seats. So many people are focused on their cell phones, selfies, and anything else but the game that it's not surprising that terrible incidents happen. They're not accidents, they are tragedies waiting to happen.
I did not know that in 1970 a 14 year old boy was killed at Dodger Stadium. In 1973 I was 12 years old and a line drive along the third base line struck me in the right eye. I am 56 now and I have been blind in that eye ever since. Im sure some of your readers think that at the least those that are injured are well compensated. When I was struck in California there was a legal defense called "assumption of risk"....thus the Dodgers could not be sued even for the medical cost. They did send me a signed baseball.
2
If you bring your kids to a baseball game, you'd better be ready to protect them. That means paying attention to the game and being able to catch a ball. If you can't do that, for goodness sakes don't bring your kids.
1
A long time ago when I went to Law School, and during a forty year career thereafter, injuries from foul balls at the ballpark were covered under a theory called "Assumption of Risk". In certain circumstances if you voluntariy put yourself in a situation where there is a possibility of injury in the normal course of events, you are agreeing to assume the risk of that injury. I had guests from Germany to a game at Shea, the first baseball game they had ever seen, and insured we were well out of range of foul balls. Normally people who are at risk because of location should be paying attention to the game, not gawking at their phone or getting distracted, especially at the time a pitch is being delivered. The injury to the young girl is a tragic event that could and should have been avoided by the use of simple common sense. Either avoid the danger area or put a large body, the father or in this case, the grandfather, in the path between the batter and the little girl, and pay attention to what's happening on the field.
The great baseball experience should not be drastically diminished by the need of some folks to be helicopter parents over all of humanity.
Watch the game!!!
SO, how is the little girl? Don't just say that she's doing well, or as well as expected. My guess is that she'll have months of recovery from the concussion alone, and then there is the plastic surgery to restore her face. And thoughts and prayers won't make her heal any faster. So, it is nice to know that the batter is a father and in touch with her father. Is she in serious or critical condition? Was she comatose? Why bring a tiny child to any professional sports event? And why didn't any of the adults seated around her just put up a hand to stop the ball? They might have had a broken hand, but this little child wouldn't have sustained a concussion.
1
Just don't seat vulnerable children in the front rows.
It was in the late 1960s at Forbes Field in Pittsburgh that I saw a young boy sitting just below me along the right-field line take a foul ball in his face. He was quickly removed and (I'm sure) taken directly to the hospital. His face was a smear of blood. That image will never leave me. The answer is simple: put up appropriate barriers. We can still see the game.
Every MLB player should refuse to play in ballparks that do not
have extended protective netting. Why should players be put in the position of
being the one that hits the ball that could potentially kill or seriously
injure anyone, child or adult.
1
Stop buying tickets and attending games until they fix the problem.
The Yankees are lucky they aren't going to be sued to high heaven.
We used to go to Yankee games once year in the 70's and sit front row by the third base coach. At a Yankees-Angels game, Don Baylor came to bat, the third base coach turned to fans sitting close to field, and gave everyone a heads up.
They knew then.
With all the distractions in modern day stadiums, it's time for the netting.
Hope the little girl comes through this with no problems.
MV
Will Trump claim that netting will change the game since fans are soft? "I remember when fans had a clear view and a few losers took a knock on the head from a foul ball"
The Yankees ownership comments feel disingenuous, granted that's difficult to interpret in an article. Do you believe the Yankee Ownership concerns?
Nowhere is it mentioned that baseball enjoys a unique exemption from normal rules of negligence via the outmoded legal doctrine of assumption of risk. Were injured fans allowed to sue, owners might have some incentive to protect them.
Last year I was looking to buy KC Royals tickets for my family and visiting grandparents from overseas. I wanted to buy the nicest tickets I could afford but wanted to make sure they were protected from line drive foul balls by the recently installed screens. Many nice seats were too expensive for me to afford. However I found four tickets that looked great, except that it was impossible to determine if they were protected by the screen based on information provided on the website. I emailed the Royals to ask, and they responded two days later. They described the netting and how far it extended. But they couldn't tell me if the location of my seats was protected from line drives as the screen tapers off as it nears the end. And if the Royals don't know or won't take the risk to tell a fan, how can a fan know until they show up at the stadium with their tickets in hand?
