By Paul McCord, US Lacrosse District Rated Official, NCAA Lacrosse Coach, Youth League and Program Founder In the aftermath of one of the most bizarre incidents in the history of sport, I wanted to take time to reflect on a few truths regarding the FHSAA’s so-called helmet mandate. At the conclusion of the article I have a few hypothesis as to why actually the FHSAA and Dr. Dearing decided that adding an unnecessary piece of non-protective equipment would be in the best interest of girls who play lacrosse. First, allow me to shoot down the logic as to why they claimed they were adding helmets as a mandate. €œWe care deeply about the safety of the student athletes. First: Lacrosse is one of the safest sports you can play as a youngster According to every major study that has been conducted by impartial organizations nationwide, girl’s lacrosse has lower injury occurances than soccer and basketball. Girl’s lacrosse also has a significantly lower head injury rate than soccer and is even with basketball. There is no repetitive use of the head in lacrosse. If Dr. Dearing felt the need to add a piece of equipment to protect a player, it would have been advisable to add equipment to a sport that has a higher injury rate, or add equipment to all boys and girls sports and not just one. Additionally, the most dangerous sport played throughout the United States is football. In Florida, football is a sacred cow yet hundreds upon hundreds of kids in the state each year are concussed, or suffer serious, debilitating injuries involving major surgery. Football has one of the longest seasons (Fall) and is one of the only sports to have two seasons (Fall and Spring) in Florida. Yet, FHSAA focuses on a sport with a 400% lower rate of head injury when compared to football. Second: No Soft Helmet has been Shown to Prevent Serious Injury in Girl’s Lacrosse Expert after expert testified that injuries categorized as serious injuries, such as concussions and major trauma, are not addressed by soft helmets. In addition, experts testified to soft helmets potentially being more dangerous in certain instances. None of these experts stand to make a penny from the FHSAA’s ruling and all of them have extensive experience in the sport. A few have little experience in the sport, but have children who play both boys’ and girls’ lacrosse. Many mentioned that if they felt the need to put their kid in a helmet to protect them then they would do so. Two helmet salesman said that helmets were a great thing. One called the parents and coaches who spoke “barbaric”. They stand to make the most money from FHSAA’s ruling. It is unclear if the helmet manufactures realized that actual barbarians wore helmets. Third: Of the Nine FHSAA Board Members Voting For the Mandate, None Have Seen a Girl’s Lacrosse Game, Been to a Girl’s Lacrosse Practice, or Have a History in the Sport Those who voted for the mandate mentioned specifically that they did not know anything about girl’s lacrosse. One woman mentioned that she knew nothing about either sport, but she knew how to make policies. Further, the committee that was put together by the board came back with a unanimous NO vote on the helmet question. These committee members all had extensive lacrosse backgrounds. They were ignored in favor of those who had no experience at all. After hearing expert witnesses, anyone who had a history or experience to draw from regarding the sport of girl’s lacrosse would have come to the same conclusion that the six dissenters reached: There was no reason to mandate helmets. What kind of a board, interested in safety, gets information reported from its committee of experts telling them not to do something for the benefits of safety and then does not follow the recommendation? Among several reasons, the committee sited other state helmet rules that increased the violent nature of the sport as a critical reason why not to add a helmet. The committee also made it clear that if parents had an interest in their child wearing headgear, they had that choice available to them. Fourth: After Hearing the Data, the FHSAA Boss Said that Data Didn’t Matter – They Had Already Voted For a Helmet Normally after hearing testimony, a sensible person can alter course. Had the Captain of the Titanic been given information early enough, perhaps he would have steered away from the catastrophic ice berg that sent it to the bottom of the Atlantic. But following the expert testimony, the FHSAA director basically told the entire room that changing course was not going to happen regardless of the truth because he and his board had already made up its mind. At an earlier board meeting where two parents provided testimony of their children receiving concussions, the board had voted to enact helmets, but they were not sure of which helmet to choose from: a boy’s lacrosse helmet, or a girl’s lacrosse soft shell helmet. No experts were invited to testify. No people with extensive lacrosse experience were present. Just two parents, one who had a child who was actually beaten by a stick from a kid who assaulted her on the field, not in the course of regular game play, spoke to the board. The board had no context from which to make a choice. This time around they did. Many were considering the option of tabling the decision until after this school year to study more data that online casino