Triantafilu 1

Karly Triantafilu

Brendan Hawkins

ENC2135

October 14, 2017

Helmets: a Beneficial Safety Precaution, or a False Sense of Security?

Girls lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in high schools across America. It is also one of

the most dangerous ones, ranking second only to American football in incidence rate of

concussions (Rebecca Acabchuk n.p.). In response to the alarming number of concussions

within this sport, the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) has passed a law

requiring all high school girls lacrosse players to begin wearing a soft helmet for next season.

This has caused a great amount of debate within the lacrosse community. There are two sides of

the debate. The first being that people believe the helmet will provide more cushion, and deflect

any head injuries. The second side of the debate is the belief that by making these types of

uniform changes to the game of girls lacrosse, girls will have a false sense of security and

believe they can be more aggressive, which will result in more injuries. The debate has caused a

lot of confusion for players, coaches, and parents. This paper aims to diminish the confusion by

analyzing both sides of the argument and answering the research question: how will the new

helmet rule affect the game of lacrosse for high school girls in Florida?

In 2014, the FHSAA Board of Directors adopted a new rule requiring that protective

headgear be worn by girls while practicing for or competing in FHSAA-sanctioned activities

(Girls Lacrosse Helmet Requirement Will Improve Student-Athlete Safety, Experts Say n.p).

However, the type of headgear required then was minimal. It was a simple headband that was
 Triantafilu 2

created by the brand Unequal. However, the headbands have been widely criticized by Florida

coaches, players and referees (Bill Pennington n.p.). This is because they simply did not provide

the protection they promised. Now, a new type of headgear is required. In order for it to meet the

A.S.T.M. standard (American Society for Testing and Materials), it must be malleable, or soft

enough on the outside that a player without headgear would not be injured when colliding with a

player wearing the headgear (Pennington n.p.). This has caused a large amount of frustration, as

many people believe that if the helmet needs to be soft, there is no point to it, as it will be unable

to sufficiently protect the head from impact injuries. However, Cascade (the leading company

producing the headgear) has stated that they have been tested to protect the head from impacts.

At this time, it is unclear how they have been tested. There are two main argumentative points

within this debate. People who are pro helmet have stated that they are needed because of the

high levels of concussions that girls have currently reported having while playing lacrosse. The

main argument for people who are anti-helmet is that the helmets will create a gladiator effect,

and create a more belligerent athlete (Laura Miele n.p.).

The first point of debate is the need for helmets, purely on a safety level. People who are

pro-helmet have used studies showing high numbers of concussions as a persuasive point. First it

is important to know what exactly a concussion is, and what it does to the human body. The

Google dictionary defines a concussion as a temporary unconsciousness caused by a blow to the

head. The Future Medicine article by Rebecca Acabchuk and Blair Johnson explains what

happens after a concussion. They state that after receiving a concussion, there are a few

immediate neurological symptoms that might occur, such as dizziness, confusion and

disorientation. However, they usually resolve immediately and no abnormalities are found on

brain imaging (an MRI). Regardless, a growing body of evidence has linked repeated mild
 Triantafilu 3

traumatic brain injury to debilitating long-term consequences (Acabchuk n.p.). Therefore, the

argument for helmets has become so imperative to parents. They have seen their child suffer

through a few concussions, and are afraid of long term impacts. They believe that these new

helmets are the answer for their problems. In one study done by Richard Hinton, it was found

that female players had higher rates of overall head injuries, many involving contusions and

abrasions (1305). The girls had an injury rate of 2.54 per 1000 athletic exposures (Hinton 1305).

