Seeing the see-through dark mesh protecting the ends of Pepsi Arena is a reminder: The leftover fishing net material woven for Cornell is terrible for visibility. And who is the netting protecting at the West end of Lynah, where the only spectators are below the glass? I could see some netting protecing the hot dog stand at the northwest corner (and is that concession area going away? that'd provide a couple dozen more seats or standing areas)?
At least we haven't gone the way of some community rinks that put netting along the sides to protect the occasional puck flying up and out of play. I deflected one in the first period, which gave me a Warholian 1.5 seconds of fame.
I'm going to second the netting gripe. Years ago (to accomodate bringing nursing babies and then small toddlers to the games) I moved my season tickets from H row three, middle, to H row 5 aisle (the aisle was key with little kids). Unfortunately, and not obvious to me when I was jumping on chance for aisle seats in the same section where I had made a bunch of friends. This moved us up to where the bottom of the net is exactly in our sight line. We spend the whole game moving our heads around to try to keep a clear view of the action. Of course, the way season tickets have been in the 4 years since we moved, we've had zero chance to change our seats. I've been in other arenas where the netting just isn't as thick and obstructive.
Maybe the netting will get an upgrade during renovation?
Of course it really is all my fault. I should have swapped with somebody instead of officially exchanging my tickets...after all the kids only came for a few years. Now they stay with grandma for the games. I'm just hoping that the new seating opens up some new townie season tickets so we can move up the waiting list a little. I'm hoping to get season tickets for the kids before they graduate from high school. I've got them in training. The two year old chants "Go Big Red" whenever she sees hockey (of any sort) on TV...the five year old only does it if at least one team has red on.
CK
[quote billhoward]
At least we haven't gone the way of some community rinks that put netting along the sides to protect the occasional puck flying up and out of play.[/quote]
If people keep throwing crap on the ice (outside of pregame papers, fish, and toothpaste boxes) it might come to that.::rolleyes::
[quote ithacat][quote billhoward]
At least we haven't gone the way of some community rinks that put netting along the sides to protect the occasional puck flying up and out of play.[/quote]
If people keep throwing crap on the ice (outside of pregame papers, fish, and toothpaste boxes) it might come to that.::rolleyes::[/quote]
I briefly considered taking myself and an ambassador party of bandies over to section B during an intermission to put on a good-natured "why you shouldn't throw things" presentation, but I figure we'd just get stuff thrown at us instead. Maybe it would be worth it. :-P
i think the nets are needed, just not such thick ones. my forehead can attest to why nets are needed :-D
[quote jy3]i think the nets are needed, just not such thick ones. my forehead can attest to why nets are needed :-D[/quote]
Were you not watching the game at the time? :) I've had pucks fly towards my head, and I always manage to get out of the way in time.
Maybe it's just the libertarian in me talking, but I'd rather take my chances and not have to watch a game through thick netting. That said, if they can come up with something that would be non-intrusive (fishing line, monofilaments, graviton field, etc.) it would be stupid not to put it there. It's just the tradeoff I don't like making.
Cheers,
Kyle
basically what happened was I was in section A at the time and play was down the opposite end. The whistle blew with the puck in the corner that you can't see from A. So I turned to talk to my wife about a previous play and heard a thump, which was the puck hitting the top of the glass and I, of course, had no clue what it was b/c play had stopped. So I turned to look and it went thru the persons hair in front of me and smacked me right on the forehead. the opposing player down the ice had fired it in frustration and it hit me :(
foreheads can bleed, lemme tell ya :)
[quote krose]Were you not watching the game at the time? :) I've had pucks fly towards my head, and I always manage to get out of the way in time.[/quote]
Well, I'm not wild about netting, but in a game in Portland several years ago, I was about nine rows back near center ice. A clearing pass *deflected* at a sharp angle and I had about .5 seconds from the time my brain registered that it was coming straight at my head until the time it smashed off the empty seat directly above me. There was not enough time to get out of the way. In the event of an errant, unhindered slapshot, I'm not sure the typical (non-goaltender) human would even see it coming.
Sitting in G, I don't really find the net very intrusive. You just get used to the grid-vision, but it doesn't actually block any of my view. Is the net different on the other end of the rink or something?
Considering there's been multiple deaths due to lack of netting on the ends (not common, but it happens, including the recent NHL one, and one at Lynah years back), the "eh, some people may die, but I don't want a slightly obstructed view" is certainly classified as libertarian.
I really don't see a big issue here. I am in total agreement that things should not be thrown on the ice (except the usual...), however, how many times has it happened this year? Twice? Michigan State had some bottles thrown at them (only 4-5) and Clarkson on Friday night in the playoffs had some paper thrown after the Moulson no-goal. We all tried to stop the idiots, but in reality there were only a few. I just don't think this is a huge problem that some on this forum try to make it out to be. Sure, there are idiots in Section B, but not enough to warrant complaints about a big "problem" that has been described here. Let's just hope these jerks don't end up with tickets next year. Can't wait for the ticket distribution suggestions thread... (let's wait a few more weeks for that though ;-) )
[quote krose]Maybe it's just the libertarian in me talking, but I'd rather take my chances and not have to watch a game through thick netting.[/quote]
Wait, you're a libertarian?!
Beeeej
[quote las224]Sitting in G, I don't really find the net very intrusive. You just get used to the grid-vision, but it doesn't actually block any of my view. Is the net different on the other end of the rink or something?[/quote]
I sat in G two years. The netting sucks. It does obstruct your view. It used to be that hockey fans accepted this. Some people were hit, but many more ended up with souveniers and a much better view.
Since we live in the east and many people are sue-happy, i am resigned to the fact that the netting at the ends will be there forvever. I would just hope that instead of using netting at Lynah that is almost thick enough to for longshoremen to use that the school could use a less obstructive material like monofilament.