Stadiums have made a conscious decision to extend screens of a certain height to certain locations on the field. Those are conscious decisions with a certain goal in mind. I would appreciate teams being explicit about what protections were intended and for what seats those protections were intended.
I am stunned - literally stunned - that people still use the phrase "thoughts and prayers" in situations like this. "We are keeping her in our thoughts and prayers" has been pretty definitively recognized as being a euphemism for "we plan to do nothing about this."
My four year old loves baseball and we go to a lot of games. I am happy that our local minor league team extended the nets last year. I feel safer with my young children and the net barely impacts my view and is something you barely notice after the first few minutes.
Fans complain that the netting impedes their view of the game, and note that they paid a tremendous amount of money for seats close to the action. So here's an idea - put up the netting for safety, and charge less for those seats to compensate the fans for the poorer visibility. Yeah. like that's ever gonna happen...
I have attended professional games since I was a child, and I lived in Columbus, OH, in 2002, when the puck went into the stands at a Blue Jackets game. There are some differences.
Every stadium in which I've watched a game has a pre-game statement. Omar Vizquel in Cleveland, and Jamie Farr in Toledo are the most memorable, but they are all clear. PLAY BALL means EVERYONE. Women and children suffer the most hits because they aren't paying attention to the game. They are watching the mascot dance, listening to an entertaining vendor, etc. They are NOT watching the game.
Catching a ball is a large part of the fun. There are safe seats in which to set, and people have a choice. A 2 year old isn't going to be watching for a ball, but the person who brought her should be looking for it, and no one seemed to be watching.
In Columbus, the girl was taken, with a friend, to the game as a birthday treat by her father. She was taken to Children's Hospital at the request of the Blue Jackets. She was up and talking, and had never lost consciousness. The hospital, in part because she was alert and protesting the hospital visit, missed the fact that the puck had caused an arterial tear until it was too late. I would also argue that it is harder to catch a puck than a ball, or dodge a bat.
As someone else noted, do we net the entire stadium? PLAY BALL means EVERYONE, not just the players.
NYTimes, please give updates on this precious little girl. It's horrific what happened and insane nets are not mandatory.
58
It's no one's business what happens to the girl. Respect her privacy.
No, what's insane is this 2 year old's guardians put her in the most dangerous seats in a 55K seat stadium because they cared more about their view than their 2 year old. There are literally tens of thousands safe seats in every MLB ballpark.
Lonn Trost is a nitwit. The lack of screening certainly doesn't explain the large number of empty seats behind home plate at Yankee Stadium (the outrageous prices and poor performance might have something to do with it) and the entire Yankee organization should be ashamed of their failure to address this issue. I'm sure the Yankees have spent far more perfecting the liability language on the back of their tickets than they could ever spend on screening, and I am no fan of litigation, but let's hope there's a loophole the size of a missing screen for this child's family to jump through.
31
another solid reason to root against the clueless and tone-deaf Yankees!
11
So what happens when someone in an upper deck gets hurt... put netting over the entire stadium? Please. The real issue here is that there were adults all around her -- mostly men -- who failed to protect her. Twice I caught foul balls headed for my children, without thinking. Instead, their split-second reaction was to cower? With a child sitting next to them? Shameful.
22
Protect her? You don't know what you're talking about. Not even a major league catcher or NHL goalie would be able to move more than a few inches to snare a 105 mph line drive into the seats behind the dugout. Furthermore, when you're sitting there and the ball comes hurtling at you, it's moving against a backdrop of fans sitting on the other side, and can be almost impossible to pick up visually.
One more thing: people squawk about how bad the netting's going to be be, but once it's up it's no big deal at all. At Fenway (which doesn't have nets behind the dugout yet, either), I always sit behind the net...and don't even see it.
