A Net to Catch Falling Sports Fans

Exactly....my favorite T-shirt says it best.

Make it idiot-proof. And someone will make a better idiot.

Actually the best "fix" would be to get rid of stadiums.....then have everyone sit on the grass like some concert venues.

Can't fall very far when you are sitting on the ground.

If that reduces available seating....just jack up the prices and call it a nimrod tax.

Most sports figures and teams are grossly overpaid anyway.

Of course someone can still lose an eye when they get hit by a ball they don't see because they are yapping and texting on their cell phone rather than watching the game....but you can't protect people from their own stupidity.

Although I don't think any posts were out of line here. I guess I'm the one that set off the cruel and heartless remarks.

Here's my new answer to your OP.

This was an avoidable tragedy. No engineering or nets required to prevent it from happening in the future.

The answer is to simply close off all front seats by the rail. Since both security and police are on the scene anyway, any fan that approaches the rail will be fined $100, and thrown out of the park. Repeat offenders will be banned from all games.

If we are charged with protecting these people, we might as well make it into a money maker for the cities that host the stadiums, rather than a money loser.

Better?

I like this answer....

Service announcement at a ball game.

Due to the outrage of not enough is being done to protect people. We are proud to present.

Next week its "Customer Beer Drinking Appreciation Night."

After purchasing 10 pitchers of beer, You'll receive our Darwin Safety Gear.

Remember folks! Next week its "Customer Beer Drinking Appreciation Night."

How about mandatory fall arrestors for all ballpark atendees....like seat-belts for people in cars...

You know the same things OSHA requires so many workers to use in the workplace.

I'm going to have to side with you on this one. You've already done a superb job providing the basis for the argument and I'd only have to add a couple things...

1) I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it the reason that they can get away with not having them is the "that's the standard" argument (aka everyone else is doing it). So once someone builds or retrofits a stadium with safety netting, the reasonably standard precedent will be set and lawsuits will follow until all the stadiums have them. I think it'll only take one if I understand it right.

2) These stadium owners see fit to buy nets to prevent losing footballs. It seems absurd to be concerned about losing a football but not a human life.

That is because the football doesn't know any better.

Adult humans are expected to know better.

I think it has nothing to do with what a football knows or doesn't know and more to do with saving the cost of replacing a $100 football. My point was simply that the owners are willing to fork out the money for nets to save that cost, but not for human life. Someone already said that once the cost of the lawsuits outweighs the cost of the nets, every stadium will have them.

As for humans knowing better, that logic holds no water for standard industry practices. Machinery operators should know better than to touch a rotating part, yet most every piece of rotating equipment has a guard. People should know better than to put their hand into a running microwave, yet how many have left the shelf without that interlock? Boiler operators should know how to maintain safe pressures in the boiler, yet TWO safety valves are still required. Engineering controls for safety exist at every turn because accidents happen, equipment fails, and people misjudge.

I understand the point about the "nanny state" and I'm not suggesting we draft legislation. I'm suggesting we think twice about a making a simple expenditure to save LIVES, one that is already being made to save a couple dollars on lost footballs.

You wrote, "I think it has nothing to do with what a football knows or doesn't know and more to do with saving the cost of replacing a $100 football."

Come on. That's silly. Loose fans and you loose ticket sales, too.

Your analysis that this incident is like safety equipment on machinery is also a fallacy.

The reason is that you performing an act that carries an inherent amount of danger as a function of your work or livelihood. It's a risk that we accept as part of our profession. Incidentally, most of the safety guards on machinery are removed by professionals.

The specific case we are discussing here is an act of bad judgement, not an accident or a failure of a safety system. Let's review the facts:

1. The victim was an intelligent adult who worked as a firefighter.

2. He was reaching over a railing that was 20 feet above the ground.

3. He was performing that act outside the course of his professional duties in an effort to catch a $2.99 MBL ball.

4. It was a willful act on the part of the victim.

5. The fall was 100% preventable by the victim alone.

6. There were no code violations that had any direct or indirect responsibility or this fall.

Do I have any of my facts wrong?

