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.
Early Learners
January 26, 2016
The good news is that the minimum number of pupil instruction days required for public school students in Michigan increases from 175 to 180 for 2016-17. The bad news is, Michigan public school students are still sitting in the back of the school bus.
The U.S. is in the lower half of the world’s nations in the length of school year for secondary school students, and Michigan is in the lower half of U.S. states in the length of school year. So just about anything the Michigan Legislature would consider to facilitate earlier starts to the school year as well as longer school days and weeks of instruction would be good for today’s students and our state’s future.
Among bills now pending in the Michigan Legislature is Senate Bill 567 that would remove the prohibition on public schools from beginning instructional days before Labor Day, except that classes could not be held on the Friday before Labor Day.
Some will be critical because this could put classes in conflict with double session sports practice days and large, all-day cross country, golf, soccer and tennis tournaments that are now common in Michigan school sports in late August; but these so-called conflicts would have positive effects:
These “conflicts” would tend to reduce the number of days of two-a-day practices that are much less in favor today with increasing attention to the health and safety of student-athletes.
These “conflicts” would tend to reduce the frequency of students playing in contests before they have attended any classes, which is far from ideal philosophically and a frequent cause of practical problems – including participation by ineligible students and resulting forfeits.
Students are engaged in school sports, marching band, cheerleading and other school-related activities throughout most of August, and they are much more eager learners then than later in the school year. Schools should be allowed to let them learn in the classroom then, not just in extracurricular activities.