MLB Off-Topic

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Spoiler

"Don't bother doing anything unless you know it's 100% effective" is a terrible stance. I'm sure there's someone who would love to put the whole stadium in a bubble but can't because people complain about it. So the answer to why haven't they done everything is most likely because people like you don't want them to do anything, so they go for the middle ground.

I definitely don't understand why you care that a sport where a million things are mandated has another mandate. Do you think batters should have an option to hit with no helmet? If they all end up choosing to use a helmet anyway, what difference does it make? And is it worth giving that option if you're just waiting for it to go wrong and have to correct it anyway?

I don't understand why you're putting so much stock into what people did or did not say to you 9 years ago. Maybe they weren't paying attention, maybe they didn't want to get into an extended back and forth essay debate, maybe they didn't care and it's just now occurring to them that it's important... What difference does it make?

You just choose the strangest hills to die on IMO.

[Caulfield]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Happy Pat Venditte day. A true trailblazer. Breaking down barriers for his own kind. Showing everyone around the world that even Amphibians can play baseball.

pfft. if he was really special, he'd throw it with his feet.

[p_rushing]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The whole net discussion comes down to do you prefer to force protection on everyone because a few don't protect themselves or do you want to allow people to choose where to sit and protect themselves.

People die in cars, all deaths could be stopped by limiting engine speeds to 10mph.


It's an extreme example but the comparison is there. I'm in the camp that people need to protect themselves and not rely on others to do it for them. Then if it is an issue and affects ticket sales in those sections, that gives you the answer.it hasn't affected ticket sales and seats in those sections are the highest priced seats from baseline to baseline.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

[KSUowls]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

You don’t support nets, but do support banning children from seats along the lines, and use catching fouls as a reason why you don’t want nets. That does not add up.

There have been some irrational/hyperbolic analogies thrown out, but I don't think this is one of them. The logic would be that you ban the children because you acknowledge that there is some heightened risk in that area that children are less able to defend themselves from. But more importantly, you would ban them from that area because they don't have a choice where their parent's buy tickets at. Conversely, there is obviously the part about being a little better (even if not perfectly) able to defend yourself as an adult, but the key point is that as an adult you are theoretically capable of making rational decisions and you're the one using that rational decision making in your purchase. If you decide you want to purchase the ticket with the most unobstructed view while maintaining a closeness to the action, despite a slightly higher risk to your person, then you would be able to do so. Also, since we've removed children from this scenario the major point of the outcry is removed.

Personally, I'm on the fence on that one, but the logic holds.

[slickdtc]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think the main concern for the no net crowd is where does it end; the slippery slope, as they say. Because the logical conclusion is that the whole field of play gets encased, and I know y’all don’t want that. But if I support extended nets, I mean, how can I say oh well this area is okay but this area isn’t when we’ve seen people hurt all over the ballpark from balls that leave the field of play.

I don’t know if fair ball HR area will ever get a net because it’s an iconic moment in a game, it’s the farthest from the action, and besides having the extra time, you have the enthusiasm of the crowd to alert you to the moment if your head is buried in your phone. There is a line to be drawn, I think the ones in support of nets realize that. I think we can all agree wearing a helmet to the game is ridiculous, that’s an example of a line being drawn.

But if we’re going to extend down the lines, we should probably extend upward and over top. It’s weird as hell to think about, but I don’t think the catwalk in some of the dome stadiums was ever on anyone’s mind until it ended up that way. They’ll find a way to deal with it. Some sky high foul pops won’t be able to be fielded... oh well. I’m willing to sacrifice that play.

I don’t particularly like it, just as Blzer said he doesn’t like coming off as a self-absorbed fan because now he has a bit of netting between him and the game at the risk of a fan getting hurt. We all love baseball, some of us for what it was, some of us for what it is becoming, and some of us for what it will be. I don’t think a dead ball call is going to be the end of the world. A dead fan though... much tougher to reconcile with.

[p_rushing]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think the main concern for the no net crowd is where does it end; the slippery slope, as they say. Because the logical conclusion is that the whole field of play gets encased, and I know y’all don’t want that. But if I support extended nets, I mean, how can I say oh well this area is okay but this area isn’t when we’ve seen people hurt all over the ballpark from balls that leave the field of play.

I don’t think a dead ball call is going to be the end of the world. A dead fan though... much tougher to reconcile with.

Yeah that is a big part of it. It gets into topics that can't be discussed, but I don't want everything decided for me.

