The Rules We Use
February 9, 2016
The MHSAA Handbook of 90 years ago consisted of merely 21 pages, a diminutive 3½ x 6 inches in size.
The proposals for just the changes in the Handbook for 2016-17 require almost as many words as the entire Handbook of 1925-26.
The Handbook has grown to 130 full-sized, 8½ x 11-inch pages not just because we serve more sports and students than 90 years ago. It also grows because life is much more complicated. Society, schools and sports have much broader concerns today.
Every policy described in the current Handbook got there as a response to people wanting more rules or recommendations – sometimes to treat students better and other times to promote competitive equity, both of which are worthy objectives and should continue to be the rationale for proposals.
Occasionally I hear my colleagues in other states say we need to modernize our rules, to be sure we are not trying to apply 20th century rules to 21st century problems. I don’t disagree with that populist refrain.
However, before any rule is removed, those in charge must ask and answer: “How will school sports look without this rule? Will the problem this rule was created to solve return if we remove the rule? Will doing so create even worse problems?”
Rarely has the adoption of a new rule by our organization been a mistake. I cannot say the same for the removal of rules.
Helmet Debate Escalates in Girls Lacrosse
July 2, 2015
Recently the Florida High School Activities Association escalated the girls lacrosse helmet debate to higher levels by mandating the equipment during competition involving its member schools. I’m guessing their hearts are in the right place; but without a recognized performance standard yet established for such protective head gear, there are important practical questions added to the philosophical debate over the efficacy of such a requirement at this time. Here’s what we posted on this topic nearly two years ago.
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.