On Broken Bats, Protective Netting, and the “Baseball Rule”
As most baseball fans are by now aware, a fan at Friday night’s game between the Oakland A’s and Boston Red Sox was seriously injured after being struck in the head when a fragment of a broken bat flew into the stands. Although initial reports suggested the woman had suffered “life-threatening” injuries, it fortunately now appears that she is expected to survive the incident.
Nevertheless, the severity of Friday’s accident has brought renewed calls for Major League Baseball to take greater steps to help protect fans from similar injuries in the future. Although broken bats and foul balls at MLB games have only resulted in one documented fan fatality in history, a recent study estimated that approximately 1,750 fans are injured by foul balls alone each year.
As a result, various observers are calling on MLB to require that teams install more extensive netting to protect fans sitting close to the field from flying objects. At the same time, others have urged a more cautious approach, suggesting that additional netting will detract from the fan experience, and that ticket buyers can rationally weigh the pros and cons of sitting in exposed seats.
While there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, all too often these debates overlook an important legal reason that helps explain why MLB hasn’t done more to protect its fans from these sorts of injuries. Under what is known as the “Baseball Rule,” courts have historically held that professional baseball teams are not legally liable for any injuries fans that may sustain after being hit by a foul ball or broken bat.
Until this rule changes, there will be little financial motive for MLB to install additional netting to protect fans sitting in the closest proximity to the field.
Since at least as far back as 1913, courts have ruled that professional baseball teams cannot be held legally accountable for injuries sustained by fans struck by a bat or foul ball leaving the field of play. These courts have generally concluded that so long as teams provide protective netting for the most dangerous seats in the stadium — those immediately behind and around home plate — fans have assumed the risk of being injured when attending a baseball game, and therefore must shoulder the cost of any such injury themselves. This is true even in cases where the bat or ball was traveling at such a high rate of speed that the victim had little realistic chance of reacting in time to avoid the injury.
In a relatively recent case involving another fan injury at Fenway Park, for example, a Massachusetts court ruled that the danger of being hit by a foul ball was so obvious that any person of ordinary intelligence would easily perceive the risk and require no additional warning of the danger (rendering the disclaimers teams often place on their tickets superfluous). Thus, even though an engineer had calculated that the victim only had about one second to react to the ball before being hit, she was deemed to have assumed the risk of her injury, and was therefore responsible for her own medical expenses.
There has been a trend in recent years for some courts to set aside this so-called Baseball Rule and hold professional teams accountable for their fans’ injuries. Back in 2013, for instance, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that a fan could proceed with a lawsuit against the minor league Boise Hawks after he was struck by a foul ball while sitting in an exposed dining area down the third base line. Meanwhile, a Georgia court held last year that a 6-year-old girl could similarly move forward with a case against the Atlanta Braves after she sustained a fractured skull when hit by a foul ball.
Both of these cases involved rather extreme fact patterns, however, and therefore are unlikely to signal a larger trend towards courts holding teams accountable for their fans’ injuries. In the Idaho lawsuit, for instance, the victim had argued that the Baseball Rule should be set aside in his case since he was sitting in a restaurant, rather than a field-level seat. Similarly, because the victim was so young in the case against the Braves, it is harder to argue that she voluntarily assume the risk of her injury.
Until courts begin to consistently hold teams liable for fan injuries, MLB is unlikely to require that additional netting be installed in its parks. In economics terms, fan injuries from flying bats or balls are currently an externality – a cost of doing business that teams are not required to shoulder, and therefore one that is not reflected in the price that they charge for their tickets.
Indeed, teams currently have little financial motivation to take greater precautions to avoid fan injuries, as they are not legally responsible for any injuries that do occur, but could potentially see the demand for some of their most expensive seats decline should they install an additional barrier between fans and the field. If teams were held legally accountable for their fans’ injuries, however, then this financial calculus would change.
Realistically, if courts were to dispense with the Baseball Rule and impose liability in these cases, teams would be forced to take out additional insurance policies to help cover the cost of any injuries their fans sustain when a foul ball or broken bat flies into the stands. As a result, one would reasonably expect that the cost of tickets – and especially those for box seats in the closest proximity to the field – would increase slightly, with teams passing this added expense on to their customers.
At the same time, however, this would arguably help spread the cost of these injuries around more fairly. Rather than requiring those unlucky fans that happen to be struck by a flying object to shoulder all of the costs of their injuries themselves, all fans would pay a little more, but be financially covered should they be hit.
And because the cost of this insurance would undoubtedly vary depending on the perceived degree of risk, teams would begin to face financial pressure to install an optimal amount of netting to protect their fans.
How much additional netting this would cause teams to install is uncertain. Perhaps teams and insurance companies would determine that the risk of injury is so low that the existing netting already provides adequate protection in most stadiums. Or perhaps teams would begin to install protective netting all the way down to the foul poles, as is the case in some Japanese stadiums. Or perhaps – and probably most likely – we’d end up somewhere in between.
