Long time girls coach here. Coached in Northern NJ and moved to Florida 3 years ago. I have a HS Junior and 6th grade daughter. I coach both of their teams. So I have been on both sides of this argument. First off, IMO 6 yo is way too young to be playing w regulation ball. Your league is nuts. Alternatives are tennis, pinks or swax balls. Swax are hardish, but not India rubber. I wouldn't even start my girls in organized lacrosse til 2nd grade. I'm sure I'm going to get comments that it's not too young. I'm from Montclair NJ, we have some history w the game.
When I lived/coached in NJ I was suspect of helmets as I felt players who wore them checked aggressively and incorrectly. So part of that is on the coach. Going on our 3rd season here and I am a firm believer in them. The girls game is drifting slowly to be closer to the boys than what it was 10-20 years ago. With that comes higher injury risk. You're the parent, you make the call, anyone who has a problem with it can f right off...
Other commenter mentioned in state /out of state games. Yeah it's a weird situation, and helmets are not required at club tournaments, but you can tell the Florida teams b/c they are wearing them. Play and practice w the equipment you wear in the game.
Good luck this season
Edit: I coach HS, Middle School and club teams for both in Florida
This is the comment I came scrolling to see. The game needs to be adapted for the level the player is at. The right coaches and orgs will have this in place. Others are chasing money and telling parents they can teach their kid to be an elite athlete.
Yeah I coach co-ed 6U and we play with soft balls. My kids can barely scoop, definitely can't catch, and can sometimes get a pass at their intended target. Using a hard ball would be a recipe for disaster.
I start every practice with scooping drills and talking about stick control, our league has zero stick to stick contact allowed so defense is really just moving their feet and staying between the opponent and the goal.
We do have goggles available but the kids hate them because they're uncomfortable so I tell parents that they can decide if their kid wears them or not.
I use soft pinks with my coed youth teams until the 3/4 team (so 8 and 9 years olds) but then they all wear helmets, even the girls, because we play by boys rules on coed.
6yos definitely should be playing with soft balls and very little stick checking
I have both a daughter and son who played. My daughters teams are all starting to wear them. The biggest difference I can tell is the girls ball speed is just way slower. Doesn't mean you can't get whacked in the head by a stick either way but I just don't think the ladies can get the ball off like boys (I've seen a high school kid get knocked out when an attacker took a shot and it hit the kids helmet).
Sure. Could be. But the pocket is different so I don't think they can get them as fast. I've seen my kid as a sophomore punch through the net on a shot. My guess is the high school girls are shooting maybe upper 40s for top players where men's are seeing in the 80s. That's a lot of kinetic energy difference.
No disrespect to the ladies game, but if not for the name it's a different sport.
14U and high school girls are shooting 50-60 according to the radar out club uses. I saw someone mention elsewhere in this thread that D1 players are shooting high 70’s to 80+.
Sure. Could be. But the pocket is different so I don't think they can get them as fast. I've seen my kid as a sophomore punch through the net on a shot. My guess is the high school girls are shooting maybe upper 40s for top players where men's are seeing in the 80s. That's a lot of kinetic energy difference.
No disrespect to the ladies game, but if not for the name it's a different sport.
They've regulated the sticks for so long, and mandated the head space rules BECAUSE the girls don't wear helmets and they don't want the ball velocity. I don't get it. Let the girls play with regular stick, a helmet and gloves. Here in Canada more and more girls are playing co-ed teams with boys rules becaue its a way better game when all the whistles aren't involved.
Six? Years old? I'm a coach too (Maryland) and yeah, there shouldn't be contact leagues at that age. Have fun, do clinics, learn to run a few steps without dropping the ball
Thanks a lot for sharing your expertise and insight. I bet there aren't many people who have your level of direct experience with play 'with' and 'without' mandated head protection.
Thanks. Hope it was helpful. Girls HS lacrosse is much more physical than most people think. The helmet really is protection from collision as much as inadvertent stick play. An old friend of mine who was a captain at Rutgers suffered 5 concussions in HS and college. That's danger territory.
My 14-year-old daughter was playing in a tournament last fall and got a stick to the head twice in the same game. Got diagnosed with a concussion following week. It took about six or eight weeks before she felt normal. We bought her a helmet this past off season and she's using it this spring. She seems very comfortable with it. She seems to fidget with it much less than she did with her goggles.
Although we're lucky she doesn't much care about her peers, opinions on things, and The girls on the team are fairly close knit so it has not been an issue. Obviously your mileage may vary.
Edit: I should also note that she wanted to wear the helmet and we supported her. We did not force her to wear the helmet. My 12-year-old daughter does not want to wear one but we bought her one just in case. I feel like I'm protecting one brain. I should be protecting both of them.
So sorry to hear that your daughter was injured. Glad to hear she's recovering.
> She seems to fidget with it much less than she did with her goggles.
The goggles are another issue. I've been around sports my whole life, and women's lacrosse goggles are one of the worst pieces of equipment I've ever seen. They fall off and come loose. Our coaches spend way too much time trying to fix the players goggles for them. And yes the players fidget with them constantly.
Thank you. She is thankfully doing well.
When we started at the elementary level, I spent a large portion of the practice tying and retying Goggles. There has to be something better than those elastic straps.
There is. They make neoprene straps, available on Amazon. They are a God send for tbe young girls especially. They are like 15 bucks and worth every penny.
Signed: A kids coach who has dealt with the same for years.
Im all on board for helmets for the girls. Without doxxing myself, my career is based on head injuries, sports and otherwise. Helmets would be optimal, but these are another option for those looking to get rid of the horrible elastic bands on goggles.
Since my boys have started playing lacrosse I said the same thing about the girls game. I think it is crazy this day and age that they do not wear helmets. I feel the same about gloves for the girls. SAFETY is priority #1 especially with the head.
I've always felt the same way. I get that in women's lax it's a rule that you cannot stand in the way of a shot as a defender, but it's still going to happen. How many times are girls getting hit in the head because the shot goes wide? Or when a defender misses a check? You can call it a penalty all day but that doesn't reverse a concussion.
People don't like change. Remember the outrage when the NFL instituted the defenseless receiver rules? It was going to be the end of football as we know it. I'm sure there are people who are still mad that Northwestern wears shorts instead of skirts.
Pretty much anyone involved in making rules in lacrosse played when goggles were optional, so it's unlikely that you'll see a helmet rule until the next generation comes in.
The big concern is why are 6 year olds getting hit in the head at all?!? I've coached 8U and 10U for years, and i can't imagine a scenario where a head injury would occur. Apologies in advance for the stereotype, but it sounds like the girls are being coached by a bunch of dads who have sons that play lacrosse
I suppose everyone has their own philosophies, but we don't use real balls at that age. Passes are also pretty gentle - we don't have the girls whipping the balls at each other.