1
If the "men" had reflexes fast enough to protect her, they should be on the field. Means you cannot turn your head for even a second. How silly. A friend of mine by the name of andy zlotnick was also very badly injured at yankee stadium a few years ago (look it up). He is still advocating for change. Were the men around him supposed to,protect him too?
1
As a kid growing up in Brooklyn, I played a lot of little league B Ball. I now take my wife an kids to the Pawsox stadium here in RI, to see the minor league bb. When I here the distinctive sound of a ball being hit by a bat, I instinctively look in the direction of the sound, and, if it's a high pop, I automatically look up and yell "Heads Up!!" And my kids may have no interest in watching the game, preferring to keep their heads fixated on their iPhones. But I am always vigilant, making sure to protect them from any errant balls. I feel sorry for the girl of course, but where was the adult(s) who were supposed to look out for her and block the path of the ball, the same way a Secret Service Agent is supposed to take a bullet for the President??
Today during the Blue Jays game, the announcer said that the little girl who was hit in the face is doing well. She had fractures and a concussion. Frazier has been in touch with her father every day.
I was hit on the top of my head one month ago at a minor league game. The ball lost some velocity as it hit a tin divider before hitting me from behind. The netting ended at the dugout a few feet from where we were sitting. The pain was unbelievable and I did see stars. I'm doing fine. I want to see more netting. The story of the little girl getting hit affected me deeply. I repeat, I want to see more netting.
39
I completely sympathize with the victims of foul balls or bats hit into the stands. Yet, I once bought expensive tickets to a Blue Jays game and found myself behind the netting and I hated it. More than that: I despised it. I couldn't believe I paid what I did to have my view of the game obscured with this annoying mesh, and swore I would never sit there again. And I won't. Perhaps we are on the brink of some kind of technology that could detect foul balls headed for the stands and snag them with a mechanical device before they hit someone. I think I would be more willing to wear an obligatory helmut and clear goggles than ever sit behind a mesh again: how about that idea? More likely, I'll just stay home and watch tv.
7
What happened to assumption of risk and thoughtfulness by adults? If you bring kids or others who can't pay attention to balls and bats arriving at high speeds, then pick seats that are not vulnerable.
24
Good Lord. This was a child with the 105 mph fastball coming at her. This is not assumption of the risk.
There are plenty of seats at every ball park that are out of harms way. I go to ball games to see the game, not the game filtered through a net. Am I taking a risk? Sure, but it's probably much less of a risk than being hit by a drunk driver on the way home. Check the number of fans hurt by balls and bats over the years against those hurt as the result of alcohol induced fights, falls, and crashes. If it's just the injuries that are of concern, better that M.L.B. start by banning the sale of alcohol at the games.
I have noticed many fans, often in the most vulnerable seats, busily doing something other than watching the batter, usually fiddling with one of their electronic gadgets. Much like crossing a busy street, you need to pay attention to what is going on around you. If it is more important to do other than watch the batter, sit in the 3rd deck or the bleachers.
Yes, there are some places where even attentive fans will have no time to react, which is why there is netting behind home plate.
This incident is truly a sad tragedy, and several lives will likely never be the same. However, that would be true whether the person was hit by a ball or by a drunk driver in the parking lot.
14
You must never have tried sitting behind netting recently. These nets are hardly "filters" -- except for balls and bats. The view of the game is not materially diminished.
The nets are terrible and it doesn't solve the problem. Just like this situation where extra net wouldn't have stopped the ball. I saw a lady get hit who was behind the astros hideous net. The Problem she and her husband were not watching the GAME they were on their cell phones. Banning Cell phone and ipads would do way more than your stupid nets.
10
Are you suggesting this accident was the fault of the little girl? That she just wasn't paying careful enough attention?
YANKEE FANS ARE SICKENING, SO ARE THE YANKEES, FOR NOT PUTTING THE NETTING. GOOD FOR MY METS FOR PUTTING IT IN. PUT IN THE NETTING ALREADY!