Until teams are forced to shoulder the cost of these injuries, however, we won’t know what the true optimal level of protection actually is. And as a result – barring a fan actually being killed by a bat or ball – it is unlikely that MLB will change its policy regarding protective netting anytime soon.
Nathaniel Grow is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics and the Yormark Family Director of the Sports Industry Workshop at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. He is the author of Baseball on Trial: The Origin of Baseball's Antitrust Exemption, as well as a number of sports-related law review articles. You can follow him on Twitter @NathanielGrow. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not express the views or opinions of Indiana University.
A big portion of standard of care is the cost of mitigating risk vs. The likelihood and degree of risk. Seems like the cost of installing more nets would be pretty marginal for a major league team, at least they could put them in the zones where a lot of line drive foul outs and flying bats end up, and these injuries are pretty gruesome and foreseeable.
I haven’t read the original case law for the ‘baseball rule’ but it smacks of a time period where we as a society were much more inclined towards the notion of assumption of risk than we are now (for better or worse).
I don’t think any team would be concerned about the capital cost of installing nets. However, I think every team (as the author indicates) would be concerned about the deleterious effects of those nets on ticket prices/demand. However, in the absence of anything resembling a risk perception/WTP/WTA survey of the fans already purchasing those seats, I’m not convinced their concerns are justified.
The tickets behind home plate are often the most expensive in the park (sans luxury boxes) – I don’t think the nets have the deleterious affect the league (probably) thinks they do.
Ahhh, the much bally-hooed Learned Barehand formula.
this was the very first problem handed out at my first year law school first week class in legal research before being let loose in the law library to go chase down decision/precedent only armed with the broad description of the issue.
the general reaction (after being explained the law as generally described here) was mostly a mix of bewilderment, disappointment, and misgiving that this we were committed to a bit of an arbitrary system broken in some aspects.
I’d like to start by saying I really liked this article; thanks for your insight about the rules and the timely points.
But I think the claims here regarding the optimal amounts of protection emerging are a bit overstated. The risk of dangers of bats and balls leaving the field are not actually an externality; the cost is shifted to the fans directly, who can express their risk preference based on the demand for tickets. I don’t go to Eagles games in the winter because of bad weather, and the ticket prices drop tremendously, but the team itself is not causing an externality by not providing heat.
Rather, if teams installed netting and ticket prices fell, it would signal that the marginal fans value the experience of being close to the action greater than the risk of taking a dangerous injury; if prices rose, it would signal that the marginal fans valued the safety more than the current level of risk. Prices will not change because of the cost, because optimal pricing (and teams hire entire departments of pricing analysts) are set by market conditions, and not firm cost positions.
So the cost of the risk of injury is entirely internalized, and the teams pay it in one way or the other. The current law’s benefit is the avoidance of court costs, while it’s cost is an increase in volatility for fans.
Indubitably.
The analogy is weak, since the ill-effects of cold weather are known to every adult who had ever experienced cold weather (the vast majority of Americans). The ill-effects of sitting within range of a baseball or bat are not necessarily known, since very few people have ever experienced or even seen the harm they may cause.
So fans are not necessarily expressing a “risk preference” by buying dangerous seats; many probably have never even thought of the risk involved.
The reality is that the likelihood of being killed in “dangerous seats” is likely dwarfed by the likelihood of dying while traveling to and from the stadium. And not closely; likely by a magnitude in the thousands of times more likely to die from a car accident versus a flying ball.
Once you’ve accepted the risk to leave your house at all, a foul ball is fairly remote. They may not be perfectly expressing their risk preference, but it’s actually more likely that any measured difference explained by a clearly understood risk would actually be the individual overestimating the risk.
I’m no lawyer……but the belief in our society that accidents are someone’s fault, and someone should pay for them is an issue. Bad things happen sometimes, for no one’s fault. Making people pay for that is just bad for the world most of the time.
Teams know the risks and fans purchasing tickets should know the risks. OK. But the injured woman was with a small child. Should the small child know the risks?
Why, if teams know there are high risk areas in the stadium, do they allow small children in these areas?
There is no reason why teams should have to pick up the tab for injuries etc. The argument that kids cannot reasonably know or accept the inherent risks of entering a ballpark is mitigated by the reality that this risk IS accepted, presumably, by the guardians, parents, friends or whoever it is that brings them into the ballpark. At some point, people have to accept responsibility for their actions and to accept the risks without unfairly passing along the costs to teams etc.
“At some point, people have to accept responsibility for their actions”
What about a vendor’s responsibility to exercise due care?
Courts have boiled it down to a balancing act between (1) the public’s desire to have unobstructed views and be able to catch foul balls and (2) the risk of injury. This is why there are nets behind home plate, because the logic is that the risk of injury is so great that no reasonable spectator would value catching foul balls more than being protected.
