The following was posted on the FHSAA website on Tuesday and I want to take the opportunity to respond and ‘deconstruct’ the press release. My responses will show as italicized, bolded remarks after the passages I deem need responding to.  Readers, please keep in mind, I am completely open to the possible use of head gear if US Lacrosse deems it to be in the best interest of the sport, but the process the FHSAA has used has been very questionable at a minimum.  As my critique of this latest press release will indicate. Again, I ask the FHSAA to table this mandate until all the research has been complete; no point in taking a grandstanding approach. In addition to this critique FLN is researching troubling indications that High School AD’s and Girl’s Lacrosse Coaches are being pressured to get in line and not comment critically on the ruling.  We certainly hope that is not the case, but if proof pops up that this is happening it will certainly bring the story into a new direction and that would not look favorably on the FHSAA. We will continue to seek the truth either way, and if the FHSAA is not doing so we will be sure to write that up too.   Girls lacrosse helmet requirement will improve student-athlete safety, experts say (Experts? I see NO non-FHSAA related person quoted here. Robert Sefcik, who is a Certified Athletic Trainer, serves on an FHSAA panel.  Against all of the medical professionals US Lacrosse is working with . . .) Posted June 24th, 2014 GAINESVILLE, Fla. – By adopting a first-in-the-nation requirement for female high school lacrosse players to wear headgear beginning next season (“First in the nation? What about Massachusetts doing this in the 1980’s and having to rescind the decision when injuries spiked?”), the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) has taken a bold and decisive step to protect these young student-athletes from injuries that can have potentially life-changing consequences, according to FHSAA officials.  (Girls Soccer has a FAR HIGHER concussion rate yet there is no ruling on requiring them to wear something . . . why not ban heading the ball while we’re at it?) The FHSAA Board of Directors earlier this month adopted a new rule requiring that protective headgear be worn by girls while practicing for or competing in FHSAA-sanctioned activities. Although specific implementing policies have not yet been enacted, the new requirement will mandate what US Lacrosse currently allows: (not banning something is NOT the same as blessing it) headgear to protect teenage girls from the hard impacts that can inadvertently occur in lacrosse, including blows to the head and lacerations to the face. FHSAA already requires helmets for boys’ lacrosse. (Why not just mandate that both boys and girls wear the same headgear?  Wasn’t that actually discussed at the FHSAA Board meeting?) “For FHSAA, nothing – nothing – is more important than the safety of our student-athletes. (If this is true why not ban tackle football? – http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Sports-Related-Concussions-in-Youth-Improving-the-Science-Changing-the-Culture.aspx  –  an excerpt from this NFL-Funded research, according to ESPN.Com is that “the average high school player is nearly twice as likely to suffer a brain injury as a college player”) Even though the rules of girls lacrosse are intended to keep it safe, it remains a highly competitive sport and we must do everything we can to make it as safe as possible for the girls proudly representing their schools,” said FHSAA Executive Director Dr. Roger Dearing. The girls lacrosse policy is the latest move by FHSAA to protect the health and well-being of student-athletes. In the last two years, the association has adopted strict policies to protect student-athletes from the dangerous effects of concussions and performance-enhancing drugs, while also establishing new procedures relating to heat, hydration and potential cardiac problems. While girls lacrosse does not typically involve physical contact between the players, high-velocity impacts still occur involving the hard rubber balls, solid sticks or the ground. (Does none of this occur in girl’s soccer?) Florida is showing leadership in this important area, and other states and the national lacrosse federation should follow FHSAA’s lead by requiring helmets for girls lacrosse, said Robert Sefcik, Executive Director of the Jacksonville Sports Medicine Program and a member of FHSAA’s Sports Medicine Advisory Committee. (Mr. Sefcik’s LinkedIn, make your own conclusions: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/robert-sefcik/29/623/5b1) “With a heightened awareness of sports-related concussions and sensitivity to the potential lasting effects of this significant health concern, this helmet requirement is a prudent decision by the FHSAA for the safety and health of our student-athletes,” Sefcik said. (Would Mr. Sefcik please comment specifically on what part of the US Lacrosse research he disagrees with since they are against this proposal?) The solid lacrosse ball weighs between 5 and 5.25 ounces and can travel at high speeds at the high school level. Even a helmet is no guarantee, but the chances of serious injury are reduced when a helmet is used. (Please provide supporting empirical data for this statement – no manufacturer of girl’s lacrosse head gear makes this claim) US Lacrosse, which governs high school girls lacrosse nationally, does not require female high school lacrosse players to wear protective headgear, although they are permitted to wear soft helmets. The FHSAA Board’s action continues its emphasis on the safety of student-athletes, mandating that beginning with the 2015 season all female lacrosse players must wear helmets as a precautionary measure against head injuries. (Will the FHSAA go on record as being willing to change this policy if injury rates rise?  If they are not willing to do so then this is solely grandstanding at its worst) ———————-   Max Weber (from Wikipedia) “Karl Emil Maximilian “Max” Weber (German: [ˈmaks ˈveːbɐ]; 21 April 1864 – 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist, philosopher, and political economist whose ideas influenced social theory, social research, and the entire discipline of sociology.^[3] Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as among the three founding creators of sociology.^[4][5][6] Weber was a key proponent of methodological antipositivism, arguing for the study of social action through interpretive (rather than purely empiricist) means, based on understanding the purpose and meaning that individuals attach to their own actions.” Nothing really new under the sun, is there?  Bureaucracy gets caught going off on their own, without doing the due diligence they are tasked with.  And ends up circling the wagons because they misinterpreted the end of the movie Love Story.  Bad decisions means never having to say you’re sorry . . . Antipositivism, the use of qualitative research instead of quantitative research. Or, in today’s political environment, ‘Do it for the children!!’ Even if the research shows a different result, after all, it’s not the results that matter, it is what their desires were.  Massachusetts made girls helmets/head gear mandatory and had to rescind that when the number of injuries SOARED. Let that stick in your mind for now.  Interpretive means . . . we believe we know best, damn the empirical evidence. Or to paraphrase, as it was put so eloquently in the Board Meeting; “I don’t care what the data shows, I know what needs to be done”. It bears repeating.  Based on national statistics Girls Soccer has 65% MORE concussions than Girls Lacrosse per unit measured.  Yet that sport remains unchanged.  Dr. Dearing, I challenge you, Robert Sefcik and Mr. Wambles to show the same concern for girls who play soccer.  Or you are all phonies. https://www.einstein.yu.edu/news/releases/915/frequent-soccer-ball-heading-may-lead-to-brain-injury/  (Hard to argue that the Albert Einstein College of Medicine is not more credible than the medical experts brought in by the FHSAA) Ban heading the ball . . . Make them wear a soft helmet . . . Or stop posturing like you have all the answers.