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.
Correctable Error
January 17, 2014
I have written at other times and places that if it had been the stated purpose of our state’s and country’s chief executives and legislators for the past 20 years to weaken public education, they would have done exactly what they have done. They have spoken about strengthening schools and improving education, but their actions have done the opposite.
This is precisely the point of the richly researched Reign of Error, The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools by Diane Rovitch (Alfred A. Knopf, 2013).
Competition, choice and corporate influence are all attacked, as are the misuse and overuse of standardized testing and the excessive reliance on e-education.
The author’s prescription for schools is not everything new and different, but removal of politicians and profiteers. And, catching my attention most, Rovitch writes:
“As students enter the upper elementary grades and middle school and high school, they should have a balanced curriculum . . . Their school should have a rich arts program where students learn to sing, dance, play an instrument, join an orchestra or band, perform in a play, sculpt, or use technology to design structures, conduct research, or create artworks. Every student should have time for physical education every day . . . Every school should have after-school programs where students may explore their interests, whether in athletics, chess, robotics, history club, dramatics, science club, nature study, scouting or other activities.”
The kinds of programs that the MHSAA promotes and protects are the keys to the type of education students want, need and deserve. And I admire every school that provides these programs in spite of all that has conspired against them for two decades.