11
Go to a Hockey Game. See how far around the plastic screen goes from behind the goal to the sides of the arena. The arcane baseball designs are from an era where giant muscle behemoths hitting balls at hundreds of miles an hour were rare. Babe Ruth would be dwarfed in size, muscles and performance by today's hitters. The game has changed and the hits more deadly so I find it inconceivable the owners have not adjusted. And the complainers who don't want their view compromised are just selfish whigners with total disregard for their fellow man and children who can get seriously hurt or even die from these missiles.
12
This is insane--what will it take for the Yankees to do the right thing, extend the netting? A fan to die? I'm sure had it been Trost's granddaughter that almost died, the netting would be up in 24 hours.
6
If MLB teams keep insisting on installing seats which are so close to the playing field, then they must take responsibility for providing adequate safety to the fans in these seats. It is a small price to pay, considering the exorbitant price that the team's charge for these seats. 100 mph pitches are leaving batted balls at as high of a speed or even faster. Common sense dictates that Commissioner Manfred should immediately order that additional safety netting be installed at all stadiums.
4
This is such a non-brainer issue, and, as usual for this country, the only things preventing the obviously right thing from being done is greed coupled with stupidity. Stupidity on the part of the fans who think humans possess the ability to react quickly enough to get out of the way of a 105 mile an hour ball and who think everyone's safety should be sacrificed to preserve their view, which is allegedly harmed by fine netting, and their ability to get balls tossed to them. & greed on the part of ownership, who just wants to kowtow to those fans. Are these reasons good enough to justify the harm done to that little girl? This will absolutely, undoubtedly happen again to someone else unless the netting becomes standard at Ballparks. Shame, shame, shame on you for opposing it!
I am a Mets season ticket holder with very good lower tier seats and I was thrilled to see the extended netting at Citi Field, even though I now must see through the net, which is barely noticeable. Words I never thought I'd say: thank you Wilpons.
16
No brainer. Put the netting. fans who don't want it might be the same idiots screaming vulgarities and getting drunk
8
Extending the netting should be a "no-brainer". Number 1 reason to protect kids and people who can't get out of the way of a screaming foul or a whirling bat.
But given that a sizable number of the other people in harms way are either glued to their smart phones or nursing a 16 dollar micro brew - who cares if it affects sight lines.
6
Fan resistance to netting isn't just about the view. What many don't want destroyed is their hope-against-hope, but nevertheless possible, chance to get a free baseball. They'll even place their small child at risk for that unobstructed chance. There's blame all around. The only solution is for baseball to protect the little ones.
10
who could possibly object? just do it.
6
from aaron hernandez & CTE (can we count OJ Simpson among the injured) to the dead girl at the NHL game to this, the for-profit private-owned sports leagues cannot claim to be good public citizens.
their claims of "safety first" always take a back seat to their greed and lack of concern. it's time ALL these teams become owned by the communities in which they play.
4
I was hit in the head by a line drive foul ball off the bat of Daniel Murphy at the Nationals final regular season home game last year. I sufferd a severe concussion and ongoing vision problems. A net would have stopped the ball that injured me. Extend the nets to the foul poles.
14
Ouch - Murph hits hard! Hope you are all healed up.
Thank you for this column.
Enough excuses. The Yankees should have put up the nets over the All-Star Break in July, like the Mets did at CitiField. Had they done that, this poor little child wouldn't have the injuries she has right now. This is on Hal Steinbrenner. He owns the team. He need to man up, take responsibility, apologize to this child's family and all fans he has put in danger, and fix the problem. The solution isn't complicated. Put up a net. Now.
Baseball should be treated like any other business with a dangerous product that injures the public. If a drug company sold a drug that badly injured 1750 people each year, the drug would be pulled from the market until the company fixed it. Baseball should be no different.
Fix it, Mr Steinbrenner. Time's up. The buck stops with you.
No more excuses.
7
We sell cigarettes and guns in America. The lethality of a product in the USA does not matter.
Thank you for calling out the emptiness of "thoughts and prayers".
46
Pope Francis says, ' You pray for the poor, then go out and help them. That's how prayer works.' We pray for this child, then we put nets to protect fans from being harmed this way ever again. It's ok to remind people of their prayers especially if they are still kneeling on them. That's how our prayers work. Pax, jb
Todd Frazier and his teammates have the power to force baseball to make this change and put up more nets.
