Head Gear for Women's Lacrosse

[UKLaxfan]

The End of Women's Lacrosse as we know it

http://www.uslacrosse.org/UtilityNav/Ab ... dgear.aspx

[Mitchlax]

Didn't know Petr Cech was playing women's

[chippie]

not just yet...
good that they are looking in depth and looking at what head-gear is actually correct if needed!
however what i found more interesting is that USLacrosse are looking at the ball and if they could find a 'new ball'

[Pikachu]

Most girls who play in the UK don't wear the head gear unless a coach really wants them to.
It's not the issue of being hit with the ball, but with wild checks that does the damage.

Goggles make sense with the increasing aggressiveness of the sport for women, but i'm still not won over.

[UKLaxfan]

Here is an idea...

Enforce the rules that are already there

It is ridiculous the slippage of rules in the NCAA and High School

Coaches have far too much influence over officials

Then worst of all lobbying and pressure is brought upon FIL to bring the rules in line with NCAA

Say NO!

Otherwise Women's Lacrosse will disappear and all we will be left with is a poor version of men's lacrosse

FIL representatives need to grow some back bone and acknowledge that the NCAA Rules and the American way are not the only way

Women's Lacrosse is becoming more and more violent because of the Coaches having power over officials

Apply the Rules

Don't change them on a whim to allow more contact

Commercialism is raising it's ugly head

Equipment Costs in the past
Stick

Equipment costs in the future
Stick
Headgear
Arm gear
Gum shield
Goggles
Gloves

more $$$s leads to more equipment leads to more $$$s

[chippie]

Most girls who play in the UK don't wear the head gear unless a coach really wants them to.
It's not the issue of being hit with the ball, but with wild checks that does the damage.

Goggles make sense with the increasing aggressiveness of the sport for women, but i'm still not won over.

yes it is a issue of being hit with the ball....what do goggles actually protect, not your head, they protect your eyes from the ball.
If you acknowledge increasing aggressiveness then make the games more controlled! no form of protection stops people from fouling (or being injured one way or the other)

[Pikachu]

yes it is a issue of being hit with the ball....what do goggles actually protect, not your head, they protect your eyes from the ball.
If you acknowledge increasing aggressiveness then make the games more controlled! no form of protection stops people from fouling (or being injured one way or the other)

Fair point: control is key. I guess what I meant, is that the risk of stick to the temple or eye is greatly reduced by wearing goggles (and that this generally hurts a lot more than a ball to the face).

I've still seen girls getting a broken nose from a ball to the face despite wearing goggles, for them maybe they felt more protected and didn't flinch as much?
Wouldn't people feel more able to foul if they knew someone was protected by the headgear?

I just don't want the grace of the sport being lost by too much head gear. I might just be living in the world of lacrosse from 'Naughtiest Girl in School'.

[chippie]

I agree....
and any kind of protection would in theory decrease risk of injury...I think goggles maybe the way forward and I think they will soon be compulsory over here, just dont think 'helmets' are suitable just yet

[wildcat]

Good to see people changing their tune and coming round to the idea of goggles to protect eyes in women's lacrosse.
A colleague's daughter at work just bought her first lacrosse stick.
No mention from the school about the risk of playing the sport; No information that goggles even exist.

[UKLacrosse]

An interesting discussion, and I guess there will be some thoughts that as a supplier of equipment we would have a vested interest in more equipment required to play the game. We would claim to have done more than most to highlight the use of illegal sticks, thereby safeguarding the game by applying the existing rules. Where else can you easily get access to the FIL women's stick rules? .. http://www.uklacrosse.com/womens-stick-rules-c87.html

The application of the rules in the women's game have slipped in the US and there is no reason to allow that to happen here under FIL rules. Strange that with men padded up with masses of protection that we allow 'slashing' to 'keep the game flowing' ... what if the men didn't have protection, would we see more injuries because we don't apply the rules.

The FIL (or the IFWLA as it was) sought to keep the game safe by adopting new stick rules, yet we see those rules being ignored at many levels here in the UK. Girls using non-FIL approved sticks and illegally strung/ deep pockets ... and someone suggests that it doesn't matter .... teachers at schools openly allowing illegal sticks to be used ... so were the game's administrators wrong in their assessment of safety?

10 years ago we were told that there were very few injuries in women's lacrosse!! Maybe I should have kept a record of all those I've witnessed.

For sure there are positives and negatives of mandating eyewear. Mouthguards already are. Girls may feel more confident wearing them, and may put themselves in danger. Widespread use could encourage girls to play more aggressively ... but much of that can and should be in the hands of the coaches and umpires.

One thing is clear .... all schools and junior clubs have an obligation under 'duty of care' to advise of the potential dangers of playing lacrosse, and in advising what can be done to mitigate potential injury. That inevitably leads to pointing them in the direction of eyemasks.

[Pikachu]

I think goggles will be implemented for University age/level lacrosse in the next few years, but i doubt it will make the transition to Primary and Secondary schools; mainly as it might increase overconfidence or aggressiveness.

Girls using non-FIL approved sticks

Playing in the festival out at the Euros this was a big problem. A lot of the girls playing for the predominantly US teams, openly admitted to having illegally strung/deep pockets. We didn't have a single stick check for the festival, which meant they could play with a slight advantage (other than being considerably better than most of the other Women's teams competing!). If this is targeted, then the safety of the game would be improved significantly.