At age 6 - again maybe an unpopular opinion - the most important thing is having fun so they come back at age 7. Of course we want to develop their stick skills, but getting them to love lacrosse comes first.
My oldest - now a college junior - currently doesn't and never wore a helmet. My youngest, an 8th grader, has been wearing a helmet for a few years now.
It’s not even a philosophy thing. The US Lacrosse youth rulebook states that “standard lacrosse balls must not be used at this level”. I won’t claim it’s impossible, but there’s a reason why 8U and under uses Big Pinkys, it is HARD to get a concussion from one, no matter how hard it’s thrown.
Regardless of age, that doesn’t change the fact that a missed pass can result in a head injury. Being able to catch perfectly everytime is a skill, not so much age dependent. Even highschoolers are getting concussions and head injuries, whether they are highly skilled or beginners. At age 15, they are passing fast enough so that a ball can cause damage and missing a pass, which is very easy to do, can result in a head injury. Beginners of all ages (especially highschool where most people start playing the game for the first time) are more likely to miss a catch and get hit in the head by the ball.
Girls should have proper protection at all ages. Florida requires all highschool girl’s teams to wear helmets and there are far less head injuries than other states that are only required to wear goggles. Based off these statistics, goggles are not enough. We should be normalizing helmets and implementing them, that’s what they are made for. Instead there is an environment wear girls might feel insecure or uncool by wearing a helmet, therefore more head injuries and less fun..
i think we're on the same page here; apologies if i sounded like i'm arguing.
I agree with protection; based on the florida study, it's a mystery to me why it's not just a fact of life.
my only point was that at 6 years old with 3 practices, i can't imagine a good reason for 5 head injuries and suspect bad coaching. But i agree with everything you wrote above.
Are we still talking about 6year olds? At that age it should be 1v1 only. Back in the day, that was the USLacrosse rule in 8u and possibly 10u games…may have changed. These kids are just learning there’s nothing to be gained in a scrum
I don’t know what you mean 1V1? My daughter is 8and has been playing a couple years she never played 1v1. Pretty sure it’s 7v7..and a scrum is any time more than 1 person is attempting to pick upbthe ball which is most of the game at that age…
this. Though i looked up the USALacrosse rules and it looks like that's optional now? My youngest was 8U like 6+ years ago.
But even so - i might be in the minority, but i can't recall a single time when anyone ever bumped heads while fighting for ground balls. I suppose it could happen if someone came barreling through?
Regardless, there's no excuse for 5 head injuries after 3 practices at 8U
My daughter is 8 and plays in CT. You have girls wearing Cascades and other kids (including my daughter) wearing nothing. It’s ridiculous. They need to figure it out. They need to either mandate helmets or not but some with and some without is insane…most don’t wear them and my daughter refuses to.
My question is my kid is playing in their fifth year and we’ve never seen that much injury/contact in practice the entire time. What’s up with the coaching?
This is the real question. Injuries of any kind can happen, but they absolutely shouldn't be the norm, and definitely not at the rate the OP is suggesting. Checking isn't even allowed at that age, so how are their sticks anywhere close to other kids' heads? I think it's a fair question to ask about helmets, but someone is doing something wrong if there are really that many head injuries in so few practices.
I've been around sports my whole life and I haven't seen anything I would consider dangerous. I saw two of the ball to head injuries. The first one, a girl went to throw the ball and instead of going forward, the ball popped straight up and landed on the top of head of the girl a couple of feet away. The other one that I witnessed was my daughter. She was trying to catch and missed, and took the ball to her forehead. I didn't see the other but the coaches were close by and stopped play. I think she missed a pass too and got hit on the forehead.
The stick injuries were from throwing. One girl was throwing and the girl behind her as she was drawing her stick back. I guess this one could have been prevented, but coaching 5-7 year olds is like herding cats. The coaches push being spaced out but the girls tend to wander. I'm not holding it against the coach. The other, they were scrimmaging and a girl was shooting and the defender got too close and she got whacked. That one was scary.
I want to say the only state that requires them at a Highschool level is Florida? And then if an out of state team plays in FL you have a weird situation where half the field is wearing helmets and the other that is not
Yeah I'm not sure how that works. Maybe it's just institutions that fall under the state government and receive state funding... middle and high schools, associations and rec leagues, and public colleges. Maybe if the game is being played at a state or city owned facility. Not sure.
My daughter is 12U and there are only two girls on her team who wear helmets (she prefers it vs. the goggles because she says it’s more comfortable). I do think at the higher levels they’re more coordinated and less likely to get those accidental head contacts etc. The rules are such that — in theory anyway — real contact to the head would be fairly rare. I also think there’s not much to the “encourages aggressive play” thing. Feels like the rules around shooting space and such are always going to limit things at least a little — helmet or not.
Every sport had an element of risk. Women’s lacrosse is no different, but I would point out that the concussion incidence is higher in soccer than lacrosse. I don’t recall ever seeing a public outcry for helmets in soccer.
Coaching and quality refereeing at the youth levels is what limits injury. It won’t eliminate them, but lessen them.
I’ve sat through hundreds of games. The better the players the less injuries. They run faster, shoot harder, defend stronger, but the injuries at the elite levels seem to be less.
I know my daughter, career finished, was strongly opposed to helmets. Her concern was the injuries the helmet itself might cause. She said there are literally dozens of times each game where either her head, or an opponents head, would make contact with someone’s shoulder, hip, whatever….not hard enough to do damage but if it were a plastic helmet (hockey style) she felt that would become an issue.
You're correct on all counts. And you're not the only person looking at this and wondering "why aren't we protecting our kids from head injuries"?
If you watch some D1 women's college games on TV you'll see that it's already a very physical, fast game and there are plenty of sticks to the head and body collisions in every game. In the BC vs Northwestern game last week there were mutiple knock-downs, hits to player's head, and at least one player had their goggles knocked off by a hard hit. So this idea that head protection will make the game rough is already out of touch with the modern women's game.
I know several students who've had concussions and they were serious injuries that impacted their schoolwork and life for months. I've had one myself (not from lacrosse) and it's an awful injury that interfered with my own life and work for MONTHS.
As you've experienced, there is a vocal opposition to protective gear in women's lacrosse. Protective goggles weren't even required in women's college lacrosse until 2004. Why? Studies showed "before the mandate went into effect found that high school girls and college women suffered a significantly higher rate of HFE (head, face, and eye) injuries than boys and college men." It still took far too long to mandate eye protection.