If you add more nets, you better do it to cover the entire stands, including above. If not MLB just made a decision that some seats didn't need protection and if a ball hurts someone there, those warnings about foul balls get thrown out in court and they have to pay a ton.

A death would be terrible and would cause an overreaction, especially if it was a child, but I hope they don't change anything. They could make a verbal warning with the ushers to any parents with kids to reinforce the danger. I bet there are plenty of parents who never think about it when buying tickets.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The whole net discussion comes down to do you prefer to force protection on everyone because a few don't protect themselves or do you want to allow people to choose where to sit and protect themselves.

People die in cars, all deaths could be stopped by limiting engine speeds to 10mph.


It's an extreme example but the comparison is there. I'm in the camp that people need to protect themselves and not rely on others to do it for them. Then if it is an issue and affects ticket sales in those sections, that gives you the answer.it hasn't affected ticket sales and seats in those sections are the highest priced seats from baseline to baseline.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

Yep. So take out seat belts and airbags. People should take care of themselves, not have devices that protect them.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

[p_rushing]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yep. So take out seat belts and airbags. People should take care of themselves, not have devices that protect them.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

The current nets are the seat belts and airbags.

It's a drastic comparison, but it puts it in a real world situation. You have safety options in cars you can choose and you can sit behind the current nets or further away.


What you are saying is cars need to be mandated to be 5 star safety rated and limit speeds so that no one can be hurt.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Some of you guys really go overboard with this reactionary take on personal responsibility. I don't like it either when people don't take care of their own business, but there's also room to use common sense when it comes to issues of safety and children. I get it, you don't want people to "tread on you" or whatever, but it's a bit much at times yes? We are talking about some netting at an entertainment venue, not tax code or welfare policy here...

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The current nets are the seat belts and airbags.

It's a drastic comparison, but it puts it in a real world situation. You have safety options in cars you can choose and you can sit behind the current nets or further away.


What you are saying is cars need to be mandated to be 5 star safety rated and limit speeds so that no one can be hurt.

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk

No I'm saying that there should be reasonable accommodations to limit injuries. Expecting fans to pay attention, track, and have the hand eye coordination and reflexes to catch/avoid a ball traveling 100+ mph while people around them are all doing the same thing is unrealistic.

Besides, there are companies that do the very thing you are saying is extreme. Large trucks that can do severe damage on the road have mechanisms that limit how fast they can go for safety. And honestly all cars probably should have limitations on how fast they can go, but that's another conversation.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Seatbelts are fine to have in the car, but I actually think it might be unconstitutional to require individuals to wear the seatbelts but this isn't the forum...

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Seatbelts are fine to have in the car, but I actually think it might be unconstitutional to require individuals to wear the seatbelts but this isn't the forum...

Yeah, I think if we're invoking strict constitutionalism arguments on a gaming website where we're discussing the safety of children being hit by projectiles traveling 100+ MPH, we've seriously made a wrong turn somewhere.

[KSUowls]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yep. So take out seat belts and airbags. People should take care of themselves, not have devices that protect them.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Operation Sports mobile app

I struggled with hitting submit on this one. It seems to be a bit of a hot topic, and I don't stroke the flames any more than there already are. I blame the lack of a scarecrow (strawman) emoji!

Analogies are supposed to follow the same form of logic as the original argument. What has been mentioned is that people would have an option to be safer with more obstruction or less safe with no obstruction. Your implication is not only suggesting people are asking for everyone to be subjected to "unsafe" conditions but to also remove the very choice that was being argued for in the first place.

You car scenario doesn't miss on the same logical misrepresentation, but it does still miss on a key point. If you make your car go vroom vroom down the highway then you are increasing the potential for damage to bystanders who did not choose to be in your way. Literally the only people affected in the netting scenario are those who would choose to be in that area. I'm not going down the slippery slope of "what's next" line of thinking. My view is just that there are very few places in the stadium where a fan can be on top of the action like that, and if that's what they want then go for it. I'll continue to sit in my cheap seats out of the sun

I'm not going to act like there are not valid reasons for moving the nets. Even though those seats are not nearly as risky as some seem to imply, it is still relatively more risky than say sitting in the outfield waiting for a homerun (an area which does carry risk even if it has been ignored/written off because they have more time to react. An easy google search for show the extra reaction time is not remotely full proof. Just a few weeks ago a fan in Washington took a homerun off his head. Thankfully he was not seriously injured, who knows what the injury is if it hits him 3 inches lower in the noes/eye). Piggybacking off that, the home run area is more risky than the area behind home plate with the netting and so forth. When it comes to people's safety there are always valid arguments in mitigating whatever risk is out there.