[UKLacrosse]

The biggest issue with non-FIL approved sticks is the fact that US players come here and are using illegal sticks. Last season we negotiated an agreement with Brine to supply a large number of FIL-legal Brine sticks free of charge to the SLO's and LDO's under the ELA programme. Despite this we know that some still used their illegal sticks while they were here in the UK! If the FIL really did implement new rules based on safety grounds alone, why are they permitted to use them?

In terms of eyewear, the game has a responsibility to younger players. Suggesting that older players might be required to wear them, and not the younger ones, seems to be ignoring the 'duty of care' to young players? Older players should/ could determine for themselves what the risks are.

Many umpires don't even know which sticks are legal/ illegal. We have already supplied a comprehensive pictoral guide, brand by brand, showing which sticks are listed/ non-listed. This can be easily added to our website. Non-FIL listed sticks provide a distinct advantage in both ball retention and power of shooting. Ignoring the use of these illegal sticks discredits the game, and heightens the the risk of injury.

[wildcat]

I agree that it is the younger ones that need the 'protection'. Use Ice or Roller hockey as an example. Full visor / cage until 18, and then up to you.

As for uklacrosse stick sales: I agree you have done a lot to emphasize and supply legal sticks; Alas, some muppet with a tape measure at the Euros deemed a ton of sticks (including many of those strung by your fair selves) as illegal. Why.....because the point at which the "U" shooting string is attached to the sidewall must be higher than half way up the head when measured from the inside of the throat to the scoop.

To put this in perspective, they were measuring accurate to 1 hole - about half a cm?! I guess people would have minded less if the reffing on the field had been exemplary

So next job for you in the stockroom is to take a tape measure to your womens sticks because not only ones you string, but factory strung ones are coming out 'illegal'

[UKLacrosse]

I agree that it is the younger ones that need the 'protection'. Use Ice or Roller hockey as an example. Full visor / cage until 18, and then up to you.

As for uklacrosse stick sales: I agree you have done a lot to emphasize and supply legal sticks; Alas, some muppet with a tape measure at the Euros deemed a ton of sticks (including many of those strung by your fair selves) as illegal. Why.....because the point at which the "U" shooting string is attached to the sidewall must be higher than half way up the head when measured from the inside of the throat to the scoop.

To put this in perspective, they were measuring accurate to 1 hole - about half a cm?! I guess people would have minded less if the reffing on the field had been exemplary

So next job for you in the stockroom is to take a tape measure to your womens sticks because not only ones you string, but factory strung ones are coming out 'illegal'

Already done Raj .... but does that include the ball stop or without? Again, no mention of that within the rules. All our stock has been checked and the matter raised with Warrior/ Brine already. Just shows how poorly written the rules are!!! Now ... can someone please tell me why one U or V is required to be in the top half, but if there are two U or V's then they are in the top third?? Anyone actually worked that one out in practice? We've done just that, and if the FIL can explain it, then we would be very interested to hear their explanation. Equally the 'free movement' within the head was an issue .. but can anyone explain to me how you can have a rule where the testing is purely subjective? I've heard of umpires shaking the stick, I've heard of umpires twirling the head around.

[wildcat]

Well done Keith!
I think it was being measured from the plastic, but I was busy with a lighter and a pair of tweezers (whilst venting my frustration) restringing shooting strings!
I have only once seen a ref make a player loosen the outer two leathers because it wasnt 'free' - the ball sat beautifully between them allowing for predictable channelling of the ball when throwing.

As for US players - if they can play just as well with an international stick, I dont understand the NCAA rules allowing for effectively a deeper pocket - it means that they devour ground balls with ease, and you might as well not bother throwing a check, because the force required to dislodge the ball immediately makes the refs think of an uncontrolled or dangerous check!

[UKLacrosse]

Well done Keith!
I think it was being measured from the plastic, but I was busy with a lighter and a pair of tweezers (whilst venting my frustration) restringing shooting strings!
I have only once seen a ref make a player loosen the outer two leathers because it wasnt 'free' - the ball sat beautifully between them allowing for predictable channelling of the ball when throwing.

As for US players - if they can play just as well with an international stick, I dont understand the NCAA rules allowing for effectively a deeper pocket - it means that they devour ground balls with ease, and you might as well not bother throwing a check, because the force required to dislodge the ball immediately makes the refs think of an uncontrolled or dangerous check!

If there is a ball stop then it would make sense to measure from the ball stop, because that's as far back as the ball can sit? deBeer use ball stops to the max permitted, and they can be up to 5mm. so there you might have the 1-sidewall hole difference. Maybe the rules should be a littlke more specific as the men's are ... internal length of men's head is measured from the ball stop if fitted.

Surely the freedom of movement is really to guard against the ball being held in some way within the pocket. Free movement would mean easily dislodged by a downward check, and that doesn't have to be rolling around in a saucer.

[Phil]

If you acknowledge increasing aggressiveness then make the games more controlled! no form of protection stops people from fouling (or being injured one way or the other)

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?

I think goggles will be implemented for University age/level lacrosse in the next few years, but i doubt it will make the transition to Primary and Secondary schools; mainly as it might increase overconfidence or aggressiveness.

I'm almost certian your right. I heard rumours that the ELA placed a fairly large order with a vendor, who was at a tournament this summer, recently.

Phil

[wildcat]

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?

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

[UKLaxfan]

Women's lacrosse is a Non Contact sport

The Rules are not being enforced

More Contact = More Protective Equipment = More $$$s to play (& for manufacturers)

AND

More Contact {Repeat}

Eventually women's lacrosse will be a poor version of men's lacrosse

Men's & Women's could both end up playing BOXLA

I love Box Lacrosse but it will be a shame to lose Women's Lacrosse
- Finesse / Grace / Skill / Speed

[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?