The One Thing
June 17, 2016
“If funding were not an issue, what’s the one thing you would do at the MHSAA?”
That’s the question posed late last month by a candidate for employment at the MHSAA; and I answered without any hesitancy.
I would require and pay for both initial and continuing education of all coaches, both high school and junior high/middle school, head coaches and assistants, paid and volunteer. It would occur mostly face to face, and it would be intentional in its conveyance of the meaning of educational athletics and the definition of success in school-sponsored sports.
The coach is the front line in the delivery of the core values of educational athletics and the immediate and lifetime benefits of school sports participation. More than any other person, coaches can change students’ lives and they can create a culture in their program that changes the attitudes of parents toward youth sports and the attitudes of spectators toward officials.
The well-trained coach, the purposefully trained coach, not only gives the student a better experience, that coach also gives parents a reality check and helps give officials a more sportsmanlike atmosphere in which to work. Well-trained coaches enhance almost every aspect of the school sports experience – improving participant safety and promoting a lifetime of healthy habits; teaching and demanding good sportsmanship that evolves toward good citizenship; promoting teamwork, hard work, fair play, respect for rules and others.
Delivering with purpose and passion initial and ongoing education that is research-based, student-focused and required of all interscholastic coaches, is best for kids and for the future of school sports in Michigan. And it would contribute mightily to the quality of our schools and communities.
Over the past decade, approximately 20,000 individuals have completed one or more levels of the MHSAA Coaches Advancement Program (CAP). The goal should be 20,000 coaches through multiple levels of CAP each year. That’s the one thing the MHSAA should do.
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.