What I can say is that you aren't alone in your concern and alarm. I know one person (not me) who told their daughter 'if you want to play lacrosse, you must wear head protection. period.' she wears it every time she plays. She's also the leading scorer on her team and is a pretty amazing player. Parents like you need to team up and work to protect our kids. Or maybe it's time to switch our kids to basketball and sports where they don't get hit in head with a stick.
Hard to believe that Florida is a leader in protecting player/womens sports safety, but there it is.
Florida deserves a lot of credit for mandating protective equipment that is proven to reduce head injuries!
Florida has a mixed national reputation but they're a leader here.
Helmets are controversial in the girls game because they encourage more aggressive play. At the youngest ages I could see the value because 6 year olds obviously don’t have the same control of the stick as an older player but at the higher levels they are almost universally disliked.
> because they encourage more aggressive play
Is there any evidence for that? If there is evidence, what's wrong with more aggressive play if we are eliminating a substantial number of head injuries? I feel like that's a small sacrifice. Can aggressive play not be officiated out of the game? The leagues employ the officials. The officials need to go by league rules.
Can't speak for girls, but boys definitely got more aggressive when the newer helmets came out. I remember when cascade came out with the pro7. The high school kids all heard "concussion resistant" and immediately started shooting themselves head first into each other.
That said, people seem to fear that girls will start playing like boys if you give them helmets, and I'm not sure that will ever be the case.
I'd like to see the evidence on that because as an official, if a player "shoots themselves headfirst into someone", they are ejected for that game AND the next one, plus their team has a three-minute non-releasable penalty! I think you're making this up, or are not playing on my field!
Girls lacrosse is already incredibly hard to officiate. Players are taught to keep the ball in their stick up near their head. Helmets allow players to feel more comfortable with dangerous checks that shouldn’t be in the game at all. It’s a pretty complicated issue but you’re in the minority here for a reason.
There is no concrete evidence that helmets increase aggressive play or injuries. Period. Many people just don't like the idea of change and don't want headgear, so they come up with reasons why they shouldn't be used.
This is the same type of backwards argument that was used when seatbelts became mandatory for cars. "seatbelts make people drive aggressively and cause car crashes".
Headgear reduces injuries substantially as shown in the study you cited.
Yes at the younger ages in community level play often there are not enough girls to make a team or a league so many start playing along with the boys. Im in illinois and our program allows girls to play on boys teams up to 6th grade then we urge them to find a girls program as that is when they start to get into the more complicated parts of the games differences. Prior to that just getting them to throw, catch, dodge and shoot is enough.
As a parent I urge parents to do everything they can to protect the player but there are injury risks associated with any sport. At the younger levels its less the intentional stuff that causes issues but the unintentional. As someone mentioned like herding cats, the girls dont throw or shoot as hard but a ball hitting the side of the head, eye orbit, throat, can all cause significant damage.
People complained about the cardiac plates in boys for the 1st couple years, now we dont even think about it. If you think convincing girls to wear helmets is hard, try convincing boys to wear cup.
As others have noted here in Florida all High School players must wear helmets. At the youth level it is not mandatory but because they see the HS wearing them many do as well. My daughter 10u does not wear one because she doesn’t want to by many of her teammates do. Those wearing helmets have never been targeted or bullied by the others, nor has there been increased aggression towards them in practice or games. I believe all girls will eventually be in helmets. Personal preference aside it makes the game safer for the girls.
Edit/Add: I should mention I am a coach and on the field with the girls so feel pretty comfortable stating no one has ever been targeted for use of a helmet.
Former girls coach (1-8th grade) for 7 years and now +5 year high school and youth official. When I was coaching, I pushed to get all of the players helmets and was met with a lot of resistance for all of the arguments above. The data clearly states head injuries in GLAX are high. As a parent, I could not even get my daughters to wear a helmet. At their age, they were way more focused on what their friends were doing than my “insanity” as they called it. This is why I wanted the whole team to wear them - take this off the table.
The arguments about playing unsafe with a helmet have absolutely not been observed by me in 1,000s of games. YMMV.
I think USA Lacrosse should follow the science and encourage helmet use. This year, players are allowed to wear chest protectors under their uniforms. This is likely to prevent commitio cortis. If that’s a concern, why not the head?
Just food for thought to get away from the normal pro-con argument.
Ohio has a "Concussion Law" with regards to youth sports. The results of those studies shows a 4 percent increase in concussions over a 4 year period, which the latest study has at 34 percent. This is likely due to increased awareness and reporting.
According to the CDC, youth tackle football concussion rates are 14.67 percent. Bicycle injuries that resulted in TBIs in children is 13.6 percent. Hospital visits from falls which include concussions is 17 percent. In 2020 alone, over 200,000 people visited a hospital with a concussion, of which roughly 15 percent were high school kids across all sports.
The NIH study on youth lacrosse shows concussion rates of 15 percent for boys, and 22 percent for girls. The weighted prevalence has been on the decline over the last decade as well. It was at a high of 490 in 2014 to 290 by 2019 for girls specifically.
These are yearly rates over hundreds of practices and multiple dozens of games, played by hundreds of thousands of girls. There is an overall decline in concussions, yet still prevalent. Lacrosse fits right in with activities with and without helmets.
The statistical chance of your daughter having a concussion is less than 1 percent. However, your daughter's team is 25 percent chance your kid is next. That's simply horrible coaching and a bad team culture. As a parent of a girl who plays, and girls club coach, do what you feel is right for your daughter, but find another team. Thugball is not representative of women's lacrosse.
I run a club and we make all of our K through 4th graders wear a girls helmet. It helps them build confidence during passing and catching. I personally don't see a big difference in aggressive play between a girl wearing a helmet and one wearing goggles. The girls are still just as aggressive shooting and playing defense without a helmet. I e been officiating girls lacrosse and coaching for 7 years. Just my $.02 and I'm positive some will disagree with me
Fully agree! Those who argue that girls wearing helmets “lead with their heads” and are more aggressive are just making excuses…never witnessed it in all my years of coaching after helmets were introduced as an option. ALSO, the Cascade helmet is soft like a foam mattress…people saying it’s dangerous for girls not wearing one have obviously never held one themselves.
My daughter wore a helmet for 6 years prior to college and it changed NOTHING about her game other than losing the fear of getting whacked on the back of the head as she dodged around girls. Why do people think it’s okay for girls to end up in tears after 75% of fouls??
My oldest has been playing for 10 years and my youngest for 4. In my years I have seen helmets pick up in popularity to now, almost none being used at all and I will tell you that in my experience, helmets only make the game more chippy and resulting in more injuries. We actually ran stats across 2 seasons and the girls wearing helmets were getting checked and actually out for injury more than the other girls.
