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.

Pilot Programs 2.0

May 10, 2016

Two sideline concussion detection pilot programs launched with 62 schools at the start of the 2015-16 school year will continue in 2016-17, with several significant modifications.

For the upcoming school year, a smaller number of schools will be invited to participate, training will be both earlier and longer, and the focus will be on those sports which the MHSAA’s mandated concussion reporting by all high schools has identified as having the highest risk for head injuries.

The primary purpose for the MHSAA to initiate, drive and monitor these pilot programs is to emphasize the removal-from-play phase of the concussion care continuum, and to encourage more care, consistency and courage during that decision-making process.

Data from the most recent fall and winter seasons tends to demonstrate that schools in the pilot programs reported more concussions than non-pilot schools and they withheld students from activity longer than schools which did not participate in the pilot programs.

These tendencies are supported by both systems being tested, King-Devick and XLNTbrain, both of which have significant improvements in store for pilot schools in 2016-17.

The purpose of the pilot programs is not to select a single system to be recommended to or required of all MHSAA member schools, but to demonstrate to vendors how to serve the needs of our diverse constituency and to help our schools serve their student-athletes better. Further progress toward these purposes is a certainty during 2016-17.