Right after it happened, he should have walked off the field. Can you imagine the attention that would have garnered? Instead of page three in the sports section it would have been front page news. Once the game is affected, commissioner and owners will finally act. They have hidden behind the legal language on the ticket, dithered around as people have been maimed in the stands. It unconscionable.
I've written to the powers that be in my hometown MLB stadium, Miller Park, After a woman was horribly injured, and they argued with me. Fans are a mixed bag on this. The conservatives chaff at anyone taking away their "freedom" to watch a game without nets. They see it as an extension of the nanny state. So mobilizing the fans to advocate for this is not going to work. We need the players to lead this effort. No game is worth what happened to this little girl.
I think if Todd Frazier really does feel bad about this, he should DO something. Mobilize your teammates, and affect the game in a meaningful, dramatic way and baseball will notice.
6
This is a NO BRAINER - nothing should come before safety.....
6
If nothing comes before safety, then I suggest nerf balls and bats and goggles and helmets and body pads.
Donna - You probably do unsafe things all the time but because it's you, it's ok. If someone does not wish to be near fast balls, don't attend a baseball game.
What's the matter the Yankees don't make enough money they can't afford the netting? Also Mike Francesca is blaming the family he needs to be fired from FAN Radio!
12
powerfully written
2
I look forward to the day when I can watch a baseball game on television and not have to hear a broadcaster yell "Look out!" several times a game when a screaming line drive foul ball rockets into the stands.
2
Do not pat the Mets on the back so quick. My son was hit on the top of his head a few years back sitting in the front row. Lucky for him he was wearing a baseball cap and the ball hit the top of the hat which has a button on the top.
The most concerned unfortunately was the Catcher and the Hitter. A customer service person rushed to check him out and bring him a Signed baseball. Nice. But what happen after was questionable. We went inside to see the first aid who could not have been nicer. Although no doctor was there. They checked him out and explained the concussion take time to surface. I ask to see the doctor. I was told its only for the players. Not for a 16 year old unless its life threatening. The best advice came from the ENT. "Watch the game and then after go to the emergency room" which we did. It took three months for the concussion to go away and today he is fine. Granted does not want to sit in the front row anymore.
I was also informed that night to read the back of the ticket. Which state watch at your own risk. Not what a parent wants to hear. It also seemed that the Mets wanted to distance them self from a lawsuit, no one asked for my number or ever made an attempt to find if he was okay.
My son is fine and we know he has a hard head cause he is still a Mets fan.
Dad however has had enough with sports, greed and money.
My prayers are for this little girl.
3
Just so you know the language on the back of that ticket is universal in professional baseball and has been for many years.
1
the heck with what the high enders think
about their view being obstructed, which by the way is nonsense.
a child's life is infinitely more important.
if my Mets could do it (and they get so little
right these days) the Yankees most certainly
can.
it is the right and decent thing to do.
3
I agree that the ball parks should take precautions. But so should fans. This area was known to be dangerous...the adult in this situation needs to also take responsibility for bringing a small child there. Where has personal accountability gone?
6
I hope the little girl is OK.
Past evidence suggests that change will not be widespread until enough people are killed that it starts to impact ticket sales. I hope that number is not very high.
2
No brainer to install netting but somehow it drags on... Greedy owners?
3
I am a lifelong Yankee fanatic who spent much of his youth attending games at Yankee Stadium. The Yankees need to stop acting like a giant corporation and start behaving like a concerned citizen.
I have personal experience with this issue. in 2010, my family was attending a Yankees game when my 78 year old mother was hit in the face with a foul ball. We sat behind the Yankees dugout, but no where near the field. She was immediately taken to the hospital and luckily, there were no broken bones. You would have thought we would have heard something from the Yankees. But no, not a word. Not even a simple Get Well card. Sad.