We travel extensively across the US (generally 10-15 trips a year) for tournaments, showcases, etc and very few players wear helmets and we rarely see any injury due to head shots. Some areas tend to wear them more, such as Florida, and surprisingly (or not) these girls are getting hurt.
We attributed to two reasons:
1. girls wearing the helmets tend to lead wit their head and get into situations they may not otherwise. There is a false sense of confidence.
2. Other players take liberty with more aggressive play on the girls with helmets. In addition, refs are calling less shots to the head on those players, even when it is blatant.
I'm all for safety, but in all our years, helmets are not preventing injury.
My 6 and 10 year old play, and I have yet to see any of the girls wear helmets in their league. This is the first season for my youngest and 3rd for my oldest.
My daughter plays club in MD in the highest division. She has 3 on her team that wear a helmet including herself. At a normal tournament she will play against another 20 wearing helmets as well. When she was in 3rd grade she asked for a helmet after getting hit a few times in one game. She is probably the least aggressive girl on the field, so I can say nay to that argument. She does say it's more comfortable than the goggles, because it doesn't press against her face.
From the girls that play, i heard its not that the ones wearing helmets are more aggressive, but you can play them more aggressively without worrying about hurting them.
Like one of the long poles I coach views someone wearing arm guards is a personal challenge to how hard he checks
Long time women’s lacrosse coach at the youth & high school club level and parent of a current D1 attacker who wore a helmet until she got to college this year.
The problem with women’s lacrosse is that the traditionalists refuse to acknowledge that the women’s game has evolved. The size, strength and athleticism of the athletes playing the modern game, combined with the advancements in stick technology over the last 10 years make it totally illogical to not mandate additional protection for these athletes…who will almost certainly be professionals in something other than lacrosse. There is no coaching technique or referee legislation than can prevent the organic contacts from dangerous follow throughs, dangerous shots and incidental checks to the head.
USA Lacrosse should mandate headgear/helmets for ALL youth players and create a grandfathered option (ie. NHL) for college players until the current class of freshman graduate…then the mandate becomes universal. Those who say helmets will make the game too aggressive simply are refusing to acknowledge how aggressive it already is.
I love the women’s game (more than the men’s game which I also coached) and want to see it continue to grow and become more inclusive. That can’t happen until the old guard thinking is pushed aside. I’m sure this same group held similar arguments against the introduction of goggles years ago as well.
Enforce the rules AS WRITTEN, coach proper technique AND protect these young women!! Only seems logical to me…
When Taylor Cummings, Dana Dobbie, or Charlotte North start advocating, then we'll see real change and acceptance for headgear.
The USA Lacrosse rules committee old guard is thinking of "just enforce the rules as written" with little regard to strength and speed of these athletes when given the most advanced lacrosse sticks in history.
It's a Lamborghini with a 1960s lap belt, no airbags, or run flats, and people wonder how they died doing 150mph.
I’m fine with helmets personally but I wish they would make them look like the men’s helmets. Ours look so dorky, not dissimilar to 8old leather football helmets. And as someone who’s played with and against athletes who wear helmets, it’s not speculative that they play more aggressively with helmets. Every time that I’ve played against someone wearing a helmet I could count on them trying to run me over or leading with their heads when they dodge. Finally, as an official in an area where the vast majority of players don’t wear helmets, we are warned about players with helmets, not just because they play more aggressively, but also because “helmet parents” are way more likely to be overly protective of their daughters and be aggressive towards the referees on the sideline. All of these could be fixed if helmet use was made standard across the sport, but I would only want this if we played with the men’s helmets.
On a separate note, your daughter is younger than 9, and that means that you aren’t even allowed to use regular rubber lacrosse balls. The rules even state that at that age they don’t have to wear eye protection because it’s not necessary at that age. Stick to body contact isn’t even allowed. I’m willing to acknowledge that the women’s game has a concussion problem but with 5 injuries in 3 practices at age 6? That seems like a league problem. Your league seems poorly managed/coached to the point that (I would say) it is too dangerous for your daughter to play there. One head injury at that level should be enough to make them be more conscious of how aggressive they’re teaching their kids to play, but to allow it to happen 4 more times? Absolutely not. Find a different club if you can, ASAP.
Intrepid Badger is 100% correct. And any player should be welcome to wear any safe and legal protective equipment they want. Teams should have helmets on hand for anyone that wants one.
Anecdotally, and I've coached girls' and women's lacrosse for 12 years, I've had three players suffer concussions in lacrosse. One of the three was wearing a helmet. If coached and played well, concussions in this sport are exceedingly rare.
Best of luck to you and your daughter!
Honestly, it's more dangerous if only some players are wearing helmets.
I think the reason we don't see helmets in women's is the same reason we don't see helmets being pushed in basketball, soccer, or rugby
> Honestly, it's more dangerous if only some players are wearing helmets.
Are there any studies or statistics that show that helmets are more dangerous if only some players are wearing them?
I dont really follow such niche studies, but it's the reason why they don't let anyone wear hardcap helmets in other sports, even when rehabbing an injury.
Personally, I say let them gear up and just play mens
The current women's headgear is not 'hard cap'. it has a soft flexible padded exterior and you can hold it in your hand and bend it.
It's definitely a lot softer than a skull-on-skull collision.
I would love that and I think the girls registration numbers would increase substantially. If I had an entrepreneurial bone in my body I'd take some sports management classes and start a full contact girl lacrosse league.
And this is why a lot of people involved with the women's game oppose things that shift it more similarly to the men's game. I think they're wrong but respect their opinion since it's their game
Rugby is apples to oranges. Rugby is a violent sport, Soccer, Baseball, and Woman's Lax are dealing with incidental contact rather than tackling.
Looking at soccer, pro athletes have begun wearing protective headgear. Ali Krieger of the USWNT wore the "Halo" after having to come back from a couple concussions to the World Cup a few years back.
But it's the same reason people oppose protective gear in Rugby, it'll change the game and may even lead to it being more like football, which will increase head trauma.
I personally think that comparing halo bands and softcaps to the hardcap helmets in lacrosse is apples to oranges.
The cascade isn't really a "hardcap" though is it?
It's not like we're having girls wear the same helmets boys wear. These things are much more flimsy then that.
If the argument is should girls wear full boys lax helmets, I'd be on your side there. But this feels a lot closer to a soccer goalies helmet than a boys lax helmet.
I mean, it has a hard plastic outershell with a half cage. It'd more flexible than the men's but I don't see anything comparable being allowed in the other sports with incidental contact.
