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.
Taking Back Their Game
December 15, 2017
Editor's Note: This blog originally was posted August 30, 2011, and the message still rings true today.
Grayling High School’s Rich Moffitt is one of our many fine high school basketball coaches, and a good portion of the heart and soul behind the MHSAA/BCAM “Reaching Higher” experience for our state’s students aspiring to play college basketball. Rich shared with us a recent article in Basketball Times written by Billy Reed, a long-time basketball writer for the Louisville Courier-Journal, Lexington Herald-Leader and Sports Illustrated. In this piece Reed urges high school basketball coaches to take back their game from the corrupting influences of street agents and summer coaches. He writes:
“I’d like to see the high school coaches publicly challenge university presidents to stop sacrificing academic integrity on the altar of the almighty sports dollar. I’d like to see them petition the NCAA to do everything possible to rid college football and basketball of the slimy street agents, summer coaches, pimps, hustlers and con artists who undermine the authority of their high school coaches and teachers.
“I’d like them to urge the NCAA to start running its own summer games instead of leaving it to the shoe companies and NBA stars, and I’d like to see them work with their state high school athletic associations to adopt rules stipulating that only certified high school coaches can coach summer teams.
“I’d also like to see the high school coaches rededicate themselves to teaching humility, civility and respect for the opposition, the public and the media instead of letting young superstars grow into rude, selfish, egotistical adults who think the same rules that apply to the rest of society don’t apply to them.”