Skip to main content

Orange County Public Schools System Is the Epicenter of the Helmet Rule Controversy!

Written by Lee Roggenburg on . Posted in .
By Brian Davis and Lee Roggenburg Orange County Directory of Athletics, Matt Fitzpatrick, claims 100% support from every AD, Principal, and Athletic Trainer in Orange County for helmet rule.  That is quite a consensus throwing the process into even more question!
Kylie Dunmire Oviedo
Kylie Dunmire of Oviedo shoots safely with no helmet last season.
We reported that Russell Wambles, who was invited to the ESPN 106.3 Podcast, tried to push the helmet rule out to the Orange County Athletic Directors and had no support.  Wambles is the A.D. at Dr. Phillips High School in Orange County.  After Lee’s Podcast aired we were contacted by Matt Fitzpatrick, who is the Athletic Director for all Orange County Public Schools.  Mr. Fitzpatrick claims that not only was there support for this, but EVERY A.D. voted for it in unanimous support.  In addition to the A.D.’s, EVERY single Principal voted for it and EVERY single Certified Athletic Trainer in Orange County is in support of it. Mr. Fitzpatrick’s email to us;
“I listened to your podcast on the FHSAA mandating head protection for girls’ lacrosse. I am writing you to request that you remove the podcast that refers to OCPS Athletic Directors voting unanimously against the requirement of helmets for Girls’ Lacrosse. The podcast mentions that the OCPS AD’s voted it down, so Mr. Wambles took the issue directly to the FHSAA. That is a complete misrepresentation of the truth, as it was exactly the opposite—every OCPS Athletic Director voted in favor of mandating the US Lacrosse optional soft helmet for Orange County Public Schools, regardless of whether or not the FHSAA passed their recent resolution. Not only did the OCPS AD’s vote in support of requiring the soft helmet option, but the OCPS Principals also voted unanimously to support such a move. The measure is also supported by the Certified Athletic Trainers of OCPS. I would love to know the source of your information, because it is so far off base that it almost seems like an intentional error meant to disparage. The safety of our students is of utmost importance to Orange County Public Schools. While rules, officiating, and coaching can certainly help in maintaining the finesse aspects of Women’s Lacrosse, our concern lies mainly with the severe accidental injuries that seem inherent in a contest that involves equipment such as the lacrosse balls and sticks that are used in Women’s Lacrosse. Officials are charged with the responsibility of enforcing rules to maintain the desired and intended style of play. Coaches, Athletic Directors, Athletic Trainers, and Principals are charged with advocating for the safety and wellbeing of their student athletes—we must do everything we can in order to provide as safe an environment as possible for our student athletes. Dr. Robert Cantu, one of the world’s foremost experts on head injuries in sports, had this to say about adding helmets for women’s lacrosse: ‘I currently think the rules are quite good as they’re written. I think what isn’t good is that you don’t have head protection on these women and so when the rules are violated, they can receive a stick to the head, accidently or whatever.'”
After receiving this email we went back to our contact at Orange County and asked for clarification.  We were told that there was not a vote, the idea was presented, and there was no support but there was also nobody who stood up and voiced dissent.  But the A.D. we spoke with reiterated that there was no official vote of any kind.  This person was also unaware of any presentation or vote by the Principals.  So to be fair to Mr. Fitzpatrick, we concede that the statement “unanimously voted down” was overstated.  However, his statement that it was voted on and that it has unanimous support is also not supported.   The very idea that all of these people, every single A.D., every single Principal, and every single Certified Athletic Trainer in Orange County voted in lockstep gives even more concern to the process.  What, exactly, would have been presented to these folks to garner such overwhelming support.  We asked Mr. Fitzpatick to offer some insight into the process. We sent the following email to Mr. Fitzpatrick,
“…As it is, I have spoken with an AD who was in that meeting and does not support your exact version of events.  We were informed that there was no support for this rule and that there was no official vote made at the meeting.   Our contact was also surprised to learn that it had been presented to the Principals and there was an official vote by the Principals in support of this rule. I am more than happy to publish the email you sent Lee which clearly outlines your position and your objections to the podcast but I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify some points if you wanted. Although we at FloridaLacrosseNews.com, think the rule is misguided, we certainly don’t doubt your commitment to the safety of Orange County athletes and invite an open discussion on the subject. It is difficult to believe that every single AD, Principal, and C.A.T.  had full knowledge of both sides of this discussion and still voted unanimously in favor of this rule, making them a singular pocket of ardent supporters at odds with nearly the entire women’s lacrosse community.”