So the entire question is risk vs. reward, and by waiving it off as all assumed risk on the part of the spectator you’re begging the question – are there still unprotected parts of the stadium where the risks outweigh the benefits? I certainly think so, particularly down the first and third base lines. It’s at the very least arguable, and that’s what courts are for.
I realize that it’s really popular to grump about the perceived excesses of personal injury law, but it exists for a very good reason, and you can’t just wave your hands and say ‘they knew what they were getting into’, because it’s more complicated than that.
Its not about the team allowing kids to sit there, its about the parent using their head. As a full season ticket holder with a 6 year old we choose to sit in the 8th row well down the LF line to allow for time to react to foul balls. We still get an excellent up close view, but with some room for safety. Personal responsibility is a dying concept.
So if I’m so personally irresponsible that I take my 6 yr old to a local bar, is it OK for the bar to serve both of us alcohol? Should it be, since personal responsibility is the be all and end all?
No, Disengenuous Jay Team. The legal drinking age is still 21. That doesn’t change just because you think you’re making some “brilliant” point.
The fact that someone did something you or I wouldn’t do (your example, put a six year old in a dangerous part of the stadium) doesn’t remove the stadium’s responsibility to exercise due care. To say the fan is responsible without further elaboration that establishes exactly why the stadium had no responsibility of its own is illogical, because you’re valuing personal responsibility where it applies to the spectator, but not where it applies to the business.
So should the age be 21 or should it be a matter of personal responsibility?
It is legal to bring your child to a bar and allow them to drink in 10 states, though providing more than a very small taste of booze to a six year old might still be considered child abuse.
Is this a joke JayTeam? Your drinking age example has nothing to do with anything. Or are you really suggesting that advocating for personal responsibility is implicitly advocating for lawlessness?
I’m not sure how much safer you are there. The slice on the ball can be really surprising and bounces incredibly unpredictable.
I’ll offer you a few examples.
I recall hearing a game called on the radio where a veteran 3B was playing 1B for the first time and they dropped a popup because they didn’t know how it sliced off the bat of a lefty on that side of the diamond.
This is a professional who didn’t know how the last second slice works on a well hit popup–what chance do you have?
Second, once it hits a railing or seats all bets are off as to the direction.
Third, when there is a ball that lands in the stands you can see every fan standing for about 10 to 20 feet around where the ball lands. This suggests to me that it’s hard to tell the exact landing spot from the stands and that fans misread the ball routinely.
I assume you are against the entire concept of insurance?
Accidents don’t have to be anyone’s fault, but the concept of shared risk is a long and time proven one; paying a (relatively) small amount to prevent a financial catastrophe from an unforeseen mishap.
Then you have an easy solution. If you don’t want the risk of getting hit by a batted ball, sit in the upper deck, bleachers, far out down the line, etc. This insurance is the best kind as its actually cheaper to do this!
That’s a terrible assumption. It doesn’t follow from anything he said.
Whether or not it’s an ‘accident’ that’s no one’s fault is the whole point.
Yes its’ no ones fault with an accident, but who is making money today, and who is spending it. In other words what party(in the name of good fan relations) is more prepared to shoulder the burden?
This whole argument sounds a bit like “Coal miners shouldn’t complain about the black lung – they don’t have to be coal miners”
If you’re going to run a business, it’s your duty and responsibility to reduce the risk of personal injury to your employees and customers as far as is reasonably possible.
It’s a bit strange that the courts have generally ruled in MLB’s favor here – in the rest of the business landscape, generally if a person is hurt because of your product, you’re liable. The ‘expected risk’ aspect here seems a bit ridiculous. Buying a baseball ticket is a lot closer to buying a movie ticket in most people’s minds than it is to buying, say, a ski ticket. The assumed risk should be closer to the movie ticket.
> as far as is reasonably possible.
You’re begging the question. The comment your duty line was in response to was an argument about what is or isn’t reasonable.
This accident is a perfect example of things to come in our society as we witness technology turning people into “Zombies.” Whether it’s driving a car, walking down the sidewalk, or simply setting in the stands at a sporting event. Just like any addiction, you eventually have to learn when to put it down…………
Freak accidents like the recent one in Boston, where there isn’t enough time for a fan to avoid a ball or bat entering the stands, are thankfully so rare I don’t believe it’s worth extensive netting to prevent them. I could be convinced otherwise.
But I do know this: If you take a child to a baseball game who is too young to pay attention and protect his or herself from a foul ball and choose to sit along the basepaths, you are a bad parent. There are other places you can choose to sit that will not risk your child’s well-being. The same goes to the psychopaths who bring small children to courtside NBA seats. If you kid gets run over by a 7 foot tall giant going for a loose ball, well, you have zero reason not to know that’s a risk.