Now, the next statement is an assumption or inference based on the previous facts.

If anyone would be cognizant of the dangers of leaning over a railing to the point where one may loose their footing and falling 20 feet, I would expect a fireman to understand those dangers. For that matter, I would expect 99.99% of the human race to recognize that there is a significant risk of pain or death if you fall 20 feet. It is genetically programmed into us.

To my original point - a football doesn't know any better. However, this fan did.

Why, in this world, should someone else be held responsible for the irresponsible act of a reasonable endowed man?

If you spend money on this, why would we not use the same argument for every other act of stupidity that can be dreamed up?

Where dos this march to save everyone from themselves end and individuals start to take responsibilities for their own actions?

You wrote, "Come on. That's silly. Loose fans and you loose ticket sales, too."

I'm not sure I follow. How does preventing footballs from going into the stands help to not loose fans/ticket sales? If anything wouldn't that hurt sales? That's part of the fun of a baseball game. The NFL is all about preventing footballs from going into the stands (why else $5k fines for players that toss a ball to a fan?).

You wrote, "Your analysis that this incident is like safety equipment on machinery is also a fallacy."

I could spout a history lesson here on the industrial revolution and how amazingly horrible and deadly it was until people started to install equipment guards. The industrial environments I have worked in had a ZERO tolerance for defeating or disabling any safety feature or interlock on any piece of equipment.

But I'd rather insert one quote here. It comes from the NCEES Rules of Profession Conduct found in Section 240.15.

A. LICENSEE'S OBLIGATION TO SOCIETY

1. Licensees, in the performance of their services for clients, employers, and customers, shall be cognizant that their first and foremost responsibility is to the public welfare.

2. Licensees shall approve and seal only those design documents and surveys that conform to accepted engineering and surveying standards and safeguard the life, health, property, and welfare of the public.

Read that again. I read it multiple times with your facts and points of view in mind. I did the same with mine. Forget the specific person practically jumping off for a moment, in general, is it reasonable to design a stadium with railings shorter than OSHA standards (note there ARE employees at the stadium)? Is it reasonable to see short railings as a situation that could endanger the welfare of the public (ie a true accident)?

From my standpoint, I would rather put a net in and not have my ethics questioned and risk losing my license for something with a simple fix.

You wrote, "Where dos this march to save everyone from themselves end and individuals start to take responsibilities for their own actions?"

Does this include the engineer taking responsibility for his inaction as well?

CI, I voted a GA to you for the quotation of Section 240.15 of the NCEEs "Rules of Professional Conduct" and the licensee's obligation to society, with is paramount in regard to safety issues. I don't know of a single state education department that has adopted it. All licensed professional engineers nationwide are obligated to adhere to it's tenets.

Installing proper height steel handrails (to OSHA minimum standards) and other fall prevention devices are not going to "break" anyone (least the club owners and the ballpark owners/operators) or even decrease ticket sales. Both arguments are pure fallacy.

Nobody said we feel responsible for all people that act irresponsibly. When you make that false statement, you make our point sound extreme and fringe.

You can't lump all irresponsible acts, and all people into this argument.

We're talking specifically about people that fall out of stadium balconies. Sometimes by accidents, sometimes by poor judgement. There is nothing radical "cross-bearing" about a wish to make it safer for people who attend events at stadiums. There is nothing "nanny state" about it. I gave you no list of all the other safety concerns I have in the world. You've accused me of having a viewpoint that simply is not true. Just because I believe in this cause does not mean I believe everything everywhere should be safer than it is. I'm talking about stadium balconies. Period.

No, I have been consistently talking about one person making a bad judgement call. It is simply a matter of intentionally taking an unnecessary risk. If I have not been clear, I hope I am making that clear.

Your first post was specific to this incident. You asked why they do not put nets. The answer is that this incident and other incidents that are self induced do not merit a net. That is my feeling and it appears to be the majority consensus of the owners of the stadiums in the US.

