By Gil Fried, Professor Sport Management, University of New Haven
I have been called by some the “Ralph Nader” of foul ball safety. I have written several peer reviewed journal articles associated with spectator safety, especially relating to foul balls and broken bats. I also have been an expert witness in a number of foul ball (bat) cases. I have been on the winning side of some cases, but often came-up short when courts applied the baseball rule. I have been on the record that the baseball rule is not necessarily bad. My concern has always been implementing the rule.
The baseball rule provides that a baseball team or ballpark operator is exempt from liability if they provide protective netting for the most dangerous part of the ballpark and if they provide enough protected seats for those fans who would want protected seats. If a team/operator meets these two requirements then a fan injured by a foul ball or a bat entering the stands assumes that risk. The rule was adopted initially back in the early 1900s when the game and stadiums were significantly different. While not every state has adopted the baseball (or limited duty) rule, a number of states such as New York follow it very closely. The only exemption some courts have allowed is for something that is not inherent to the game of baseball such as mascots that might distract a fan.
Thus, should I be excited about MLB’s announcement that they are recommending extending the netting at both major league and minor league parks? I guess apprehensive is probably the best term I can use. I applaud MLB for recommending these changes. These changes have come about through pressure from the player’s association, fans, and litigation. The reason why I am apprehensive though is that I do not know if this is a well thought-out process or a Band-Aid approach to mollify public unrest.
For years I have challenged the baseball rule based on two arguments:
1) Do stadiums provide enough protected for all those who might desire to sit in a protected seat; and
2) Do stadiums actually protect the most dangerous part of the ballpark?
First, in terms of providing enough protected seats, most screened seats are right behind home plate and are often the most expensive seats in the house (minus luxury seats/suites). Thus, an average fan who might want protection will probably not be able to afford the expensive protected seats. I would not assume that a Yankees fan that paid $50 for a ticket would be upgraded to a $2,000 seat in order to make sure that fan was protected. The way teams could get around this possible challenge would be to place concerned fans as far away from the action as possible. The primary concern is line drives and if fans are placed far away and in an upper tier they are much less likely to be hit by a foul ball and thus have a higher level of protection then if they were sitting right behind the dugout.
The bigger issue for me is whether the netting that exists and any future netting will actually protect the most dangerous part of the ballpark. Until MLB and every team provide statistical evidence that they are protecting the most dangerous part of the ballpark I will not feel the effort being pursued is appropriate. One team for example said they would extend the net ten feet on either side. How does the team know that will be appropriate? Why not eight feet or 30 feet on either side? The only way to determine how much netting needs to be used is to undertake a detailed analysis of incident reports spanning several years at each ballpark to determine where foul balls are entering the stands (as line drives) and then protect the areas where it is more likely a line drive will enter the stands. While newspaper reports have indicated that MLB’s decision followed a month-long study of foul balls, it would be critical to make such information available to insure their analysis is accurate and appropriate rather than window dressing. I cannot say where the most dangerous part of the ballpark is located at each ballpark because every ballpark is different. At some it might be closer to the end of the dugouts while at other parks where the fans are right near the field it might have to extend down to the foul pole. It all depends on the data and without having the data serve as the basis of how much netting is needed, I would not trust the determination of rough approximation or- to pardon the pun- a ball park estimate.
My feeling has always been that the area down the third and first base lines is just as dangerous as or even more dangerous than right behind home plate. When a ball hits the backstop behind home plate the batter normally has under or over-cut the ball. In contrast when the ball is hit down the first and third base line then the ball is normally hit flush and the batter swung too early or too late. The power from such balls has been identified by MLB through the adding of netting to protect players in some dugouts and requiring base coaches to wear helmets (after the death of a Tulsa Drillers’ coach). Thus, if MLB and clubs have identified that the dugout area needs protection, then why shouldn’t there be protection for fans several inches above the dugout?
Thus, I am waiting to see what each club/stadium does and if they can prove the rationale for their decisions. If they cannot prove they are protecting the most dangerous part of the stadium then these efforts are just a smoke screen and will do little to protect the average fan.
Gil Fried is a professor and chair of the sport management department at the University of New Haven and he has served as an expert witness in over 20 baseball oriented cases.