review they had not been privy to, and to wait on US Lacrosse to recommend a head gear approved by an independent organization. Dr. Dearing would have nothing to do with a delay. An old lawyer sitting behind Dearing made a case for liability, essentially saying that by following US Lacrosse rules they were off the hook from any potential lawsuits even though the intent of the rule was to protect soft tissue injuries like bruises and cuts/stictches. US Lacrosse attempted to explain why a soft helmet was allowed and that they were not intended for mass usage by entire teams. They reiterated, along with the group of 25 expert witnesses, that they are not actually “protective” helmets at all, as the FHSAA had mandated in their rule requiring “protective” helmets. One board member objected and explained that there should be an addendum to the rule specifying just that, that the protective head gear did not protect participants against injuries, like concussions. That caveat was excluded from the FHSAA ruling. Fifth: The Helmet Reaction Was a Reaction to Two Major Injuries. After the Soft Helmet was Shown Not to Protect Athletes from the Very Injuries That Sparked the Debate in the First Place, they Voted for Adding them Anyway. Injuries are a part of sports. We hate them. They occur too often in every game because when they occur to your child it feels like the entire game is plagued with that particular injury. Nobody likes injuries. Two girls who had head injuries during the FHSAA season and their families brought the issue to the Orange County AD who brought it to FHSAA. The issue was concussions. The issue was the dangers of girl’s lacrosse based on two Orange County high schools who reported abnormally high rates of concussions when compared to the rest of the state and nation. The issue was not simply to add a piece of useless equipment. That issue was brought up yesterday. According to the FHSAA, they deal with manufacturers a lot and they consider themselves to be on the cutting edge of adding new equipment to all sports. The issue was not about protecting players so much as the FHSAA’s desire to attempt to innovate the sport by adding a piece of equipment. They acknowledged that the piece of equipment would not actually protect the players. If the issue was originally to lower the rates of concussion by adding a piece of equipment and upon further review this was shown through the data not to be the case, why would they add a piece of useless equipment? Ego, not safety ruled the day. Are they afraid of litigation? They should be. Last year they did not adopt full US Lacrosse carding procedures. They also did not use US Lacrosse trained and certified officials. They do not have a coaching certification program. While “soft head gear” was permitted via the rules last year, very few chose to wear it and the FHSAA did not notify parents of the option. Last year, the 2014 season, is still a case for litigation against the FHSAA because they were out there acting on their own, not following NFHS rules as their website shows, and not certifying or training officials who could keep the game safe. If there were seriously injured girls, the FHSAA should shoulder the blame for not listening to its committee’s recommendations last year (recommending full use of US Lacrosse and NFHS rules). Moving ahead, those who are injured wearing an unproven, untested, non-protective head gear when it has been shown to increase the levels of aggression in girls playing lacrosse ought to use litigation channels against the FHSAA who are reacting against research and proof and siding with salesman of head gear. Parents who wish to be proactive may wish to site the rule itself that states “protective” soft headgear must be worn. There is no such thing. Who pays for the non-protective headgear? Either parents or tax payers. Why did the FHSAA pass the rule? We don’t honestly know, but one thing is for sure, it was NOT to protect the athletes. Action Statement: Contact the FHSAA. Let them know that you do not want your child to be placed in harms way as a result of: Wearing a non-protective piece of equipment Wearing something on their head that will draw aggressive behavior, a natural response to seeing an object on someone’s head Not following the US Lacrosse/NFHS rule that does not mandate such equipment, but makes the equipment optional based on a parent’s choice According to US Lacrosse, these helmets were NOT intended for team use, but intended to cover bruises, abrasions or soft tissue injuries That being known, you question their understanding of how to protect the players Lack of knowledgeable people on the board (most have never seen or studied girl’s lacrosse) making choices without the correct data yet when shown the data, not making the right decision The FHSAA should know that the intent of the US Lacrosse rule was not to place entire teams in helmets but to allow parents the choice to protect their children who may have a soft tissue injury. The intent of the FHSAA’s board decision last June was to prevent concussions. Well intentioned, but ignorant of the facts. Now that they have the facts, the liability of further injury will be with their decision to mandate an unsafe piece of equipment in light of expert testimony warning them of the heightened aggression of sports that require headgear.