If the problem was due to inadvertent accident, then something would change.

However, this incident is not about a 3 year old kid wandering off a balcony. This is about an adult willfully diving over the edge for a ball.

No one made him do it. The balcony did not fail. The rail did not fail. He was 100% responsible for his act. To paraphrase your previous statement - Period.

I know you might feel compelled to save people from their bad judgements. I do not if it is obvious (as it is here) that it was 100% his choice and he was not ignorant of the risk (which I think is also obvious).

I have nothing against adding safety devices for mishaps that are accidental in nature or that a reasonable person would be ignorant about. However, that is not the point I have been consistently trying to make because the case you first cited has neither of these causes to blame.

This is not dissimilar to a young police recruit that went to demonstrate the incredible safety features of his Glock side arm. He pulled his weapon out in front of his friends at a party, racked the slide, dropped the magazine, pointed the weapon at his head, and the weapon did exactly what it was designed to do - it blew his brains out.

We've been regurgitating the same info over and over AH. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. We have opposite philosophies on making stadium balconies safer.

My original question in forming this thread, as I said before, is why aren't they making them safer? What physical reason... what engineering related reason, or financial reason, is there?

I gather that your belief is that it's none of those ... that it is in fact a philosophical reason. Okay then. That's certainly a possibility. If that is the reason... I still very strongly oppose that reasoning. On ethical grounds. But regardless, it still may explain why Professional Sports hasn't taken any action, if they concur with that reasoning.

Because I see no financial or physical reason it's not being done. Hence, that's why I started this thread.

"Now proceed with your bashing of me, and my sense of righteousness. I won't hear it. I'm gone."

Apparently "gone" you are not. :)

Welome aboard clarity!

I think the term, "Sense of righteousness", may be the key here.

It's a great site......................by all means, have some fun.

On the side you can probably learn something.............or teach something.

The post you refer to is not typical. There are plenty of us that are willing to learn....................and teach.

I'm hoping our little friend is just having a bad day week month.

Thanks kramarat. I have been on hiatus for a good while, but thought i would get back on here as i was chasing some info.

Unfortunately, to date, i havent learnt much, but on the plus side i'm having fun.

I assume this "little friend" you speak is OBE? Typical or not?.....it doesnt really bother me.

Until i get some answers i am satisfied with, im just going to keep having fun, and as you say, hopefully learn something along the way. Who knows, I may even contribute something of some use to someone with a little bit of luck. :)

YOU WANT ANSWERS!

^{how appropriate for the direction of this topic}

See....this what im talking about. Fun times all round haha. Seems to be whats missing in this place. Thanks mate, i have seen that movie, but im quite certain i could handle the answers to my questions. Im not chasing the answer to life, the truth about aliens, or the origin of the universe, i just want know the manufacturing process, chemical compostion, and supplier of this stuff ( http://www.karts.com.au/index.php?main_page=product_reviews_info&products_id=1234&reviews_id=4 ) called Extron carbon kevlar. (yes i know what Google is and have basicly exhausted that option)

Time to cease and desist though....this has gone well off topic (i wouldnt want to upset anybody on here)

You wrote, " said before, is why aren't they making them safer? What physical reason... what engineering related reason, or financial reason, is there?"

I think that it is in part due to the frequency of the events being low, the fact that it was 100% the victim's fault (no real negligence on the part of the stadium), and the cost.

I know you think nets are cheap, but there is a difference rating a net to catch a football and then man-rating a net as a safety device. There is an order of magnitude in cost required because they require agency testing to insure compliance, inspection at the point of manufacture, inspection at the site of installation, and periodic inspection thereafter. Then there is another bureaucratic agency required to oversee this.

In addition to that, the company of manufacture, the installer, and the end user (i.e., stadium owners) take on a huge liability. That liability is why you pay out the nose for rope rated for mountain climbing versus rope at Ace Hardware.

