By Paul McCord A Response to FHSAA’s Latest Press Release Regarding Lacrosse Safety MCC Sports and its family of nearly 100 girl’s lacrosse coaches and thousands of lacrosse players, views the latest press release by the FHSAA as irresponsible and illogical. The release reflects trivial knowledge of how the sport is played, injury epidemiology, the history of the sport, and a very superficial knowledge of head injury prevention in sport. We believe, based both on science and historical record, that adding helmets to girl’s lacrosse will increase the overall rate of head injury and create other traumatic injuries. The FHSAA is Not a “Trend Setting” Organization as Portrayed in the Press Release MCC Statement: The FHSAA is not a leader in sport safety. The FHSAA is really “#2.” The FHSAA is behind other states that have mandated helmets and abandoned them after the consequential injuries increased rather than decreased. The Facts: Contrary to their press release claim, the FHSAA is not the first state to mandate helmets. Massachusetts added helmets to girl’s lacrosse via their state board for ten years in the 1980’s and 1990’s. The thought was that introducing helmets would improve player safety. However, during this time the overall injury rate in the sport skyrocketed. In 1996 the helmet rule was repealed. Since that time there has been no talk in Massachusetts about bringing back the helmet rule has taken place. The FHSAA’s failure to do their due diligence in learning about how adding helmets creates a more dangerous game is not in the best interest of the girls committed to playing the game. The FHSAA States that Adding Helmets will Prevent Concussions MCC Statement: No study proves that adding helmets will prevent concussions in girl’s lacrosse. Helmeted sports lead the way for traumatic brain injury. The FHSAA does not state factual proof that helmets will make the game safer. They simply want to mandate helmets. The Facts: It is contrarian thinking to believe that adding a helmet will reduce head injuries when all of the research shows that it will not. In fact, based on the current scientific injury data, the FHSAA is willingly making the sport of girl’s lacrosse more dangerous. The research proves that helmets do not prevent concussions. Every study done by credible scientific organizations has shown that the sport of girl’s lacrosse maintains lower rates of concussions than boys lacrosse (33% more), boys and girls ice hockey (100% more), and football (350% more), all sports that require helmets. In most cases more than twice the number of concussions occurred in the helmeted sports. Football is by far the most dangerous sport played. Yet the FHSAA allows for two seasons of competition for football and one of the longest playing seasons of any sport that they manage. Helmets are required for boy’s lacrosse games. According to scientific data, boy’s lacrosse has 33% more concussions and far more serious traumatic injuries than girl’s lacrosse. Current research shows that girls are naturally more susceptible to concussions than boys. Therefore making girls lacrosse more similar to boy’s lacrosse in any way, including adding helmets, places girls at greater risk for concussions and even more traumatic injuries that currently are not present in the sport. The FHSAA will be responsible for the creation of a significantly more dangerous sport. The FHSAA decision to mandate helmets illustrates its lack of understanding of the fundamental differences between the boys and girls lacrosse game. FHSAA “Experts” Cite Using a Ball and Stick as Reasons for Adding a Helmet MCC Statement: Girls lacrosse is a model for safety in its existing form. The FHSAA Should study how girl’s lacrosse is amongst the safest sports for girls to play. Sports with sticks and balls have lower injury rates at the high school level than those that do not. The Facts: Girl’s lacrosse currently has a lower rate of concussion than that of high school girl’s basketball and soccer. The reality is that little, if any, head contact occurs in practice and in games with the ball or the stick. The sport of field hockey also uses a stick and a much harder ball in competition, and no helmet is used. Field hockey and girl’s lacrosse have lower head injury rates as NCAA sports (field hockey is not available to play in the FHSAA) than women’s soccer. Both have lower high school head injury rates than girl’s basketball, soccer, and boy’s lacrosse. The FHSAA should consider how sports utilizing a stick and a ball produce 350% fewer concussions than the sport of football, 100% fewer head injuries than the sport of ice hockey, and 60% fewer incidences of concussions than girl’s soccer. The FHSAA Does Not Follow NFHS or US Lacrosse Rules in Women’s Lacrosse MCC Statement: The FHSAA has trivial knowledge of girl’s lacrosse and therefore should follow all NFHS rules for the sport. The NFHS works with US Lacrosse to create the safest game. Any additional injuries that have occurred in Florida over the past six years have resulted in the FHSAA’s failure to adopt all NFHS rules. The Facts: According to their Facebook site, the FHSAA “…uses NFHS contest rules in its sports.” Before FHSAA adopted girl’s lacrosse, during a trial period to determine sport feasibility and safety (which the sport passed), US Lacrosse, following US Lacrosse rules, oversaw the sport. When FHSAA officially adopted the sport, the Florida governing body refused to adopt the carding procedures that deter rough play and have been effective in lowering injury rates in the remaining states. The carding procedures require teams to play short players when a certain number of yellow cards have been reached. At present, FHSAA games allow teams to amass unlimited yellow cards without consequence. If player safety was truly at the heart of this issue, why did FHSAA fail to adopt the most critical rules pertaining to safety? The FHSAA operates its organization contrary to their self-description. Before adding additional equipment to the sport, the FHSAA should adopt and rigorously follow all US Lacrosse and NFHS rules and procedures for girl’s lacrosse play. Their failure to do so may have already created a more dangerous sport. In summary:

• The FHSAA is not showing leadership by introducing helmets first. In fact they are actually showing a lack of research. They are the second state to introduce helmets (the first state repealed the rule) and they fail to recognize the consequences of adding helmets to the sport, which include dramatically more injuries.
• The FHSAA fails to acknowledge the scientific data on head injuries showing that all helmeted sports suffer significantly more head injuries than girl’s lacrosse. Adding helmets will move girl’s lacrosse closer to those more dangerous sports.
• The FHSAA experts claim that a sport with a stick and ball are more dangerous than other sports. The research shows that high school girl’s basketball and soccer are more risky than girl’s lacrosse and field hockey, which use a stick and ball.
• The FHSAA has a trivial knowledge of girl’s lacrosse, yet each year since adopting the sport they have not followed US Lacrosse/NFHS rules contrary to what they publicize on the FHSAA controlled website. Consequently, failure to follow critical rules of the sport may result in higher injury rates at FHSAA games.
• The FHSAA sites only anecdotal evidence, such as an E:60 news report or an isolated injury, as proof that helmets are needed. One could take the most traumatic injuries in any sport to justify their stance. Football is a great example. Each year children die or become paralyzed as a result of the sport’s contact and equipment. Yet, FHSAA has no trouble making this sport the longest season and only multi-season sport in their sponsored sport groups.
• The Maryland prep governing body has stated unequivocally that they will not be adding helmets because of girls lacrosse’s relatively low injury rate, comparable with other major girls sports. The FHSAA will not find experienced lacrosse states following their lead.

MCC Beliefs:

• We believe that the FHSAA should follow US Lacrosse/NFHS rules to promote a safer sport
• We believe that helmets will produce a more violent game as shown in Massachusetts helmet mandate of the 1980’s and 1990’s
• We believe that helmeted sports have up to 350% more concussions and many more serious spine and traumatic injuries than girl’s lacrosse
• We believe that playing with the new NOCSAE balls and continued coach, official and player education are mechanisms to reduce all injury rates in girl’s lacrosse
• We believe that studying research and understanding history allows for the best decision making possible
• We believe that girl’s lacrosse was a safer sport when played under US Lacrosse rules prior to the FHSAA adopting the sport
• We believe that scientists and actual injury statistics and not anecdotal evidence should lead to prudent policy decisions