Which is why it has been so surprising how many comments have been made which go beyond simple hyperbole to prove a point. Not picking on any individual, but as an example since it's already in the above quote.. Based on what I've seen, I'm pretty sure no one wants a scenario where the diamond becomes enclosed in netting to keep all balls within the field of play. Now, despite a very false claim earlier, adults do have the requisite reaction time to avoid a foul ball hit into the stands past the netting. That is a fact based on ball speed, distance from home plate and average reaction time. The semantics of how much we deem is "enough" time is the margin of error that we view as the acceptable risk. So, logically we all have some level of acceptable risk that we find acceptable when going to a ball-game. Somehow though, the pocket of no netting where I deem the risk to be acceptable for people to be allowed to choose is not only less "right" than another person's risk tolerance, but it also means that I want all safety measures removed completely for everyone (no seatbelts/airbags on any car). I get the "less" right arguments, that's what debate is all about. It's the frequency of fallacies and strawman comments that are surprising though.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

This is why I want this policy implemented asap. Whatever lengths everyone wants to go to that will allow them to move on to the next thing, just do it now and save everyone the work. "There, that's better." Pat on the back and move on to the next one.

One less dumb discussion to have.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I struggled with hitting submit on this one. It seems to be a bit of a hot topic, and I don't stroke the flames any more than there already are. I blame the lack of a scarecrow (strawman) emoji!

Analogies are supposed to follow the same form of logic as the original argument. What has been mentioned is that people would have an option to be safer with more obstruction or less safe with no obstruction. Your implication is not only suggesting people are asking for everyone to be subjected to "unsafe" conditions but to also remove the very choice that was being argued for in the first place.

You car scenario doesn't miss on the same logical misrepresentation, but it does still miss on a key point. If you make your car go vroom vroom down the highway then you are increasing the potential for damage to bystanders who did not choose to be in your way. Literally the only people affected in the netting scenario are those who would choose to be in that area. I'm not going down the slippery slope of "what's next" line of thinking. My view is just that there are very few places in the stadium where a fan can be on top of the action like that, and if that's what they want then go for it. I'll continue to sit in my cheap seats out of the sun

I'm not going to act like there are not valid reasons for moving the nets. Even though those seats are not nearly as risky as some seem to imply, it is still relatively more risky than say sitting in the outfield waiting for a homerun (an area which does carry risk even if it has been ignored/written off because they have more time to react. An easy google search for show the extra reaction time is not remotely full proof. Just a few weeks ago a fan in Washington took a homerun off his head. Thankfully he was not seriously injured, who knows what the injury is if it hits him 3 inches lower in the noes/eye). Piggybacking off that, the home run area is more risky than the area behind home plate with the netting and so forth. When it comes to people's safety there are always valid arguments in mitigating whatever risk is out there.

Which is why it has been so surprising how many comments have been made which go beyond simple hyperbole to prove a point. Not picking on any individual, but as an example since it's already in the above quote.. Based on what I've seen, I'm pretty sure no one wants a scenario where the diamond becomes enclosed in netting to keep all balls within the field of play. Now, despite a very false claim earlier, adults do have the requisite reaction time to avoid a foul ball hit into the stands past the netting. That is a fact based on ball speed, distance from home plate and average reaction time. The semantics of how much we deem is "enough" time is the margin of error that we view as the acceptable risk. So, logically we all have some level of acceptable risk that we find acceptable when going to a ball-game. Somehow though, the pocket of no netting where I deem the risk to be acceptable for people to be allowed to choose is not only less "right" than another person's risk tolerance, but it also means that I want all safety measures removed completely for everyone (no seatbelts/airbags on any car). I get the "less" right arguments, that's what debate is all about. It's the frequency of fallacies and strawman comments that are surprising though.

So the determining factor is how quick someone can respond to a batted ball at the top speed it might come at them. Obviously everyone agrees that behind home plate needs to be protected because people can't react in time. I'm saying it needs to be extended for the same reason. The occurrence that re-ignited all of this, the ball got to the stands in 1.2 seconds. If you have your attention diverted at all, for whatever reason, you're not going to be able to get out of the way. And honestly, I would be surprised if 90% of people could get out of the way if they were paying attention in that instance considering there are probably 10-15 other people right around you that are trying to move out of the way or try to catch it or whatever all at the same time.

I think people are underrating how distracting and difficult all of that is to manage in less than 2 seconds, and overrating their ability to pay attention fully to every pitch of a baseball game.