So I got to thinking, I'm not convinced that installing nets is going to any extreme and in my head I think it still seems reasonable enough (and can't be questioned from an ethics standpoint), but... (I'll try to be logical about this...)

In my experience so far, I've noticed the insurance world often dictates many of the safety features that get incorporated into designs (that in and of itself is another topic). That is, alot of risk analysis is quantified outside of the engineering world that directly affects a project.

Given that no requirements exist (for nets at least), I think it is logical to say that your statements about the costs of having the nets are likely to be true.

You can't lump all irresponsible acts, and all people into this argument.

We're talking specifically about people that fall out of stadium balconies.

Seems its all right olny if it works for you.

#23 , #28

I mentioned i, an earlier post that your all over the board to justify your position. Thats what makes it difficult to follow you.

I think the problem you have with AH, is your inconsistency.

Now, now.

Beating the crap out of people is fun, but only up to a point, and only if they deserve it.

We must also give them the opportunity to amend their ways and welcome them back into the fold.

We have to pause once in a while and see where we're/they're at.

The pause is important. If they need to be beat some more, we're here to do it.

If they're ready to join the club, then all water, is water under the bridge.

Nobody comes here to be preached to. It just takes some longer than others to realize it.

I can accept that there are differing views here and valid point on each side. I had my 2 cents, added it in, and tried to keep it short initially. I can also accept a quick end to that topic.

I have a question though. Understand I'm asking because I'm honestly curious as to your point of view. Consider once again a person who practically jumps off. Should this person receive medical attention? Why or why not?

(BTW... I'm not looking to start any banter or argue here. I just know that typically I agree with you and Kram on most things, this happens to be an exception. Which is no biggie, I'm just seeking to understand the people a little better.)

You wrote, "Should this person receive medical attention? Why or why not?"

Good question! I will answer yes because even though that person's injury is due to personal negligence you are compelled to save lives as part of your profession. Save first, then sort out the details as to why.

Does that mean that I believe we should take extraordinary measures to prevent negligent mishaps where someone clearly knows better? No, because I believe people are expected to have a minimum level of self responsibility and there are just too many non-negligent accidents that need our preventative resources first.

I understand and thanks for the reply.

Kramarat... what's your take on the medical attention question? (again I'm just curious)

What post is it? I've been sort of skipping along.

I don't want to reread everything and have my answer colored by AHs response...........................which I also skipped through.

post 123

Should this person recieve medical attention? Gee, no can-o-worms there.

I would say yes, but as usual, I can't shut up and leave it at that.

I don't think they have a right to medical care, but I think they should get the care. If they have insurance, the insurance pays. If they don't have insurance, they get a slightly reduced rate and set up a payment plan to pay for it. The faster they pay it off, the less the overall bill.

If they can afford to go to a ball game, they can afford to pay to get fixed when they hurt themselves.

Thanks for the reply... I got 'cha.

Incidentally, most of the safety guards on machinery are removed by professionals.

That's funny......................I sure do. Not all of them, but if they get in my way, they go. A classic example is the guard that comes with an angle grinder. I don't use them.

The good news is, that now that stupid is not my fault, I can sue the manufacturer for making it so I could remove the guard.

Back to baseball. If these people are prone to jumping after balls, they need to close the stands altogether. The fans can watch the games on TV..........................................................................Oh wait!!!! These high def TVs are so clear, they will be jumping into the screens to catch balls..............................Nets around the TVs, that'll fix the problem.

Incidentally, most of the safety guards on machinery are removed by professionals.

That's funny......................I sure do. Not all of them, but if they get in my way, they go. A classic example is the guard that comes with an angle grinder. I don't use them.

I admit, I have done that also to gain access to a tight spot., That is the difference of the discussion here. If I get hurt by the grinder, THAT is my responsibility.

The other side, being OBE and the captain, et al. If I get hurt, thats incompetence from the engineer who design it. Because as I understand their position. That engineer should have designed the grinder that the guard can not be remove.