6
The Yankees' insensitivity to the safety of their fans is incredible. This is the third incident this year alone. In May a child was hit by a broken bat. The team said they did not plan to add protective netting. After a fan was hit by an Aaron Judge foul ball in July, the Yankees released a statement saying that they were "seriously exploring" adding netting, but in the two months that have passed they have done nothing. Now this incident is far worse. Apparently the fear that some expensive seats would have slightly worse views which would might cost the team money is more important to the Yankees than the safety of their fans, especially children. How many more such incidents will it take to convince them? Will they wait until someone is killed?
2
The fact that the major league players won't let their families sit in an exposed area should tell you all you need to know. Safety of players has been an area of importance for some time (see all the protections a batter has, the equipment a catcher has these days) so it is now past time to enhance the safety of the spectator. And, if people complain about the netting, give them their money back. Or perhaps baseball could look at something like the Plexiglass that lines the boards in the NHL. It is clear and so unbreakable that it resists pucks at a speed at least as fast as a foul ball.
4
A net is not a big imposition on the view, and it should go past the dugout, maybe past the base too. Those line drives are too fast for anyone to react to thoughtfully, let alone a child.
2
Thoughts and prayers mean nothing unless this team installs adequate net coverage.
2
If the highest priority of the business owner is to maximize shareholder value, then the safety and health of the customer is a low priority, as long as customers can be replaced faster than they are damaged. As long as insurance companies are willing to pay for the results of obviously risky behavior, what incentive is there for teams to make improvements? Team owners have governments making special rules, cities making special rules, all with the aim of producing more "value" for owners. Shareholder value so often excludes valuing the financial and bodily integrity of customers.
2
There is an inherent risk to stepping inside the ballpark, as there is in all things. Driving to the game is far more dangerous than actually attending the event. Considering the tens of thousands of foul balls sent into the stands each MLB season, anecdotal evidence of a few deaths and injuries over the course of the last 47 years (since 1970) isn't all that impressive or convincing.
3
Baseball has made it for over 100 years without netting, and it does not need it now. When I buy those lower level seats it is to see the game closer and to hopefully snag a foul ball. Please, no more nanny state restrictions.
4
We also drove cars for 75 years without seat belts, we used to have lead in paint and gasoline, DDT was sprayed in the fields to control weeds. These things were also part of the "good old days." But society learned over time, there was a better way to do these things, ways that relieved human suffering, and made the world a safer place to live. It called progress, and its a good thing.
Was it a MLB or Yankee organisation representative who commented that they wanted to preserve the fans' "baseball experience?" I'd suggest that the little girl's, and her family's, experience is not one we should preserve. Put up the netting...
8
No, Commissioner Manfred, the issue isn't complicated. If the safety of fans actually was "first and foremost," expansive netting would've been in place by now, regardless of what fans - higher-paying and otherwise - prefer.
A lot of kids died before the need for legally mandated safety belts rose above the "preferences" of adults. It's the same question being asked about kids playing football: Where are the adults here?
7
Todd is right. Nets must be installed at major league ballparks, including those used for spring training.
I remember going to a spring training game in Florida about ten years ago with two of my buddies, with great seats along the first base line about four rows up from the field. As luck would have it, we three just happened to all be looking at home plate at the same time when a left handed batter hit a fastball into a foul ball - a line drive directly at us with zero arc on the ball. That thing must have been traveling 100 or more mph. Luckily, and immediately, all three of us ducked below the seat back in front of us and we heard the ball bang off an empty seat behind us.
If any of us were not looking at the plate at that very moment and didn't duck in time, our head would have been pulverized. We talk of that one incident to this day.
MLB should require each MLB team to install nets on all fields, down the 1st and 3rd base lines to the foul poles, at all their home and spring training fields. Pronto.
18
The risk of being injured by a foul ball is infinitesimal, probably on the order or one in 50,000. Much more unlikely than the risk of injury or even death in, say, skiing or playing tackle football. It's rediculous that people should be deprived of the ability to watch a ball game from behind the dugout with having to look through a net, just because of this paranoia. If someone's unwilling to take this risk, they should stay home and watch from the safety of their living room.