Generations raised on watching games on TV (and the unfortunate ubiquity of enormous and distracting video boards the demand the crowd’s attention constantly) have removed people from the reality that baseballs are real, they are hard and they travel at a very high rate of speed. Sitting in the lower bowl means you have to pay attention at all times a ball can be put in play, period. If you are not okay with that, as well as the small but real risk you can be hit by a ball or bat without enough time to get out of the way, sit somewhere else.
Yeah. I don’t know about the “bad parent” comment, but I definitely get anxious when I see parents/grandparents/whoever with kids in the first few rows of a game without protective netting. It’s something I never really thought about until I had one of my own, and even now as the parent of a toddler I would never put her in the box seats at our ballpark. I’ve seen parents with kids less than a year old down there and I just hope they’re paying very close attention to every pitch.
That “bad parent” bit is BS. How many serious injuries to kids have there been in such seats? Its sad that we live in a society where any action by a parent that carries any perceived risk, real or not, to a child leads to the public diridement of said parent.
I’d wager a large bet that most of the risk of injury of going to a baseball game actually comes on the car ride to and from the stadium regardless of where you sit in the ballpark. If true, I’d assume these types of people will condemn parents that put kids in cars and drive them places for entertainment activities.
To and from the game probably is the most danger and that’s why I believe it’ mandatory to have car seats for kids in all 50 states, and the majority of states require up to age 7.
Of course if your on you hog then uee of a helmet is all over the place with only 19 states require all riders to use.
The bad parent part is taking it a bit too far. But I agree with the rest of your post.
How about, “you are not thinking very logically” “you are not fully aware of the inherent risk that comes with the seat ” instead of “you are a bad parent”?
I’m fortunate enough to go to numerous games a year and frequently sit in the lower bowl close to the action. The number of people that flat out aren’t paying attention during EVERY pitch while sitting in the high
risk seats is mind boggling.
I conditionally agree with you. But I have some exceptions. If (the risk %Chance) isn’t measurable by Actuaries/Math/Science then it’s o.k. to go and pretend the risk is indeed so rare because our brains can only without further use of it, approximate injuries in ball stadiums as “so rare that requiring additional safety measures by ballpark owners and operators is not useful, wasteful, inefficient. or too expensive to reasonably lower the risk to fans as not making sense to force stadium owners to improve” then I agree. But the problem is that in baseball statistics you feel we should continue to push what we thing are the edges of what humans can know about a game involving crazy physics involved with people throwing balls bats hitting balls, and balls flying in many directions on the ground or in the air off the bats.
I’m confused by comments that, in general, are all for extending measurement, math, and application of it to study of numbers in the game, but somehow applying the same thinking/approach to human safety in the ballpark the game takes placed is dismissed in a few comments in an ideological/political way even though that wouldn’t stand scrutiny if it were observations/generalizations made about “managers” “stadium effects” or “lineup analysis” once the manager writes it out and people inevitably can (this is a positive) come up with new things to say because humans will never achieve omniscience at any point by an accumulation of knowledge via our accumulation of baseball data a hundred years from now. This is why we celebrate our game. We can make it math. We can make it science. We can make new statements. Come up with more and more theories (right and wrong)
Why does this stop at the players playing inside the ballpark and not extend to the same applications of numbers/knowledge/measurements to the question proposed in the article, how safe/dangerous is it to be a fan and how cheap or cost effective could it be to solve the problem, if it is in fact a problem?
The people using generalizations about seating, safety and the like seem similar to statements, when made about things saber has applied math and measurements to, get pointed out as needlessly ignorant when people have worked these things out, removing the crutches from those who witch to continue using the crutches of ignorance some “casual” fans like to use that haven’t done their “homework”. Why is it o.k. for us arbitrarily to slink back to those illogical arguments and claiming it’s not knowable when sabermetrics as a “thing” (because while it’s not quite a peer-reviewed journal on math/science of baseball, it is clearly above the droning of tv announcers repeating a bunch of ‘proven not true’ generalizations still alive in dusty baker’s toothpick and growing on joe morgan’s gumlines, hence coloring their uninformed (in a math type way) statements about the game they played professionally.
Let’s not do that in semi-baseball-related contexts such as beer pricing, bathroom cleanliness evaluations, parking price analysis, tailgating analysis, and all of the non-directly-baseball-as-played accoutremants of the baseball experience. Or if we were to limit it to this one concept, it would be “math and science-ish fans against using science and math to also evaluate how safe they are at the ballpark” (because that would interfere with currently held misconceptions and beliefs about other things I have managed not to apply the same thinking to for whatever reason).
For Fenway Park, the supply of good seats is well below the demand: My guess is that installing the maximum amount of netting would not deter fans in the least.
That being said, I’d like to see teams be responsible for medical costs, but nothing more. That is, I don’t think it would be fair to allow fans to sue for “suffering” or anything beyond the cost of their medical bills themselves.
Why?