Mr. Fitzpatrick doubled downed on the 100% unanimous vote.  So, assuming that this is correct, what does that say about the process?  If I remember right, even Saddam Hussein only got 99.96% of the vote in his last election!  I’m pretty sure there was only one campaign going on in that one.  So if 100% support this rule what was presented to these folks before the vote? Mr. Fitzpatrick’s response skirted answering that question.
“I was at the meeting, and the vote was unanimous. If there is a silent AD that objected, I don’t have any idea who that would be. I welcome dissent, debate and discussion, so there is no reason for someone to remain silent. The Principals’ vote was also unanimous. For you to say it was was anything less is clearly incorrect…by a long shot. I have blind copied all OCPS Athletic Directors and  High School Principals in order to make them aware of your misrepresentation of the facts. I know that your primary concern is to increase traffic on your website, and your passion for women’s lacrosse obviously exceeds your passion for the safety of student athletes.”
The readers will note that this response carries no discussion of the empirical evidence that was presented to the AD’s.  Empirical evidence that US Lacrosse has in abundance and is willing to share with everyone.  Apparently the presentation was,  “Dissent and debate on the subject are welcome.  But if you don’t vote for this then you are against the safety of children.” We will attempt to get the minutes of this meeting and vote from Orange County. Obviously, none of us are “anti-safety.”  But the whole opposition to this from US Lacrosse is that they are spending a substantial amount of money on this over a period of years and is striving to come up with solutions to make the game safer.  INCLUDING the possibility of a head gear.  Why mandate before they are done? A few questions for the folks at Orange County Athletics who think we are “misinforming” people. First, did Mr. Wambles inform any of the groups that the manufacturer himself said this solution was not designed to protect against concussions?  If not then why not?  If this information was withheld from the other voters that is egregious.  Was this the only solution presented?  When Lee discussed this with the manufacturer that person confirmed that Mr. Wambles had called the company and asked for a discount on bulk purchases.  Did Mr. Wambles also ask anyone at the company about the efficacy of the head gear?  If not then that clearly indicates he felt he had a solution for the motion but did not do his due diligence on the product.  If he did ask (and was given the same answer) then either he withheld the answer or decided not to say anything about it when lobbying the full Board and the OC AD’s. Second, will Mr. Wambles please explain to everyone involved why he was quoted by US Lacrosse participants at the FHSAA Board Meeting why he wasn’t interested in any data?  When the data WAS presented to the Operations Committee it caused one result.  When the data was not presented to the full Board the motion passed.  How do the affirmative voters justify not listening to the scientific data already accumulated? Third, was any attempt made by the FHSAA or the Orange County AD’s to research the actual experience the state of Massachusetts had with the same rule?  They mandated helmets many years ago and rescinded them ten years later when the data showed injuries had soared with the helmets. Fourth, why lacrosse?  Soccer’s concussion rate, according to many studies, FAR exceeds that of lacrosse at the girl’s high school level. It is clear to us that if you are a young lady playing lacrosse in Orange County next year you will be wearing a helmet regardless of what the FHSAA does statewide.   Despite Mr. Fitzpatrick’s claim that he welcomes dissent, debate, and discussion, it’s hard to believe there was debate followed by 100% support from three separate groups of people.  The idea that honest debate and discussion took place followed by three separate 100% votes in favor of bucking the entire women’s lacrosse world is cloudy at best.  That can partly be cleared up with the release of the meeting minutes. The young ladies that play this sport deserve an open and honest debate, including those who have spent so many years in this sport.  Female coaches, female players, female referees . . . all with great insight into the issue.  Were ANY consulted with?              

Sponsored