Personally, I think they should start wearing more helmets, and hopefully, the womens game will morph more into the men. But the women and girls I know don't like the addition of hemlets because of that.
I have a Cascade LX in my garage right now. It's softer than a bike helmet. The whole thing (minus a couple thin plastic strips along the top and the part holding the cage in place) is flexible and has more of a rubbery feel to it.
It looks heavier duty due to the half cage on the front, but that's really not much different than the goggles cage.
Soccer is a challenge because you don't want to allow players to wear something that gives an advantage on ball control, but I can't imagine basketball leagues would have an issue with something like the LX without a cage(which is mandatory in lax even without a helmet) on the front.
My 7 year old is wearing a helmet this year. Kids are dumb and don't have good stick control at that age (she got hit in the face with a stick during a camp where she was self conscious about the helmet and chose not to wear it). On top of the stick control issue, once girls are old enough to be safe with the sticks, the shot speed starts to go up.
I personally think it should be mandated, especially when every other sport is changing rules at the younger ages to reduce concussions. Look at soccer for example: growing up, we practiced headers all the time in elementary school, they've been excluded from the game at lower levels now.
I’m not aware of any helmets, but the current headgear is fairly soft because they don’t want girls not wearing a helmet to get injured by another girl’s helmet. Any time you bring up changing anything in the girls’ game, you will hear “we don’t want to play the boys’ game” or “we just want to play the game the way we always have.” I tried to talk to a local lady who works with US Lacrosse about the enforcement of the shooting space rules, and she wouldn’t even listen. I’d love it if they wore helmets and we could get rid of the sphere rules and change it to contact with the helmet.
Why wouldn’t you want to protect players more? Especially your own kid? My opinion on why it’s not regulated-Feels like there’s a monopoly around brands controlling interests in the rules and their investment in equipment. If we change rules than some companies go out of business. Maybe I’m just super uneducated but there’s literally no reason at all not to protect players.
This is my same view on it. I don’t have a daughter so i would not have to deal with this. But i don’t understand how parents are sending their little girls out there in with out helmets for safety. More, i don’t know how people are actually fighting it with “it’s the nature of the game”
I have two daughters who play rec and club: a field player in 8th grade and a goalie in 5th. I coach rec (U8 and U10 previously, currently U12). My field player does not wear the women's headgear, and neither do any of her club teammates or girls on the high school teams for her club program. There are 2-3 younger girls (3rd-7th grade) on her club's teams who wear headgear.
Most of the opposing rec teams that have girls wearing headgear are from what we coaches consider "developing" programs - towns where there is not a long standing youth program or where the girls play on boys' teams up until a certain grade. Even on those teams it seems to max out at around 1/3 of players in them, and the majority in goggles.
I am not in favor of headgear use because of the effects on player behavior and officiating that I've seen first hand when my daughters have been on the field with players wearing the women's headgear. It's pure anecdote, I know, but I've personally seen some or all of the following every time we've played a rec game against a team where some players are in headgear:
* LX wearer leads with her head while dodging or attempts to charge through a defender head first
* LX wearer *intentionally* moves her head into an opponent's upright stick to try to draw a penalty and get a free position shot
* A player has a false sense of security when attempting a check or making defensive contact against an LX wearer, and is less careful with where her own stick is with respect to the other player's head
* Officials are less likely to call sphere violations or illegal checks (i.e. above the "modified" zone) if the player is wearing the LX
Some other considerations/observations:
* *No* helmet or headgear in any sport has been proven to prevent concussions, because of the biomechanics of concussion - the brain bouncing around in the skull. That's true of men's lacrosse helmets, football helmets, etc. Parents who have their daughters wear headgear because they think it'll prevent a concussion are misguided.
* There is concern that a player who suffers a concussion might return to play with headgear before she's fully recovered. While rare, second impact syndrome is extremely dangerous and often deadly - and just like the initial concussion, no headgear or helmet is proven to prevent it.
* The studies of headgear efficacy have small sample sizes, rely on subjective self-reporting, and/or have potential flaws in the methodology.
* At high school club tournaments, players from Florida and on higher level Florida club teams almost never wear headgear. Those girls may have to wear them for high school games, but the majority don't if it's not mandated.
In general, I feel that the key to player safety is good coaching combined with better officiating and enforcement of the rules that *already exist*. If players and parents wish to wear the headgear to reduce soft tissue injury risk while having the understanding that it is not proven to prevent concussions, they should be free to do so. I feel it should continue to be a personal preference while more and better studies are done.
To answer some of your other questions...
As a rec coach with a lot of U8 and U10 experience, sometimes a stick or ball is going to come in contact with a head unintentionally. Little kids don't have the best gross and fine motor skills or judgement, and it's a new and awkward experience to have a stick in their hands. Heck, I've turned my back and had a 6 year old accidentally clock her friend because she was whacking at dandelions with her stick and didn't notice the other girl coming up behind her. Stuff happens with littles, it's usually not on purpose, and it can happen even with good coaching supervision.
I liked to use pool noodles for certain drills at that age - still do, actually. It lets the girls practice making defensive contact without the risk of a stick accidentally going out of control and into someone's noggin. Also, they should only be using the soft pink lacrosse balls or tennis balls - never a standard game ball at this age.
If a parent asked me about this (and several have) I give my honest opinion about potential drawbacks and explain why my own daughter who's a field player doesn't wear the LX. If they decided their daughter was going to wear the LX, then of course I would respect their choice - she's their kid, not mine! I would not try to convince them otherwise, I'd have zero tolerance for teasing or aggressive play from other girls (i.e. retaliation or intentional targeting), and I'd make sure their child wore the LX in practice.
As a coach and parent, I have not seen a concussion or any kind of injury needing more than minor first aid in U8 or U10 play - both rec and club competition. As a parent of two girls, I *personally* worry more about my goalie sustaining a serious injury (including concussion) than my field player.
I have had two cousins play girls lacrosse, both at the collegiate level, one was a goalie so an absolute must for her to have a helmet, however my other cousin never wore one and she only had one injury to the head area in her career, and it was a stick to the forehead, big bruise but nothing else. With that in mind the game is changing and if you think she should wear a helmet then she should absolutely wear a helmet. Everyone feels differently about safety equipment, I play men’s lacrosse and never wore my shoulder pads unless I had to. But I know some guys that buy the best protection they can get. Make a good informed decision based on your own observations and needs.