The teams are not inflicting anything on you, you didn’t sign up for.
No, but they are charging you for an injury sustained on there property. Also its just super petty and dick to make fans pay for injuries sustained on broadcast that are undeniable. I mean come on who is owned by billionaires where the medical costs are a very small drop in a very very large bucket. I mean ffs these fans make baseball a 9B$ a year industry the least they can do is support the people they maim.
“The teams are not inflicting anything on you, you didn’t sign up for”
The same could be said about workplace injuries, etc. I think we can all agree that the world is a better place because employers are generally required to compensate employees who are hurt as part of their duties.
“Others have urged a more cautious approach, suggesting…that ticket buyers can rationally weigh the pros and cons of sitting in exposed seats.
There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.”
I like this article (though I wish the author didn’t ultimately come down on the pro-net side), but I think it’s unfortunate that ‘let individuals weigh risks and make their own decisions’ isn’t considered on its face the reasonable position.
Wait, what? He says, and you quote, that “reasonable arguments [can] be made on both sides of the issue.” It states in that very sentence that it’s considered a reasonable position!
The. Singular.
You’d first have to prove that the individuals understand exactly what the risks are, as well as their ability to respond to them. I’m guessing most people underestimate the former, (I certainly had no idea there were that many injuries) and grossly overestimate the latter.
I don’t think the risk is as high as you think it is, and I don’t think your statements about people’s expectations relative to that risk is true either.
There’s no reason to expect that behavior. It’s a stereotype of behavioral economics that people are always over-estimate their ability and over-estimate their luck, but it doesn’t always bear out in reality. Some have tried to salvage the idea with that of “overplacement”, which lets you explain why 4/5 of people think they’re above average drivers. That is true. But people often underestimate their ability to learn a new language (“I could never speak French like that”), and we often overestimate the risk of a plane crash.
Taking the 1750 injures per year statistic at its face, let’s get an estimate of the number of people attending MLB games per year. Average daily attendance (30,500) x # of teams (30) x # of games (162) / number of teams in each game (2) = 74 million seats filled per year. 1750 / 74,000,000 = .0024%, or almost 2.5 in 100,000 attendees.
So if you attend 1000 games in your lifetime, and so do 99 of your friends, odds are that 2 or 3 of you will sustain an injury sometime over your lifetime. As the Bloomberg article states, most of those injuries are minor (bloodied lip or bruised hand).
It seems like a better estimate for risk of very serious injury (hit hard in the head) is that it would happen as much as 10 times per year (or 1-in-175 injuries). That would mean that in the example above, if you and 175,000 of your friends attend 1,000 games in your lifetimes, again 2 or 3 out of 175k would sustain serious injury.
Judging your ability to catch a ball that surprises you, flies 90mph off a bat is nothing like learning a new language.
And sure, my personal risk is low. If I cared only about me and my friends, I’d be pretty cool with this. But 1750 preventable injuries – 1 every game or two – even if most are minor, is still a number that can be improved. (I’d suggest that near 0 is a better objective, but hey, that’s me.) Especially when there are easy, cheap fixes, like extending the net.
Neil, many people would willing risk a bruised hand for not having a net though. And if you don’t want to risk that, you have other options available to you.
For many, minimizing risk in life is not so high on their priority list.
@NeilS
Well I for one am not going to overestimate my ability to catch a ball at 90 mph (which i’d estimate at 0.5%). I think there’s a slice of the male former ballplayer population that would be confident, but I’d guess that most of the injuries accrue to people who don’t get fuzzy feelings at the thought of a foul ball coming at their face.
In some respects certain sitting areas probably have near 0 chance of injury….a bat can only fly so far!!
How bout an app that gives you each player’s flying bat probability, along with a heat chart of their foul balls.
I would love to hear these same callous responses when someone close to you is affected by these circumstances. By the way, in these scenarios many have laid out about kids or inherent risk, remember next time you are at a game never bother to check your phone, or turn to talk to someone next to you, or reach for your hot dog/drink because then you are the implied idiot, not responsible enough to pay attention, and thus your fault you got hurt.
I can understand the initial push-back on more netting, but my overall stance is – the most expensive seats in the park are behind the net. I would be interested to hear a real analysis on the topic, but I find it hard to believe that fans would not pay the same price if a net was extended to the end of the dugout.
“You wouldn’t hold these rational opinions if you were emotionally or physically involved in the issue”
Yes, exactly.
Correct. If your sound judgment was clouded by emotion, you probably would make an irrational choice.
Further, you’re ‘never do anything else’ comment is weird. There is SO MUCH down time at a baseball game. If you can’t make sure you’re paying attention for the 200-250 moments of the pitch which each last less than a second (less than five minutes of- god forbid – paying attention!), maybe you should find a different activity for your family.
Nice generalization that everyone doesn’t practice what they preach. That is the core of personal responsibility. I’d wager that many of the posters here have had bad things happen to them by accident and have shone better character than you are suggesting.
