Head Gear for Women's Lacrosse

[Phil]

I'm sure I read an article somewhere about a study done in the US to do with the introduction of Goggles. The general gist was that there were more injuries and people were less carful when tackling. In fact I think I read it through a link on this forum somewhere?

NO NO

read again - paper said
fewer eye injuries.
fewer injuries in total
more concussions - I wonder if it just diagnosed more?

My bad.

Not sure if this is the one I was thinking of, but have done a quick Google search and came across this, for anyone who may be interested. I guess I must not have read it properly the first time.. ?

Phil

[chippie]

It is the kids that need the more forced protection. I hope the ELA gets something that is straightforward correct (and follows other sports).

just out of interest, where do the WLA/wales squad sit on this?

so whats the news...will the WLA be sanctioning protection...?

[clip]

I would take cues from other sports.

As a child, I played cricket batting with only gloves, pads and a box. Today, that's pretty much unthinkable and I don't see club batsmen going into the nets without gloves, chest, thigh and arm pads and a helmet. Children are required to wear helmets when batting. Has this damaged cricket? Not at all. It's just accepted as part of the game - and with the requirements, equipment costs have fallen.

On the other hand, I also play hockey. Another game with a harder ball (than lax) with harder sticks flying about and nothing like the rules protection of lax. Players, and especially children are still not required to wear mouthguards, and it is not common to see club defenders using masks for short corners. I have never seen an on-field cricket injury caused by being hit; but I have seen countless hockey injuries - a large number of them to the face, mouth or head. In the last match of the last season I played, a teenaged player not wearing a mouthguard was hit in the mouth (with a stick) and lost several teeth. In the pre-season trials this season, within an hour, a player was hit in the face with a stick and hospitalised.

These sports are not preserved in stasis. Taller, stronger children, better training methods and advanced equipment technology has made all these games much faster and more physical over the last few decades. There is no point harking back to times gone by. They're gone. The cricketers realised this and adapted. For some reason, hockey is lagging behind (crazy considering the huge increase in the speed of the game that came with astro pitches). I don't think that lacrosse should be scared of increased protection such as goggles. I cannot imagine many players being put off because they have to fork out for a pair; but I can imagine a lot of players jacking it in if a player in their club sustains a serious eye injury.

[UKLacrosse]

There are a whole catalogue of concerns and reasons for dodging this question. Some years ago we carried out a survey at the National Schools Tournament. We had samples of eyemasks available and a huge number of girls, parents and coaches looked at them. We took the opportunity to ask questions .... it was an interesting discussion ...

1. We recognise the immediate and obvious response, that as a supplier, it suits us if more equipment is required. However, we've never advocated or promoted in any way the use of eye protection. However, we believe that it is 'duty of care' for schools and clubs to identify the risk of injury to young players, and it then follows that advice is given on how that risk can be reduced.

2. Players .... some thought they looked 'cool'. Others that they restricted vision, and others that they would wear them if everyone else did. One concern was that comments were made about 'feeling more confident' wearing eye protection. Now that could be construed as the potential for putting themselves in greater danger by their change in style of play.

3. Parents ..... without exception, preferred their daugher to wear eye protection ... as expected.

4. Coaches/ teachers ..... mostly strongly opposed, despite the commitment to 'duty of care'. Their main reason is that it would serve to change the nature of the game ... more protection, weaker refereeing, more aggression etc etc. Despte the obvious 'there's no need for refs to lower the standard of refereeing', we all know that experiences in other sports suggests that more protection leads to the inevitable relaxing of standards.

[clip]

Is there any evidence to suggest that introduction of goggles would lead to more aggressive gameplay at the junior level?

I know what you are getting at - the Baggataway conundrum. Put loads of pads on, and people go crazy; take them off and players are more sensible.

I think there is a fundamental difference between "protection" and "armour". In football and hockey, shin pads have been required for a while - but this doesn't encourage players to be more reckless with the safety of others - players just concentrate on their own thing and are responsible for their own safety by wearing them. I don't believe that hockey players would be any more or less "careful" depending on whether the opposition chose to wear mouthguards or not.

On the other hand, cricket has recently had a trend for batsmen to be heavily armoured - approaching that of a hockey or lax goalie. This does make a difference, and bowlers can generally bowl freely knowing that they are very unlikely to seriously injure the opponent. The level of protection is such that players feel liberated.

I feel that goggles fall into the category of "protection" like shinpads or mouthguards, and won't affect the game substantially, if at all.

[UKLacrosse]

Well the comment that some girls make about feeling more confident could lead to them playing with a more aggressive style in attack, and put themselves in danger. A good comparison would be with cricket, where close in fielders wear helmets and shin protection. Would some of them field so close in without that protection?

[silasvb]

http://www.lacrosseplayground.com/womens-lacrosse-headgear-helmets-maryland-hb-1123/

Is this next?

[UKLacrosse]

http://www.lacrosseplayground.com/womens-lacrosse-headgear-helmets-maryland-hb-1123/

Is this next?

The implementation of mandatory eye protection some 7 years ago, virtually eliminated eye injuries in the US, and the focus then came on concussions. It is believed that no real attention had been given to concussions in the past, due mainly to the very real, and obvious, after effects of eye injuries. The claim is that no one really followed up on possible concussions e.g. blurred vision, headaches, dizziness, nausea etc. They now have a lot of data which suggests that concussions are far more prevalent than they imagined, hence the focus on protective head gear. Strangely, there appears to be less focus on ensuring that the basic rules are implemented to maintain safety in the game. A similar case could be made here, where the basic stick rules are not even policed effectively. The FIL (formerly IFWLA) stick rules were introduced on the basis of safety, but many are using non-FIL approved sticks, even non-approved pockets. Non-FIL approved sticks retain the ball far more effectively, and allow far harder shots, both of which can be easily demonstrated. However, how many coaches, umpires, and players (even suppliers!) in the women's game , know what is legal and what is illegal? Apart from the advantages illegal sticks provide (cheating?), they are also potentially less safe without some form of protection. Where can you get this advice and information ....
... http://www.uklacrosse.com/womens-stick-rules-c87.html

[oldman]

The Maryland proposal for mandatory head gear for women's lacrosse in public schools has been withdrawn. An updated proposal covering the number and quality of umpires is replacing it. the updated proposal will also cover coaching.

The vote on the new proposal goes forward to the Maryland assembly on the 13th of this month

[kael101]

I realise there is a disparity in the amount of head contact and force but this outlines some interesting points.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenheitn ... ncussions/