1
It's no fun to sit behind the netting, and for the price of those seats, it's horrendous. Yet, since safety is at stake, and today's times no longer allow for a .0001% chance of injury, it seems inevitable that pressure will mount. The solution: poll affected season ticket holders, if they choose not to have a net, fine, but eliminate their right to sue and inform any ticket purchaser of the risk. If a majority wants a net, install it. Problem solved.
2
All one has to do is look at Japan and their impeccable safety measures for the fans. They've had netting for years and the teams have very serious programs in all stadiums about safety from balks and bats. This continues to be about owners believing that netting will reduce what they can charge for the field seats, but anyone with common sense knows that they'll sell just as today. Most MLB players won't let friends and family sit down by the field where there isn't netting because they know the danger.
13
"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
Among professional sports, baseball is uniquely dangerous for its spectators. While it's certainly impossible to protect everyone from serious injury, there are simple and relative inexpensive ways to protect most fans from it.
It's absolutely time for MLB and all of its teams to do so.
I can speak from experience. A number of years ago my wife was injured on the hand by a foul ball at a Blue Jays game at Exhibition Stadium in Toronto. We couldn't see the ball coming in time to protect ourselves.
5
Please, look at the data. Please look at the injury rate versus other sports, other activities in our society. Also please evaluate what you say against the years of baseball games. I think you'll find that you are over reacting to a very small risk.
And personally, I've never gotten near a ball to the stands -- way too many people get in my way trying to catch it.
And if they were watching the game, they'd see the ball, rather than being on their smartphone.
1
I worked briefly for a security company for an NFL and MLB team. If you would do some research I'm certain you would be surprised as to the major major extent the leagues dictate specific game day measures regarding safety matters. Netting is a team decision only because that is the way the league want it. Focusing on individual tams approaches clouds the picture.
1
Like it or not this is the age of the cell phone.Fans of all ages will be increasingly inattentive at ballgames.This most recent regrettable and preventable accident is a call for action NOW! No more excuses.No more delays.NOW!
1
I've sat behind netting many times at different ballparks, and it's not a hardship at all. When you first sit down, it might feel restrictive, but after a minute of looking at the action on the field, your eyes no longer register its presence. The time for extended netting has passed. Kudos to the Mets for taking the initiative to extend it even further.
22
Back in the 80's when the Chicago Cubs flirted with the postseason gods for the first time in decades, their owners were told by the commissioner to install lights (so prime time games could be televised) or else they couldn't host any playoff games. If the commissioner has that type of authority, certainly he could issue the same type of ultimatum to any owners whose stadiums lack sufficient netting to protect vulnerable fans.
17
Time for the Steinbrenner family to "interfere" with team management. And thanks to the veteran Yankee players who have now publicly spoken out in favor of more netting.
49
Its not the $25,000 cost of the netting that is,the problem. The,media acts like yankees are cheap to spend$$$$
THE PROBLEM IS FANS DONT WANT TO WATCH A GAME THRU NETTING. WE WD RATHER NOT GO AND WATCH A CLEWR HDTV PICTURE
Part of the blame is the parents.... you dont sit a 2 year old so close to the action where you might get hit
Part of the problem is the yankees ... you dont allow 2 year old to be so close to the action where you might get hit
Part of the problem is life has dangers
We can drive 5mph and not have fatalities.
Life has risks
3
They need to take a page from the Minnesota Twins' playbook.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/sports/baseball/twins-screens-yank...
Yes, more netting, please.
It seems like whenever we hear the names Lon Trost or Randy Levine the Yankees are being cold-hearted or greedy. I'll take a Dellin Betances over ten Randy Levines or a hundred Lon Trosts.
There are about 300 pitches delivered in a typical baseball game. Nobody in the stands focuses on every pitch. There are too many distractions, from huge, information-laden scoreboards, to cell phones that can access background data on the players, to vendors selling food, drink, and souvenirs. For Pete's sake, the vendors almost never watch pitches, and it's the teams who send the vendors out there.
Anyone who has ever watched a game from behind netting knows that after a while the netting is barely noticeable.
1