“remember next time you are at a game never bother to check your phone, or turn to talk to someone next to you, or reach for your hot dog/drink because then you are the implied idiot, not responsible enough to pay attention, and thus your fault you got hurt.”
If you’re sitting in high foul ball area you should ALWAYS keep you eye on the action with EVERY pitch. Period.
While I think it’s over-reactionary to call for teams to install extra netting, I believe there is one logical thing MLB should mandate, and it has to do with the bats themselves. First, require that all bats be made of ash. It’s been shown that maple bats shatter way more than ash, so get rid of maple bats. Second, come up with a minimum circumference for the handle of the bat. Players want them like golf clubs now. Have you ever seen a bat from the 1950s or earlier? If not, the thickness of the handle will surprise you. Do they have to go back to 1950s thickness? No, but some engineer somewhere ought to be able to figure out where the handle thickness dimension becomes small enough that the risk of bat shatter starts to increase disproportionately.
And the Players Union ought to be behind this 100%. It’s clear that pitchers, infielders, and baseline coaches (remember Tommy Lasorda?) are at way higher risk than fans and the vast majority of shattered bats end up in the field of play. It’s a wonder that one of them hasn’t been seriously injured yet.
While I would be okay with that, I would also be okay with a rule that mandated that anytime the bat ends in more than one piece, the batter is automatically out.
Is this a joke? Why would you penalize a hitter for a broken bat?
Because batters, not wanting to be automatically out for a broken bat, would start using thicker bats.
Maple bats break less I believe.
This rule would cause more use of maple which, given the way they explode, would not be a good thing.
This article
says the complete opposite. Quote from the article:
Supposedly, maple bat breakage is down 50%, but that would still leave it breaking over 3 times as often (into multiple pieces).
Do you have a cite for your belief?
I know I have seen several newspaper articles over the past three or four years on the size of the bat handle and the player’s tendency to loose their grip.
I’ve only gone to about 3 games in the last four or five years at Wrigley, and I’ve seen broken bats as well as entire bats fly into the stands at everyone.
I’m stunned by the lack of empathy in this comment thread. Fractured skulls seems like a disproportionate penalty to pay for the sin of ‘shoulda known better’, doesn’t it? And do we really think that billionaire owners shouldn’t be called upon to cover medical bills, particularly those paid by people who may have difficulty affording them? Sweet zombie Jesus.
I also think that it’s an error to rely on people’s own judgment. Most people have a false sense of their own ability to react in these situations. They either think they’ll have more than one second or else they grossly overestimate their own ability to respond in one second. This isn’t an informed choice, and it probably isn’t a call they can be trusted to make accurately.
As for the nets? No one would notice. Ask people who sit behind the plate how quickly they stop seeing the net, or ask people at a hockey game if they notice it. These things become perfectly normal, and invisible, pretty quickly.
Your last assertion is completely false. The net at hockey games is incredibly intrusive as is the home plate netting. Some people are willing to get used to it, but many of us can’t stand it and don’t sit in those sections.
You are literally the first person I’ve heard (read) who says that the net at hockey games is “incredibly intrusive”. And given that NHL attendance hasn’t noticeably dropped since they were installed, I’m guessing you’re among a very small minority. (Or there were an equal number that once refused to take the risk that are now off-setting those who can’t stand the sight-lines. Whichever.)
If you’re not sitting in a low enough section to see through the glass, the net is absolutely noticeable, especially on the white background of the ice.
As for baseball netting, I’ve never actually sat behind the plate, but sitting in the boxes it looked like it would be miserable to be stuck with a view behind the net.
Good article. But I’m not sure if the term “externality” is an appropriate label for the risk of being hit by a ball or broken bat. And when that definition of externality is not upheld, you cannot apply the standard regulatory justification of “internalizing” externalities. The justification (on those grounds) for a tax or subsidy or regulation disappears.
A transaction without any externalities is one in which two parties make a private transaction and no one else is affected. When externalities are present, other parties either benefit (a positive externality) or suffer (a negative). In this case, the risk of injury is private: by attending a baseball game, the ticket holder risks his own safety but no one else’s.
On the contrary (this is a stretch and incidental to the main point and is generally a simplistic and bad model for thinking about risk), you could argue that buying a ticket has a *positive* externality because it lowers other people’s risk of being hit by a ball or bat. Think about it. The risk of being hit by a bat or ball is roughly (# of broken bats or balls that fly into the stands) / (# of people in the object’s flight path). In this equation, the numerator is constant: the number of foul balls, home runs, and broken bats is constant regardless of whether a stadium is clear empty (as in Baltimore a month ago) or has a sold-out crowd. The more people there are in the stadium, the greater the probability that the person *in front* of you will catch or get hit by the bat/ball, and you’ll go home safe. So by attending a game you might actually be delivering a positive externality.
