Moving Forward
December 28, 2012
Coaches will often convey to their teams a variation of this theme: “If we’re not moving forward, we’re falling behind.” And with such immediate feedback – the next contest – coaches can measure their team’s progress quite easily. Progress is harder to measure for the organizations that serve and support coaches and athletes.
If we are doing our jobs well, we will have both an “inside game” and an “outside game.” We will create our own opportunities to improve our services and we will be alert to opportunities to improve ourselves when they are handed to us or forced upon us from outside sources. Both types of change can be positive.
-
Change from inside has the benefit of institutional knowledge. This change can be informed, measured and careful to avoid unintended consequences that hurt more than help customers.
-
Change from outside can be less rational but also less restrained by history and culture. It can be more disruptive in a positive sense, perhaps more innovative in origin and more expansive in impact.
It’s my sense that, as the calendar turns from 2012 to 2013, the MHSAA is at the merging of two lanes of traffic – an inside lane of change combining with an outside lane change – which will modify some services and move them forward at unprecedented speeds during the new year and the next.
-
This has been obvious as we have partnered with ArbiterSports to prepare the ArbiterGame scheduling software for our member schools. Hard work internally that’s about to show results to schools and their publics.
-
This may become obvious as we expand our schedule of inexpensive camps for inexperienced officials. This could be an antecedent to additional training requirements for MHSAA tournament officials. The public expects better, and we can do better.
-
This may also become obvious as we expand offerings and then add requirements for coaching education focused on maximizing good health and minimizing risk. There is a gathering parade of experts and evidence advocating for much more training for many more coaches; and we must find our way to the head of that column.
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.