[quote WillR]The netting sucks. It does obstruct your view.[/quote]
What part of your view does it obstruct? Yes, it's black and not as thin as it could be, but it's not actually thick enough to BLOCK anything. At least not when I've sat there this year.
As someone who has both been hit by a puck, and hot someone with a puck (they were fine, after the stitches) I am all for it. Maybe the netting is to thick at lynah, but it needs to be there.
and thankgod cornell sprung for the full net, not like the one at colgate where it only goes halfway up. The lady sitting directly behind me took a puck off her head. it has hit the crossbar, gone over the net, hit the ceiling, and came straight down at her. really wierd.
so yes, keep the nets
[quote Dpperk29]and thankgod cornell sprung for the full net, not like the one at colgate where it only goes halfway up. The lady sitting directly behind me took a puck off her head. it has hit the crossbar, gone over the net, hit the ceiling, and came straight down at her. really wierd.[/quote]
Yeah, it probably stung like a bitch for a second, but I find it hard to believe it did any actual damage off a double deflection. This is not an argument for tall netting.
Anyway, would it kill them to put in some thinner/more transparent netting? How much could it possibly cost? Someone tell me and I'll have a check in the mail next week.
Kyle
[quote krose]Anyway, would it kill them to put in some thinner/more transparent netting? How much could it possibly cost? Someone tell me and I'll have a check in the mail next week.[/quote]
Be careful what you ask for. :-)
Beeeej
Well, I did find this:
http://www.rbccenter.com/boxoffice/209.asp
which suggests there might be some rationale for using black netting. Not sure if I buy it, but it may not have been a arbitrary decision.
Kyle
[quote krose]Well, I did find this:
http://www.rbccenter.com/boxoffice/209.asp
which suggests there might be some rationale for using black netting. Not sure if I buy it, but it may not have been a arbitrary decision.
[/quote]
Oh yeah, there's definite rationale to the black netting. I thought the objection here was the particular netting a Lynah, but netting is black intentionally. Its less intrusive (counterintuitively), because you can look through it and ignore it. Rather than the white/clear netting, which, since its harder to see (but not impossible) actually makes it more difficult to see straight since your brain can't spot it enough to ignore ignore it. There may be something to that whole reflecting/absorbing light thing too :)
[quote krose]Well, I did find this:
http://www.rbccenter.com/boxoffice/209.asp
which suggests there might be some rationale for using black netting. Not sure if I buy it, but it may not have been a arbitrary decision.
Kyle[/quote]
I sure don't buy it. They have white netting at the Wacko in Philly, and I occasionally have to look down through it from my seat in the top row. I have no problem with it at all.
I think black would be more intrusive against a white ice surface.
[quote krose]Yeah, it probably stung like a bitch for a second, but I find it hard to believe it did any actual damage off a double deflection. This is not an argument for tall netting.
Kyle[/quote]
It was actually an older woman, and she was taken to the hospital for stitches. it fell straight down from the cieling and hit her on the head, it deffinatly did enough damage to warrant full netting.
[quote Dpperk29]It was actually an older woman, and she was taken to the hospital for stitches. it fell straight down from the cieling and hit her on the head, it deffinatly did enough damage to warrant full netting.[/quote]
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. A concussion might be a good argument for full netting. A minor cut---even one requiring stitches---is nothing more than a good story.
There's risk in everything, even staying in your house all day, wearing a helmet while driving, or double-bagging. The total elimination of risk is not a desirable goal IMO, much less achievable. But I think I've made my opinion clear and will not pursue it further.
Cheers,
Kyle
WHite is better. UVM switched in the past couple years from Black netting (Very obtrusive) to some off-white color now. It's much easier to see through the off-white.
Analogously, how many hockey players wear black cages on their helmets? The vast majority of teams wear white, with some using that odd new-fangled silver color. Looking through the helmet cage is the same issue. I'm sure if black was much easier to see through then teams would all be wearing the black ones, fashion be damned.
[quote abmarks]WHite is better. UVM switched in the past couple years from Black netting (Very obtrusive) to some off-white color now. It's much easier to see through the off-white.
Analogously, how many hockey players wear black cages on their helmets? The vast majority of teams wear white, with some using that odd new-fangled silver color. Looking through the helmet cage is the same issue. I'm sure if black was much easier to see through then teams would all be wearing the black ones, fashion be damned.[/quote]It's a lot different lookig through a cage with a few bars close to your eyes, than a net which is really at your same field of vision as the ice and players.
Actually, most players now (including ours) do have either black cages or the newer silver cages. Just check out the photos right here at elynah for proof. It may seem counterintuitive, but having skated with both, the black does actually disappear as you pay attention to the game. I actually painted the white cage on my goalie mask silver and I can see better through it (not to mention it looks cool). I never knew why, but the link in the above post explains it pretty well.
[quote abmarks]WHite is better. UVM switched in the past couple years from Black netting (Very obtrusive) to some off-white color now. It's much easier to see through the off-white.
Analogously, how many hockey players wear black cages on their helmets? The vast majority of teams wear white, with some using that odd new-fangled silver color. Looking through the helmet cage is the same issue. I'm sure if black was much easier to see through then teams would all be wearing the black ones, fashion be damned.[/quote]
Black is the way to go. Everything blocks your view a bit, but white competes with the view.
Also, I bet there has to be a finer mesh than we bought. Maybe Andy Noel came back from his last Boston trip via New Bedford and stopped by a waterfront going out of business sale.
[quote billhoward]Also, I bet there has to be a finer mesh than we bought. [/quote]
That's another good point. The mesh at the Wacko is very fine. From the upper deck, you can't see individual strands at all.