Anytime, Anywhere

July 28, 2014

The MHSAA’s Coaches Advancement Program (CAP) is like no other high school level coaches education program in the US.

In an online world, including many other ways here at the MHSAA, CAP still trades purposefully in face-to-face learning; and the MHSAA Is committed to delivering sessions “anytime, anywhere” – any time a school, district, league or coaches association will sign up 20 coaches, the MHSAA will deliver one or more of the six CAP levels the group requests.

About 60 percent of those who complete CAP Levels 1 through 5 do so as a part of their course work at one of seven colleges or universities in Michigan (Central Michigan University, Kalamazoo Valley Community College, Lake Michigan Community College, Muskegon Community College, Northern Michigan University, Oakland County Community College and Western Michigan University).

The other 40 percent of those who complete CAP – and this will be a growing percentage – do so through sessions facilitated by a group of people who have committed many evenings and weekends to CAP’s “anytime, anywhere” approach to ongoing, adult education. During 2013-14, Jerry Haggerty, athletic director at Hamilton High School, led all presenters, teaching 25 sessions. Among other of the busiest presenters were Tony Moreno of Eastern Michigan University; retired athletic administrator Jim Feldkamp; Ken Mohney, athletic director at Mattawan; and Hally Yonko, athletic director at Ann Arbor-Gabriel Richard High School.

The leader of boundless energy and enthusiasm for CAP is MHSAA Assistant Director Kathy Vruggink Westdorp. In 2016-17, CAP Level 1 or 2 becomes a requirement for all persons hired for the first time at any MHSAA member school after July 31, 2016 as a high school varsity head coach. Kathy and a growing cadre of presenters are eagerly awaiting that challenge.

The team closed the 2013-14 school year by presenting eight levels of CAP at six different sites over six days, June 9-14, and then conducted CAP Levels 1, 2 and 3 on three consecutive days, June 19-21, at Clinton High School.

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.