It was also found that over 25% of the injuries during summer camps were to the head or face of

a girl (Hinton 1309). That is a striking amount of injuries. One study by Andrew Lincoln echoes

that sentiment, finding in his conclusions that girls had roughly twice the concussion risk of

boys (1). It doesnt appear that the injury rates will be slowing down any time soon. According

to a 16-year study done by Randall Dick, his main results stated that Collegiate womens

lacrosse game injury rates increased over the 16-year study period (262). On the other hand, the

opposing side sees this data as showing why the helmets are not needed. On average, through all

the studies, the boys were injured more, just not specifically in the head or face. Even though it

was stated above that girls have twice the risk, a study by Joe Xiang found that boys had a

higher injury rate than girls (2082). This means that even though girls should statistically be

getting injured more than boys, the boys are still receiving more actual injuries. One study, by P

T Diamond, looked at lacrosse related injuries. In their study, they found that males accounted

for 80.5% of the cases (n.p.). Another interesting point is that in the conclusions of a study done

by Tracey Covassin, it is stated that womens soccer and mens lacrosse were found to have the

highest injury rate of concussions (238). This is an important point for the opposing side

because they argue that the helmets arent protecting boys from injuries, so how would they

protect the girls? They also cite the various rules already put in place to protect a girl that is
 Triantafilu 4

playing lacrosse. Ashley Bull and Lauren Cavanaugh cite the NCAA and posts these specific

rules:

1. Check to the head (mandatory card): No player's Crosse may hit or cause her

opponent's Crosse to hit the opponent's head.

2. Slash (mandatory card): Swinging the Crosse at an opponent with deliberate

viciousness or recklessness.

3. Illegal use of the Crosse: Using the Crosse in a dangerous and/or intimidating

manner, for example:

a. Directly poking or waving the Crosse near an opponent's face;

b. Making a sweeping check from behind that contacts the opponent's body;

c. Lowering the head of the Crosse below shoulder level and initiating Crosse-to-

body contact;

d. Any other action with the Crosse that, in the umpire's opinion, amounts to

dangerous or intimidating play.

4. Obstruction of the free space to goal (shooting space): With any part of her

body, guarding the goal outside or inside the goal circle so as to obstruct the free

space to goal, between the ball and the goal circle, which denies the attack the

opportunity to shoot safely and encourages shooting at a player.

She goes on to explain that these rules are specifically put in place by the NCAA in order to

protect the players heads and faces (Bull 21). The point that she was trying to make by putting
 Triantafilu 5

this into her article is that there are already rules in place, and if they are followed correctly, there

shouldnt be any injuries.

The other point of debate is the social aspect. Many are wondering exactly what these

helmets will do to the psychology of the game. People who are anti-helmet cite the gladiator

effect and believe that it will make girls more aggressive. Ashley Bull writes in her article that

when a goalie leaves her net during gameplay the composure of the opposing players is

immediately compromised and lost (21). She cites this decreased composure to the fact that the

goalie has a higher amount of protective equipment on. Because the goalie is wearing a helmet,

chest protector, gloves, thigh guards, and other things, the opposing players feel as though they

do not need to be as safe around her. She also uses an interview with a player from Columbia

university who said that if she were defending a player with a helmet, her stick checks would

become riskier. In Brian McCallums article, some girls reiterate the same fear; Jade Parr said

that she feels like wearing this helmet gives influence or allows players to think they can hit us

in the head more (n.p.). Both articles suggest the same thing. Not only are the players on the

fence about using the helmets, they are also scared. I have seen that firsthand myself. My high

school lacrosse team did not use helmets, but we played against schools that did. Some of my

teammates played differently when we played against teams with extra protection. They played

more aggressively, and they werent afraid of coming into contact more with the opposing

players. However, nothing was ever done about it. We got roughly the same amount of penalties

as when we were playing other teams that did not use helmets more carefully. This suggests that

not only do opposing players subconsciously think they can be more aggressive, but the referees

also think it is okay. The implementation of helmets should also come with new training for

referees, coaches, and players. Another social side effect that many believe will happen is that
 Triantafilu 6

the new helmets will turn away girls who were interested in the sport. They believe that the

potential players will be too embarrassed by the prospect of wearing the headgear that they will

no longer want to play at all.

The last argument that is often used in opposition to the helmets is the simple fact that

helmets have not been proven to prevent concussions. People question why all this money should

be spent (100 to 150 dollars per helmet) on something that cannot even guarantee safety.

However, Laura Miele has a response to that. She writes

As the rules stand now, female lacrosse athletes have a choice (about whether to

wear the helmet or not). I cannot understand how, in this day and age, we are

more aware of concussion and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) than ever before, yet

we are more concerned with the fact that our girls will become too aggressive.