I really can’t stand the mentality in this country that every bad thing that happens HAS to be somebody else’s fault. It’s not the team’s fault you got hurt by a foul ball, and it’s not your own fault either. It’s just a crappy thing that happened to you. And it’s ridiculous to expect somebody else to pay for the bad thing that happened to you.
Exactly! How many people die on the way to the ballpark each year in traffic accidents? Shit happens.
That’s a strange analogy, considering that traffic “accidents” are usually someone’s fault, whether through carelessness or malice.
But the team is not liable, even though it still has just as much money
I guess one of the downsides of having a decently effective court system for resolving personal injury / liability claims is that there’s the temptation to overuse it. A hammer for every nail.
Some like those seats because of their close access to the game action and chance at snagging a souvenir, others (especially with young kids) probably shy away from them because of the risk; it’s hard to satisfy both groups, but you might expand the netting at a select location or two and see if demand/prices rises or falls before deciding on a league-wide course of action.
Speaking of snagging a souvenir, can we universally agree that anyone over the age of, say, fourteen is barred from standing up and screaming and waving their hands as the players come off the field between innings, hoping against hope that Jose Reyes (or whoever) will toss the baseball your way? No need to debase yourself by screaming like an 11-year-old at a Bieber concert for a six-dollar baseball. You’re 42, waving frantically at a 36-year-old. You a grown-ass man. This demeans us all. (But mostly just you.)
Also bringing a glove past 14 years old is just embarrasing.
Not if you’re sitting in these seats where a hard-hit foul ball might go.
Its pretty funny that most of the people here are talking about how unsafe sitting close to the field is, but then someone makes fun of those actually being prepared for that risk.
Especially if it’s one of those giant gloves.
I find it REASONABLE for fans to be expected to assume the risk of injury based on where they sit.
I find it WISE for the team, or the league, to investigate the cost of providing insurance for those who come view their product.
My guess is that it’d be a fairly low-cost coverage for the league or individual teams to get an insurance policy that covers batted or thrown balls, and slipped or broken bats, and let them look like they care about their fans.
I also really enjoyed the article.
One thing that wasn’t mentioned that I would be tempted to bring up if I were a plaintiff’s attorney (which I’m not) is the fact that MLB installed and reinforced the barriers in front of dugouts. By doing so, they’ve acknowledged the risks that anyone faces that close. Like the fans, players in the dugout (and thus that close to the action) know to be aware and understand the risks of playing professional baseball. But the MLB chose to give them added protection. They did not, however, give that same protection to fans sitting a few feet away in many cases. That acknowledgement – that people cannot reasonably be expected to protect themselves in under a second – might go a long way in the court of public opinion in giving fans the same level of protection afforded the players.
Full disclosure: I’m pro netting.
There are stadiums without barriers at the dugouts.
And does anyone listen to what Don Cherry always says when someone gets hit with a puck at a hockey game?
“Its always some broad, yappin away and not watching the game”
In the early 2000’s, purchasing a ticket behind home plate was a rare treat I would allow myself once per year. Once the netting went up, I never purchased another ticket behind home plate again. Everyone likely has different opinions on how it actually affects their experience, but the net completely ruined it for me. Extending the netting to other once choice seats is simply a way that MLB can ensure I will never purchase tickets to those seats again.
In the early 2000s you sat behind the plate without a net?
Just run a quick search on youtube, or the archival footage sight of your own preference. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqix7wZMxp8
A lot of the earlier footage in this one is grainier but at the 4:00 minute mark you will clearly see Chipper Jones batting at Shea Stadium with no netting behind the homeplate backstop. If you continue watching the video, you will notice the backstop netting begins to pop up around the 2005 season.
Do you mean early 1900s?
I’ve never even seen a children’s field that doesn’t have something behind home plate.
I’d also say that all foul balls are not the same. All bats are not the same. There are fly ball foul balls, and line drive foul balls. There are whole bats, and there are broken bats. Finding where line drive foul balls (the most dangerous) and broken bat pieces are most likely to go would be necessary to identify just where to extend netting to.
I also wonder how many fans actually know that they can’t hold anyone liable if they get hit by a foul ball or a bat.
I actually had no idea until reading this piece. Not that I would have ever thought to sue, I mean the assumed risk of getting hit at a ball game seems like it should be common sense.
I’m surprised no one has suggested that a team could offer optional 3rd party insurance coverage for medical expenses to at risk seats, via a small fee at the time of purchasing a ticket. (Much like when you rent a car) I’m not necessarily endorsing this idea, but it doesn’t seem impossible to implement, and at least you give fans the choice to reduce the financial risk of being struck by a bat or ball during a game at a reasonable cost.
I thought about this too but
1) the risk is small enough and most damages minor enough that the expected value of the insurance policy would be very low. Like maybe between 10 cents and 40 cents.
