By Steven H. Wieczorek & Michael S. Carroll
Growing concerns regarding concussions and other forms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) within all levels of sport have led to a number of responses from sport governing bodies in the past few years. Likewise, active research into this issue continues to provide a platform from which to advocate for changes in order to make sports healthier and safer for participants, especially those at the youth and high school level. A 2015 study published in Injury Epidemiology revealed that girls’ lacrosse had the second highest concussion rate of any high school sport behind that of football, noting blows to the head from a ball or an opponent’s stick as the main cause. Lacrosse defenders were most likely to sustain concussions, while ironically, goalkeepers were the least. Despite these findings, US Lacrosse, the national governing body of the sport in the US overseeing more than 315,000 girls and women playing lacrosse nationally, stands by its position that headgear is optional.
Despite the stance of US Lacrosse and worried about the risk of serious head injury to athletes, Florida became the first state to require high school girls’ lacrosse players to were protective headgear in 2015. The Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) decided to proceed with a two-phase process, mandating the use of protective headbands called halos that are comprised of rigid foam that wrap around the head as well as protective googles starting in 2015, followed up by a mandate to wear hard helmets starting in 2018.
The issue remains contentious among those involved, with parties on either side voicing strong opinions. Further divides on the subject pervade through both coaches and players within the FHSAA, with some coaches believing that helmets will increase safety for their players and others noting that it may in fact encourage aggressive and/or reckless behavior during practice and/or competition. Supporters of the helmet mandate note that players are getting bigger, stronger, and faster, and that while the rules of girls’ lacrosse prevent overt aggressive behavior, helmets can aid in compensating for inadvertent actions. On the opposite side of the issue, others worry about the co-called “gladiator effect” — the concern that wearing helmets may embolden players with a heightened sense of security and lead to overzealous and overaggressive behaviors in routine and normally safe game play activities, leading to dangerous situations and an even higher potential for injury. It is a concern that has long been voiced before with respect to helmet use in other sports such as football. In anticipation of the changes coming in 2018, Riverview High School in Riverview, FL began requiring student-athletes to begin use of the helmets early, resulting in mixed reviews. While the head coach indicated that she did not observe an uptick in aggressive play from her players, one of her players did suffer a concussion while wearing the helmet. The coach also commented that it was unclear to her as to the direct effect of wearing helmets and that long term evaluation was required for a more thorough analysis.
The biggest critics of the helmets may be the players themselves. Many of the Riverview players indicated issues with the helmets, citing discomfort as the main concern. The team’s top goal scorer commented that the helmets were tight and required a breaking in period. She also stated that she would prefer not to wear the helmet for these reasons as well as noting that goaltenders in the sport have been required to wear helmets for some time and that concussions still occur. Another player commented that use of the helmet led to her suffering migraines and additional discomfort, and she would prefer to not wear the helmet, preferring instead to wear the protective headbands.
Critics Express Concern over Cost
Two FHSAA-approved manufacturers, Hummingbird Sports (based in New Jersey) and Cascade (based in New York), are making the helmets in question. Both helmets cost approximately $150 at retail stores, although teams can receive discounts for purchasing in high quantities. This added cost per player is of concern to both high school and individual players. High schools fielding varsity, junior varsity, and freshman teams are now looking at equipping 50+ players with helmets, substantially increasing costs associated with running their programs. Individual youth athletes may have to assume this cost on their own, which critics of the helmet enforcement worry will turn off future players due to the new higher costs associated with participation in the sport.
Nonetheless, US Lacrosse as a governing body still does not require helmets of any kind at this level for girls. The organization has however created standards for optional headgear in order to provide FHSAA-approved manufacturers a general guideline to follow in production. Unlike the hard helmets used in boy’s lacrosse, these one-size-fits-all helmets are somewhat flexible and must comply with the ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials) standard F3137 used by US Lacrosse.
The points of emphasis for the optional headgear is as follows:
The use of headgear is optional in girls and women’s lacrosse.
Any headgear used after January 1, 2017 must meet the ASTM standard, F3137.
The ASTM standard, F3137, is a performance standard, not a design standard.
Product designs will likely vary from one manufacturer to another.
Products must provide full coverage of the head.
Products must be worn with required ASTM women’s lacrosse eyewear.
There must be marking on both the packaging and product that states that the headgear conforms to ASTM standard F3137.
The ASTM standard requires the headgear to fully cover the head, thus precluding the use of headband type products (e.g., halos) currently used by some players. All headgear must be worn with required eyewear, with some helmets containing integrated eyewear. The standard has two options, allowing manufacturers to make their headgear with eyewear implemented or a product that is compatible with various eyewear products currently on the market. Girls’ lacrosse operates by vastly different rules from that of boys’ lacrosse and generally prohibits heavy contact. Additionally, in girls’ lacrosse, players are not allowed to stand in front of a shot to block it, and there is a dangerous propel rule to prevent offensive players from taking shots that could hit an opponent. Finally, players may not swing their sticks near the head of another player. In contrast, boy’s lacrosse has more contact, and players wear shoulder pads in addition to harder helmets.
In addition to enacting the new rule, the FHSAA also agreed to have its game officials go through a US Lacrosse certification program involving training and education on the rules governing girls’ lacrosse. Florida also adopted stricter penalties for rough play during games. The question remains whether the new rule mandating helmet use in 2018 will have the lasting effect of better protecting against concussive events and other forms of head trauma in girls’ lacrosse. Some within the Florida community believe the rule to be more a product of litigation concerns as opposed to player safety. In September of 2017, a New York State court ruled that a former Hofstra University lacrosse player could proceed with her negligence claim against NCAA, arguing that NCAA rules effectively prohibited her from wearing protective headgear, thus leading to permanent brain injuries resulting from two concussions sustained while playing lacrosse for her school. In the end, if coaches and players can exercise patience in their assessment of the new equipment and the major governing body of the sport can impartially judge the merits of it, perhaps an observable downturn in concussions with in the game will be the long-term legacy of the FHSAA’s pioneering actions.
Steven H. Wieczorek is a doctoral student at Troy University specializing in athletic administration and the head men’s soccer coach at Spring Hill College.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation.