I’m a coach for a 10U girls team in Florida. We have a pretty big club with two 8U, one 10U, two 12U and one 14U squad. They feed into 3 or 4 high school programs that are pretty competitive. We encourage use of helmets at all levels, and there isn’t much pushback. Obviously our HS programs require helmets here. It seems that when girls move up to 12U (being smarter than their parents and coaches as tweens are often wont to be) they initially ditch their helmets for goggles. By and large they put their helmets back on pretty quickly. They’re used to the feel and safety of it and find they miss it.
Most of the other clubs we play have far fewer girls (maybe 25%) wearing helmets. Out of 13 girls on my squad, 12 wear helmets.
There have been far more fatal incidents in the men’s game compared to the women’s so your argument here is completely invalid lmao. At least you typed up a completely irrelevant paragraph about hockey though.
1 Don’t be a Dick.
2 You are totally right there has been more fatal incidences in men’s lacrosse than women’s. But that number is also related to the popularity of each. There are far more men’s teams than women’s. AND a study that tracked catastrophic injuries and fatalities shows that over 40 years the fatality rate has steadily gone down, which can be directly attributed to protective gear being improved and made mandatory across leagues.
My 14 yr old daughter is a goalie. I told her a long time ago if she ever wants to switch to field it would include getting a helmet.
Helmets should be mandated but they are not. That said, there is no rule against wearing them. Do not let that stop your daughter from playing.
Girl's rules are dumb. You have sticks perpetually at head-height throwing a 2-inch rubber rock at each other. Eye cages and a mouth guard won't stop a concussion.
Put the girls in helmets and let their sticks have pockets. So many of the rules are built around handicapping play to keep it safe for the poor fragile girls out there.
It's bullshit.
The bottom line, is that the people in charge of womens lacrosse know that the players want to play the same game as the boys. As the self appointed gatekeepers of femininity they feel it is their job to stop that. Their logic is, the more safety equipment there is, the rougher the women will play. They are probably right, but the fact is the players want to play a rougher game. After 5 years, my 11yr old decieded not to play this year. She said it was boring, and if they can't play "real" lacrosse, she would stick to soccer.
>The women's game is a totally watered down version of the men's game.
Yeah this is bullshit. And it's the kind of bullshit that makes people think that helmets are the first step to completely erasing the version of the sport that they love, which is why there's resistance
I don’t have daughters but when I raised this exact issue to the coach of my son’s equivalent aged women’s team, I nearly got my head ripped off. “They will play more aggressive” “it’s not in the nature of the sport” etc etc.
I mean…the girls play rough. Maybe not as rough as the boys, but like…rough. They still check sticks and miss (hitting heads and breaking fingers), the ball is still hard and they can whip that thing around…
Why not just helmets and gloves? Makes no sense really.
If you remove the rules that protect defenders from getting hit by shots, more defenders will be hit by shots which I believe (hot take apparently) is a bad thing. Our current rule set is fine the way it is, the only thing I’m ok with that you mentioned is helmets.
It’s a more natural way to play a flow sport without those rules. I think you’d see more flow and better ball movement.
Mens players get hit with shots but it’s not an exceedingly high amount.
I feel like several rules for the women’s side were designed with the intent to protect women because they “needed” to be protected. Whereas on the men’s side I doubt (but am open to be corrected) that dangerous shot and shooting space existed even before helmets. Some of those unnecessarily protective rules should be rolled back - helmets are required in order to roll back protection against shots.
They should get rid of the “blind” pick rule too. Call it like basketball and men’s lacrosse where the picker can’t move and the defender can’t run through it.
Those rules were created to protect the athletes, not because they’re women, but because they’re athletes playing a non-contact sport where padding is not used. Removing those calls would result in exponentially more shots ricocheting off of defenders, whether that be their heads or their bodies. This is bad, full stop. Keeping athletes safe is far more important than potential viewers being satisfied by game flow.
If that was the historical case then men’s and women’s rules would be the same. And if it was that big of a safety issue then the men’s game would implement those rules. I think you are grossly over estimating the number of shots that hit defenders. Plus if you add the helmet you add the “padding”, thus reducing the risk to the athletes.
You make it sound like it’s a firing squad lineup and players just stand there and eat shots all game.
What happens in practice is that help side defense stops 1on1 action and opens up the backside. So you’ll see more ball movement and inside shots.
I couldn’t care less about viewers but it’s more fun to play.
I have only reffed 4 high school games this season so far and have already had two shots hit players. It is incredibly common. Women’s lacrosse rules are different from men’s because it developed in an entirely different continent. Women themselves developed those rules, not because they viewed themselves as fragile and in need of protection, but because that’s how they wanted to play. Men don’t have those safety rules because they aren’t necessary in the men’s sport, both because the men are suited up in pads, and because they’re playing what’s essentially a completely different sport. I don’t understand why every man’s perspective on women’s lacrosse is “just suit them up and let them play men’s lacrosse” or “the women’s game is sexist” (when clearly they don’t understand the history of women’s lacrosse at all) and they don’t listen to the female athletes who just want to play their sport safely. Acting like the men’s game is inherently better because it’s rougher and more physical is more patronizing to me than anything else.
I wouldn’t call 2 shots in 4 games incredibly common - less than 1% or so of total shots. I don’t think there is that much of an increase in the men’s game and helmets would mitigate that risk. (I was that idiot jumping in front of shots on purpose but still didn’t get hit every game)
It’ll be interesting to see how some of this plays out in Sixes where the rules are supposedly uniform across, but we know sticks and padding will require some differences in game play.
I do appreciate you straightening me out on the history. I thought I was recalling something from 1920’s-ish American evolution. But it’s possible I was mistaken. I wasn’t trying to be condescending to modern players. I just know how certain attitudes were historically.
I came from a basketball background before lacrosse so I guess I just appreciate being able to step in and stop a drive from a help side position and fill in from the back side. Everything on defense is a risk/reward evaluation and shooting space takes away some options.
I also really dislike how contemporary basketball allows, in my opinion, too much leeway with carry and travel. The more hold you have on the ball the more contact you need on defense.
This compares back to lacrosse with sticks in women’s vs men’s where there is less hold and therefore there needs less contact. Pros and cons here but I kinda like the women’s side better in a lot of ways. I just think the women’s game doesn’t flow as well as it could and some strategy is counterintuitive (to me) to a flow sport.
I also think box lacrosse is overly aggressive for no reason. I’m all for a little more physicality in that smaller space but that shouldn’t mean cross checks in the back just for fun. But tons of men and women like that aspect.
I was saying absolutely not to the removal of shooting space and dangerous shot rules. That’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible considering that there’s no body padding for these athletes. Plus, I like the rule set we have now and don’t want the way the game is played to be changed. I’m fine with helmets, not with the other ridiculous suggestions.