Very keen indeed!....i love the gaurd on my grinder! And i would only ever take it off when i have to get into a very weird/tight spot (not very often) If it wasnt on there all the time, my fingers would be "munted". Plus its also helps to have that bit extra to hold onto and steady it on occassions when you're trying to do something a bit "finnicky". Each to their own though, props on taking responsibility for your actions when you lop your finger off to.

I know what you mean, sometimes you just have to do it eh.

Before anyone tries to sue me, I should say that I don't recommend removing the guard. In my early days of house restoration, I would spend days on end running angle grinders on peeling siding, (lead paint). The grinder became an extension of my arm.

I run it without the guard knowing full well that it is my decision. If I get hurt doing it, it is no one's fault but mine.

""Your analysis that this incident is like safety equipment on machinery is also a fallacy."

"The reason is that you performing an act that carries an inherent amount of danger as a function of your work or livelihood. It's a risk that we accept as part of our profession."

What does your reason, have to do with making his statement a fallacy?

1. "...this incident is like safety equipment on machinery". True, I agree

2. "... [working with machinery is] an act that carries an inherent amount of danger as a function of your work or livelihood. It's a risk that we accept as part of our profession." True, I agree.

But #2 being true does not make #1 a fallacy. Your logic isn't sound.

I think not, but perhaps I was not clear.

One is a risk that you sign onto as part of your profession because it is necessary to perform the function of your trade. If you choose to be machinist or work with heavy equipment you expect and are expected to work under conditions of risk because that is what the job takes and do it because it puts bread on your family's table.

This is not the same as taking a risk of catching a ball at a stadium. There is no compelling reason to perform that risk except for ego. It has nothing to do with survival and that risk is not only unnecessary, but totally preventable by not taking it.

That is why I stated that the argument as it was stated was false because I do not believe you can equate the two risks as being the same or even similar.

NEWSFLASH!

I came across this news article this morning. It may be of interest to all who have been involved in this thread. You can bet your last dollar bill that the Ranger's attorneys have been all over the club owners and management about the need for higher handrails and other safety measures in light of the accident and the publicity it has generated nationwide and beyond.....

July 19, 2011 ARLINGTON, Texas - Less than two weeks after a fan was killed in a fall at Rangers Ballpark, the club on Tuesday announced plans to improve the safety at the park.

The Rangers said they plan to raise the railing in the front row of each section to 42 inches. The club also plans to install signage and add a pregame warning on the public-address system and scoreboards.

"The intent now is to raise the rails uniformly around the ballpark," said Rob Matwick, Rangers executive vice president for ballpark and event operations. "The height we're looking at and studying right now would be 42 inches."

The front row rails currently are 30 inches, 34 inches and 42 inches. Matwick said the goal isn't merely to raise the rails but to get them to the highest existing standard.

The changes come after Shannon Stone fell over a 34-inch railing in left field during a July 7 game and died en route to the hospital.

"The safety of our fans is our top priority," Rangers president Nolan Ryan said in a statement. "The initiatives we are announcing today for Rangers Ballpark in Arlington will help to ensure that we meet that priority."

Ryan was released from a Houston hospital Tuesday after being tested for a heart issue.

The Rangers said they currently have no plans to change the gap in left field where Stone fell. But the team does intend to add security in the area to keep fans from leaning on the rail for the remainder of the season. Also, all railings at the bases of aisles will bear a sticker warning, "DO NOT LEAN, SIT ON, OR STAND AGAINST RAIL."

Matwick said no time frame is in place to have the new rails installed, but the club is hopeful it can be done before the season ends. Work would have to be done while the club is on the road. The stickers and new PA warning will be in place when the Rangers return to the ballpark Friday. There park already had signs at the bases of aisles, but signs now are being installed in front of seating areas.

The Rangers are currently talking with engineers and architects about how to best implement the new railing. Matwick said the Rangers have been in contact with Major League Baseball about the situation but that the team is taking the initiative.

