The Other Side of Safety
August 13, 2013
One of our newest sports – girls lacrosse – is today presenting one of the oldest conundrums in competitive athletics.
On one side of the complex issues are many moms and dads who cite the dangers their daughters confront from contact to the head and face by other players’ sticks or the ball. They want hard helmets with face masks required in girls lacrosse. Many coaches and administrators agree.
On the other side of the issues are the “purists,” including the official position of US Lacrosse, who are concerned that by increasing head and face protection the rule makers would invite the kind of hard and high contact that would fundamentally alter the nature of the game and lead to more serious injuries in girls lacrosse.
This is the classic dilemma that the leadership and playing rules bodies of sports organizations have faced many times over many years for many sports. Justifiably.
When football added helmets, then face masks and then mouth protectors to the list of required equipment, there was a significant reduction in broken noses and chipped teeth, but techniques of blocking and tackling changed. The protected head and face became much more of a target and weapon than it had been before, and the unprotectable neck and spine became more at risk.
Some would argue that ice hockey’s experience is similar to football’s history. The discussion in the soccer community regarding hard helmets for goalkeepers and soft helmets for all other players often revolves around similar questions. Will required protective equipment change the game? And will one of the changes be that the game becomes still rougher and even more injurious, trading “moderate” injuries for more catastrophic?
While the debate continues over additional head protection requirements for girls lacrosse, and other sports, both sides seem to agree that the burden of the rule makers to be out-front in the search for ways to improve the rules is matched by the in-the-trenches responsibility of coaches to teach the game and officials to administer the contests in accordance with existing rules which already place a premium on participant safety.
Misdirection
March 2, 2018
Our big problem is that we are distracted by small matters. For example ...
I don’t think there is any close, thoughtful observer who can honestly say high school basketball is in better shape today than any number of years ago that one might pick ... 10, 20, 30 or more years.
Changes in students, schools, sports and society have not been kind to school-based basketball. Charter schools, school of choice, non-school sports, migration into other sports and activities, specialization in a single sport, and burnout leading to dropouts from organized sports are a few of many factors contributing to declining participation. And there is more competition for attention away from schools and away from school sports every single day. So the fault is not one thing only.
Girls basketball has been particularly hard hit by specialization in volleyball that was supercharged after the switch of basketball and volleyball seasons a decade ago. Girls basketball participation declined in every school year since the change of seasons before a 2.2 percent increase for 2017-18.
The days when most schools sponsor three basketball teams each for boys and girls – 9th grade, JV and varsity – are long gone; and that’s not just because we were forced to cram both genders’ basketball seasons into the winter. Many of those same schools now struggle to support one subvarsity team, and many have very short benches – only two or three subs – at the varsity level.
Every week the gap between the haves and have-nots grows wider and more obvious to all, with final scores so lopsided that the games could not have been a good experience for anyone – players or spectators, home team or visitor.
One would think that these matters would be on the minds of those who love and lead high school basketball and that they would be working diligently on initiatives to address the declining interest and growing imbalance in what was once the centerpiece sport of interscholastic athletics.
They would be asking, “What can we do at the junior high/middle school level to engage students ... to start them or keep them on the path to high school basketball programs? How can we encourage and equip high school coaches to attract to and hold in their programs more high school students? How can we help coaches increase all players’ game time? How can we help coaches teach players to value and grow from the experience of being a backup player?”
Surprisingly, the only proposals related to basketball that are advancing toward Representative Council action at this time are (1) seed MHSAA District tournaments, and (2) expand the coaching box.
Sadly, these proposals do nothing to reverse the decline of high school basketball. They are distractions from the hard work of reclaiming a healthy culture for the most historically important sport to schools in Michigan.
The culture shift needed is away from an all-star event for a few graduating seniors and toward ongoing educational programs for all coaches, every year. Away from national events and toward city, county and conference rivalries. Away from “elite” travel teams to K-6 development programs out of season. Away from creeping commercialism and professionalism and toward a recommitment to amateurism. Away from gamesmanship and toward sportsmanship. Away from running up the score – a lot – to allowing every team member to play – a lot.
The clock is ticking on the life of student-centered school-sponsored basketball. And a lot bigger proposals are needed than what we’ve been generating of late.