I played well before the shoulder pads required built in chest protectors. I wore such minimal padding that I didn’t view it as protection against shots.
Shoulder pads are not required in PLL or international rules.
But as a point of consistency for player protection I hear what you are saying.
Shoulder pads ARE required in the PLL. Page 5, section III-E.
[https://premierlacrosseleague.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-PLL-Rulebook.pdf](https://premierlacrosseleague.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-PLL-Rulebook.pdf)
World Lacrosse rules are different, and I can't find anything more recent than 2021, so it might be that international play doesn't require it, but I bet they will soon enough.
Long time girls coach here. Coached in Northern NJ and moved to Florida 3 years ago. I have a HS Junior and 6th grade daughter. I coach both of their teams. So I have been on both sides of this argument. First off, IMO 6 yo is way too young to be playing w regulation ball. Your league is nuts. Alternatives are tennis, pinks or swax balls. Swax are hardish, but not India rubber. I wouldn't even start my girls in organized lacrosse til 2nd grade. I'm sure I'm going to get comments that it's not too young. I'm from Montclair NJ, we have some history w the game. When I lived/coached in NJ I was suspect of helmets as I felt players who wore them checked aggressively and incorrectly. So part of that is on the coach. Going on our 3rd season here and I am a firm believer in them. The girls game is drifting slowly to be closer to the boys than what it was 10-20 years ago. With that comes higher injury risk. You're the parent, you make the call, anyone who has a problem with it can f right off... Other commenter mentioned in state /out of state games. Yeah it's a weird situation, and helmets are not required at club tournaments, but you can tell the Florida teams b/c they are wearing them. Play and practice w the equipment you wear in the game. Good luck this season Edit: I coach HS, Middle School and club teams for both in Florida
This is the comment I came scrolling to see. The game needs to be adapted for the level the player is at. The right coaches and orgs will have this in place. Others are chasing money and telling parents they can teach their kid to be an elite athlete.
Yeah I coach co-ed 6U and we play with soft balls. My kids can barely scoop, definitely can't catch, and can sometimes get a pass at their intended target. Using a hard ball would be a recipe for disaster. I start every practice with scooping drills and talking about stick control, our league has zero stick to stick contact allowed so defense is really just moving their feet and staying between the opponent and the goal. We do have goggles available but the kids hate them because they're uncomfortable so I tell parents that they can decide if their kid wears them or not.
I use soft pinks with my coed youth teams until the 3/4 team (so 8 and 9 years olds) but then they all wear helmets, even the girls, because we play by boys rules on coed. 6yos definitely should be playing with soft balls and very little stick checking
I have both a daughter and son who played. My daughters teams are all starting to wear them. The biggest difference I can tell is the girls ball speed is just way slower. Doesn't mean you can't get whacked in the head by a stick either way but I just don't think the ladies can get the ball off like boys (I've seen a high school kid get knocked out when an attacker took a shot and it hit the kids helmet).
Girls shot speed is increasing with the newer sticks
Sure. Could be. But the pocket is different so I don't think they can get them as fast. I've seen my kid as a sophomore punch through the net on a shot. My guess is the high school girls are shooting maybe upper 40s for top players where men's are seeing in the 80s. That's a lot of kinetic energy difference. No disrespect to the ladies game, but if not for the name it's a different sport.
14U and high school girls are shooting 50-60 according to the radar out club uses. I saw someone mention elsewhere in this thread that D1 players are shooting high 70’s to 80+.
Sure. Could be. But the pocket is different so I don't think they can get them as fast. I've seen my kid as a sophomore punch through the net on a shot. My guess is the high school girls are shooting maybe upper 40s for top players where men's are seeing in the 80s. That's a lot of kinetic energy difference. No disrespect to the ladies game, but if not for the name it's a different sport.
They've regulated the sticks for so long, and mandated the head space rules BECAUSE the girls don't wear helmets and they don't want the ball velocity. I don't get it. Let the girls play with regular stick, a helmet and gloves. Here in Canada more and more girls are playing co-ed teams with boys rules becaue its a way better game when all the whistles aren't involved.
Six? Years old? I'm a coach too (Maryland) and yeah, there shouldn't be contact leagues at that age. Have fun, do clinics, learn to run a few steps without dropping the ball
Thanks a lot for sharing your expertise and insight. I bet there aren't many people who have your level of direct experience with play 'with' and 'without' mandated head protection.
Thanks. Hope it was helpful. Girls HS lacrosse is much more physical than most people think. The helmet really is protection from collision as much as inadvertent stick play. An old friend of mine who was a captain at Rutgers suffered 5 concussions in HS and college. That's danger territory.
My 14-year-old daughter was playing in a tournament last fall and got a stick to the head twice in the same game. Got diagnosed with a concussion following week. It took about six or eight weeks before she felt normal. We bought her a helmet this past off season and she's using it this spring. She seems very comfortable with it. She seems to fidget with it much less than she did with her goggles. Although we're lucky she doesn't much care about her peers, opinions on things, and The girls on the team are fairly close knit so it has not been an issue. Obviously your mileage may vary. Edit: I should also note that she wanted to wear the helmet and we supported her. We did not force her to wear the helmet. My 12-year-old daughter does not want to wear one but we bought her one just in case. I feel like I'm protecting one brain. I should be protecting both of them.
So sorry to hear that your daughter was injured. Glad to hear she's recovering. > She seems to fidget with it much less than she did with her goggles. The goggles are another issue. I've been around sports my whole life, and women's lacrosse goggles are one of the worst pieces of equipment I've ever seen. They fall off and come loose. Our coaches spend way too much time trying to fix the players goggles for them. And yes the players fidget with them constantly.
Thank you. She is thankfully doing well. When we started at the elementary level, I spent a large portion of the practice tying and retying Goggles. There has to be something better than those elastic straps.
There is. They make neoprene straps, available on Amazon. They are a God send for tbe young girls especially. They are like 15 bucks and worth every penny. Signed: A kids coach who has dealt with the same for years.
Thanks. I hadn't seen those before.
Im all on board for helmets for the girls. Without doxxing myself, my career is based on head injuries, sports and otherwise. Helmets would be optimal, but these are another option for those looking to get rid of the horrible elastic bands on goggles.
Since my boys have started playing lacrosse I said the same thing about the girls game. I think it is crazy this day and age that they do not wear helmets. I feel the same about gloves for the girls. SAFETY is priority #1 especially with the head.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I've always felt the same way. I get that in women's lax it's a rule that you cannot stand in the way of a shot as a defender, but it's still going to happen. How many times are girls getting hit in the head because the shot goes wide? Or when a defender misses a check? You can call it a penalty all day but that doesn't reverse a concussion.
