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.
Going on Offense
March 3, 2015
I was a defensive back on my college football team, but I refuse to be put on the defensive about the game of football.
The game is good for students, their schools and our communities. High school football is character-building for students, spirit-building for schools and community-building for cities and towns. Local school football programs ought to be part of the development plans and place-making strategies of all communities of Michigan.
The school-sponsored game has never been safer to play. The equipment has never been more protective, coaches have never had more safety training, the rules have never been more safety-oriented, and game officials have never had more encouragement to enforce those rules. The result is fewer injuries of all kinds – from nicks and bruises to ankles, knees and necks.
When the game of football has faults, we find and fix them. To continue doing so requires that we be honest with ourselves about where the game has weaknesses and be constantly alert to effective ways to improve the game.
Defensiveness gets in the way of discovering ways to go on offense. It blocks innovation and sacks aspirations before they can be launched.
I want our public to know that school-sponsored football is a great game. I also want the public to know that we aspire to keep improving the game and to exceed legal mandates. We will continue to do more than what is required and, in fact, we intend to do what’s unexpected to assure football remains a positive influence on students, schools and communities.