2) it would ruin the sales pitch
3) what do you do when people get injured but dont buy the insurance? Teams would likely have public pressure to cave in and cover people any way
I think people don’t want to be reminded of the possibilities, 3 is really a non-issue if the insurance is so inexpensive.
Really, if it’s that cheep, the teams should just buy the insurance and give it away for PR.
They use to have booths in plain view in all the airports to buy insurance for your flight. Not sure when this went out of style.
Be interesting to know the chance of your flight crashing and the chance of you getting hit by a bat/ball in the areas close to the dugouts.
As some commenters have mentioned, the bottom line is whether fans value safety more than the aesthetic of an unobstructed view and the amusement of catching a foul ball. Personally, I would prefer to assume the risks involved to preserve the aesthetics. I have a feeling most fans would agree. Although it’s easy to paint MLB as being guided by greed, I think there is some level of wanting to preserve traditions and provide an optimal viewing experience.
Because legal concerns are not forcing MLB’s hands, it is in a position to deal with this issue pragmatically. The first step should be for each team to evaluate the placement of its netting. If some ballparks have high risk areas that are uncovered, those teams should increase the installation (perhaps this can be determined based on modeled reaction times). Otherwise, I think the best way for teams to protect fans is to have a more vocal, intrusive campaign about awareness. A PSA in between every inning might seem like overkill, but if targeted to specific behaviors (e.g., talking on the phone, taking selfies, supervising a young child, sleeping, etc.), it might resonate. Also, ushers who show fans to their seats should offer a personal warning, especially if the seats are close and young children are in attendance. How many of the 1,750 foul-ball related injuries are caused by not paying attention? I have no idea, but it seems reasonable to assume it’s a meaningful percentage, so attacking this segment of the problem with solutions that have no negative impact seems logical.
As another commenter mentioned, it would be great if MLB teams could collectively take out an insurance policy to help injured fans, even if it was capped and supplemental. However, that introduces the problem of determining how, when and if fans were injured, which could open up a Pandora’s box. Also, in a perverse way, if MLB takes such a tact, it could open itself up to greater liability. I am sure those reasons are part of why teams don’t enact good faith policies.
If people were allowed to bring guns to the ballpark, someone would shoot the bats and balls out of the air before they hit someone in the stands.
You’re from Arizona, aren’t you?
You missed the joke, didn’t you?
Also joking…
PULL!
While anyone reading this site is pretty fully aware of the danger inherent in a flying baseball or bat shard, I’m not sure that many fans, especially the casual fans, have much of an idea. I certainly doubt they weigh the risk/benefit of seats close to the action.
There is also the tacit assumption that any venue catering to large numbers of people have taken appropriate measures to minimize risk or alert patrons to risk potential. If, for example, it was made clear that 1,750 fans were injured by foul balls each year, the ticket buyer then probably would consider risk/benefit potential, especially for children.
It wouldn’t surprise me if at some point the courts started to rule more in the fans’ favor that it was more of an obligation of teams to make the risks more clear up front.
The disclaimer is printed on every ticket and prominently displayed on signs within every stadium.
I’ve never seen signs in stadiums I’ve been to.
That being said, there’s been an increasing trend in other industries of ruling that disclaimers/EULAs/Contracts that can’t be read until you’ve made a purchase, and don’t allow a refund if the terms aren’t agreeable are unenforceable.
I think it’s insane that the team wouldn’t have to pay the medical bills for her… I mean I want the fan to be responsible for themselves, but getting impaled by a bat seems far outside the range of normal risks of a baseball game.
I’m sure the insurance company of this woman will sue the Red Sox for subrogation.. just like with the Dodgers/Giants situation.
Most likely, the Red Sox will volunteer to do so despite not being legally obligated.
My personal experience sitting behind the net behind home (it’s cheaper than going to a movie on weekdays in Milwaukee these days)is that you don’t even notice it there once you start watching the game. I would love to see it extended all the way down to the bases, it’s a creepy experience sitting right where the netting ends.
However adults should be able to choose to assume that risk or not assume that risk. The fact that the owners are millionaires is completely irrelevant.
FYI this “1750 injury” statistic is really flawed because it’s equating bruised palms and bloody lips with severe concussions, and without knowledge of how those injuries are distributed inside the 1750 total, there’s really no way to accurately think about the harms involved. Are concussions 10%, so 175? or 1%, so 17? or .1%?
The league could also mitigate risk by requiring bats to be made of ash, not maple. Or by instituting a handle diameter minimum. But I guess those rules would affect the game more than nets would.
How bout a Flying Bat App that shows the Flying Bat Probability of each player. Could have breakouts on early or later AB’s/ innings, the count, the splits, percentage of whole or broken bat etc.
Same thing for foul balls, and top it all off with “seat maps” colored blue or shades of red.
That certainly is a lot of data to pull together for something that
no onelike thirteen people would ever pay for.Neat! Just impractical.