Why is there a choice with something that may in fact potentially reduce the

occurrence a life threatening or brain altering injury? (n.p.)

She is writing very passionately here, and beings up something that needs to be examined.

Everyone is arguing about if the helmet will change the way the game is played, but no one is

focusing on if the helmets will make the players safer than they are now. If the helmets even give

a slightly better chance that the girl will not suffer from a traumatic brain injury, then surely, we

should support the implementation of them.

In conclusion, this argument is simply a cost-benefit analysis. Both sides have points they

believe are correct, and have arguments as to why the other side is incorrect. All in all, I believe

if you take a closer look at it, you will see that helmets are more beneficial than some may think.

Repeated head injuries, such as concussions, can lead to lifelong pain and suffering. It is a
 Triantafilu 7

debilitating injury with irreversible consequences. It seems that the safety of girls playing this

sport is at the forefront of everyones mind, and with the new rule being implemented in 2018, it

will be interesting to see whether the helmets live up to all they have promised to do, and the

new training that will hopefully be provided to make the game of girls lacrosse a more enjoyable

game for everyone.

 Triantafilu 8

Work Cited

Acabchuk, Rebecca L, and Blair T Johnson. Helmets in Women's Lacrosse: What the Evidence

Shows. Helmets in Women's Lacrosse: What the Evidence Shows | Concussion, Future

Medicine, 6 Apr. 2017. Web.

Bull, Ashley, and Lauren Cavanaugh. "Helmets: A Threat to the Preservation of Women's

Lacrosse." Taylor & Francis. N.p., 04 Nov. 2016. Web.

Covassin, Tracey, et al. Sex Differences and the Incidence of Concussions Among Collegiate

Athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, National Athletic Trainers' Association, Inc.,

2003. Web.

Diamond, P T, and S D Gale. Head Injuries in Men's and Women's Lacrosse: a 10 Year Analysis

of the NEISS Database. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. Brain Injury.,

U.S. National Library of Medicine, June 2001. Web.

Dick, Randall, et al. Descriptive Epidemiology of Collegiate Women's Lacrosse Injuries:

National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury Surveillance System, 19881989 Through

20032004. Journal of Athletic Training, National Athletic Trainers Association, 2007.

Web.

Girls Lacrosse Helmet Requirement Will Improve Student-Athlete Safety, Experts Say.

FHSAA.org | Girls Lacrosse Helmet Requirement Will Improve Student-Athlete Safety,

Experts Say, FHSAA, 24 June 2014. Web.

Helping Our WorldWork Better. ASTM International - Standards Worldwide, ASTM

International, 10 Oct. 1970. Web.

 Triantafilu 9

Hinton, Richard, Andrew Lincoln, Jon Almquist, Wiemi Douoguih, and Krishn Sharma.

"Epidemiology of Lacrosse Injuries in High School-Aged Girls and Boys." The American

Journal of Sports Medicine. Sage Journals, 1 Sept. 2005. Web.

Lincoln, Andrew, Shane Caswell, Jon Almquist, Reginald Dunn, Joseph Norris, and Richard

Hinton. "Trends in Concussion Incidence in High School Sports." The American Journal

of Sports Medicine. Sage Journals, 29 Jan. 2011. Web.

McCallum, Brian. "Helmets Mandatory for Girls Lacrosse Next Year." Florida Today. Florida

Today, 05 Apr. 2017. Web.

Miele, Laura M. Psychology of the Gladiator Effect and Women's Lacrosse. Psychology

Today, Sussex Publishers, 3 Aug. 2017. Web.

Pennington, Bill. With Headgear Here, Girls' Lacrosse Just Got Safer. Or Did It? The New

York Times, The New York Times, 28 Oct. 2016, Web.

Xiang, Joe, Christy Collins, Daniel Liu, Lara McKenzie, and Dawn Comstock. "Lacrosse

Injuries Among High School Boys and Girls in the United States." The American Journal

of Sports Medicine. Sage Journals, 22 July 2014. Web.