"Our goal would be to start during the season if we can," Matwick said of changing the railing. "That will depend on how long it takes the architects and engineers to confirm what it is we need to get done. Until we get in and do the field measurements and test the weights, it's sort of hard to gauge how long it might take. If we're able to just retrofit on top of the rails that would probably be a quicker process. If we had to go in and remove rails, re-core and re-anchor the rails in the seats, that might take a little longer."

Matwick said sight lines for fans will be taken into consideration and that models will be used to try to determine what impact new rails would have on watching a game.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

NEWSFLASH!

http://newyork.ibtimes.com/articles/184050/20110720/yosemite-death-waterfall-national-park-hikers-plunge.htm

Not arguing moosie, just sayin'.

Fences didn't do the trick.

As a side observation... 17 contributors... 120+ posts... yet only one GA registered.

I haven't researched it, but that may be one of the lowest GA to post ratio's I've seen lately. That's an interesting statistic, in and of itself.

I don't think there really is any good answers here. This is nothing more that discussion of points. The GA, or OT just comes from the side of discussion. No value in this type of discussion.

I find it allot easier and piece of emotional sanity when I don't put so much weight in the GA's. Take it for what it's worth.

White Muslins....

(= sheetheads)

Actually the cure is far simpler. Simply electrify the railing, like an electric fence. It won't kill you, and you won't want to touch it twice. And its cheap as well as effective.

I think you Guys have covered most the Bases (no Pun intended) then i thought 4-5 Feet of Perspex may be a good choice over Darwin, but on reflection (still not meant ) i realized any eager fans on the front row would probably lift their Kids up to catch the Ball and probably manage (Murphy's law) to drop them over the edge,Which still comes back to Darwin or Darwin by proxy ? The problem is where the line is drawn for risk assessment but it's also slightly more complicated as if someone goes to a Game it's for relaxation/escapism or whatever,my point being it's a fairly unique time when you may have had a Beer or two,your relaxed and in the "Moment",Baseball game or Rock concert,your not going to be on your guard and that split second reaction Kills you ! So maybe there should be more Safety in teams earning over "X" million$ with codes fazed in for new Stadiums much as in the UK after the Stadium disasters of the Eighties.On that subject although most unlikely there was a situation where British fans were lowering others from the top tier to below to escape Fire or Crushing (can't remember)and in that event a net would become full of people and probably collapse under the weight and crush people below so maybe there is a limit to how far a safety measure is reasonable before it becomes part of the problem ? Or you could have a fine net to stop Balls going in the stands and hand some out at random after the game .

I hope I'm not hurting the OPs feelings again, but the whole net idea is a no go from the start, from an engineering perspective.

It occurred to me, that when a trapeze artist falls into a net, he knows how to fall into the net. There is a practiced and particular method.

I think that the false sense of security that the fans would get with nets, would lead to an increased incidence of jumping. Given that the fans have not been trained on how to safely land in a net, and that, in many cases, they will be landing face first, I think that injuries, (broken necks, wrists, arms, etc.), would actually increase.

Imagine our horror, when, after spending millions of dollars, we realise that we have only made things worse................................................it wouldn't be the first time.

While I disagree that the net idea is a no go from an engineering perspective (I'm not convinced its the best idea, but I don't think it is out of the picture), I do have to say my thoughts drifted in the same direction. I might be wrong on this but I think that with increased safety comes increased complacency and more risky behavior. I could picture the net as less of a "just in case someone falls" item and more a "hey, now I can purposely leap over the balcony to get that ball" item (or toss my kid over), this doesn't even touch on the adrenaline junkies who might jump not after a ball but just for the thrill. Of course breaking bones in the process for just the reason you mention.

Yeah, but why catch them? Just prevent them from jumping in the first place.

No engineering necessary. A lot of people drive past the solution every day. Maybe a slight redesign of the fence, so a ball can fit through the holes, but people can't.

Good point! I like it better than the nets.