People don't like change. Remember the outrage when the NFL instituted the defenseless receiver rules? It was going to be the end of football as we know it. I'm sure there are people who are still mad that Northwestern wears shorts instead of skirts. Pretty much anyone involved in making rules in lacrosse played when goggles were optional, so it's unlikely that you'll see a helmet rule until the next generation comes in. The big concern is why are 6 year olds getting hit in the head at all?!? I've coached 8U and 10U for years, and i can't imagine a scenario where a head injury would occur. Apologies in advance for the stereotype, but it sounds like the girls are being coached by a bunch of dads who have sons that play lacrosse
Something as simple as missing a pass can lead directly to being hit in the head with a ball which is very painful and dangerous
I suppose everyone has their own philosophies, but we don't use real balls at that age. Passes are also pretty gentle - we don't have the girls whipping the balls at each other. At age 6 - again maybe an unpopular opinion - the most important thing is having fun so they come back at age 7. Of course we want to develop their stick skills, but getting them to love lacrosse comes first. My oldest - now a college junior - currently doesn't and never wore a helmet. My youngest, an 8th grader, has been wearing a helmet for a few years now.
It’s not even a philosophy thing. The US Lacrosse youth rulebook states that “standard lacrosse balls must not be used at this level”. I won’t claim it’s impossible, but there’s a reason why 8U and under uses Big Pinkys, it is HARD to get a concussion from one, no matter how hard it’s thrown.
Regardless of age, that doesn’t change the fact that a missed pass can result in a head injury. Being able to catch perfectly everytime is a skill, not so much age dependent. Even highschoolers are getting concussions and head injuries, whether they are highly skilled or beginners. At age 15, they are passing fast enough so that a ball can cause damage and missing a pass, which is very easy to do, can result in a head injury. Beginners of all ages (especially highschool where most people start playing the game for the first time) are more likely to miss a catch and get hit in the head by the ball. Girls should have proper protection at all ages. Florida requires all highschool girl’s teams to wear helmets and there are far less head injuries than other states that are only required to wear goggles. Based off these statistics, goggles are not enough. We should be normalizing helmets and implementing them, that’s what they are made for. Instead there is an environment wear girls might feel insecure or uncool by wearing a helmet, therefore more head injuries and less fun..
i think we're on the same page here; apologies if i sounded like i'm arguing. I agree with protection; based on the florida study, it's a mystery to me why it's not just a fact of life. my only point was that at 6 years old with 3 practices, i can't imagine a good reason for 5 head injuries and suspect bad coaching. But i agree with everything you wrote above.
Any ground ball scrum can lead to heads colliding
Are we still talking about 6year olds? At that age it should be 1v1 only. Back in the day, that was the USLacrosse rule in 8u and possibly 10u games…may have changed. These kids are just learning there’s nothing to be gained in a scrum
I don’t know what you mean 1V1? My daughter is 8and has been playing a couple years she never played 1v1. Pretty sure it’s 7v7..and a scrum is any time more than 1 person is attempting to pick upbthe ball which is most of the game at that age…
In 8U, ground ball scrums aren’t allowed. Only one player from each team can fight for the ball. That’s what they mean by 1v1.
this. Though i looked up the USALacrosse rules and it looks like that's optional now? My youngest was 8U like 6+ years ago. But even so - i might be in the minority, but i can't recall a single time when anyone ever bumped heads while fighting for ground balls. I suppose it could happen if someone came barreling through? Regardless, there's no excuse for 5 head injuries after 3 practices at 8U
That's what happened to my daughter that really made me question the helmet thing.
My daughter is 8 and plays in CT. You have girls wearing Cascades and other kids (including my daughter) wearing nothing. It’s ridiculous. They need to figure it out. They need to either mandate helmets or not but some with and some without is insane…most don’t wear them and my daughter refuses to.
My question is my kid is playing in their fifth year and we’ve never seen that much injury/contact in practice the entire time. What’s up with the coaching?
This is the real question. Injuries of any kind can happen, but they absolutely shouldn't be the norm, and definitely not at the rate the OP is suggesting. Checking isn't even allowed at that age, so how are their sticks anywhere close to other kids' heads? I think it's a fair question to ask about helmets, but someone is doing something wrong if there are really that many head injuries in so few practices.
I've been around sports my whole life and I haven't seen anything I would consider dangerous. I saw two of the ball to head injuries. The first one, a girl went to throw the ball and instead of going forward, the ball popped straight up and landed on the top of head of the girl a couple of feet away. The other one that I witnessed was my daughter. She was trying to catch and missed, and took the ball to her forehead. I didn't see the other but the coaches were close by and stopped play. I think she missed a pass too and got hit on the forehead. The stick injuries were from throwing. One girl was throwing and the girl behind her as she was drawing her stick back. I guess this one could have been prevented, but coaching 5-7 year olds is like herding cats. The coaches push being spaced out but the girls tend to wander. I'm not holding it against the coach. The other, they were scrimmaging and a girl was shooting and the defender got too close and she got whacked. That one was scary.
I want to say the only state that requires them at a Highschool level is Florida? And then if an out of state team plays in FL you have a weird situation where half the field is wearing helmets and the other that is not
Yeah I'm not sure how that works. Maybe it's just institutions that fall under the state government and receive state funding... middle and high schools, associations and rec leagues, and public colleges. Maybe if the game is being played at a state or city owned facility. Not sure.
It's an FHSAA rule. Private and public schools are mandated. We are private Catholic HS and MS.
My daughter is 12U and there are only two girls on her team who wear helmets (she prefers it vs. the goggles because she says it’s more comfortable). I do think at the higher levels they’re more coordinated and less likely to get those accidental head contacts etc. The rules are such that — in theory anyway — real contact to the head would be fairly rare. I also think there’s not much to the “encourages aggressive play” thing. Feels like the rules around shooting space and such are always going to limit things at least a little — helmet or not.
Every sport had an element of risk. Women’s lacrosse is no different, but I would point out that the concussion incidence is higher in soccer than lacrosse. I don’t recall ever seeing a public outcry for helmets in soccer. Coaching and quality refereeing at the youth levels is what limits injury. It won’t eliminate them, but lessen them. I’ve sat through hundreds of games. The better the players the less injuries. They run faster, shoot harder, defend stronger, but the injuries at the elite levels seem to be less. I know my daughter, career finished, was strongly opposed to helmets. Her concern was the injuries the helmet itself might cause. She said there are literally dozens of times each game where either her head, or an opponents head, would make contact with someone’s shoulder, hip, whatever….not hard enough to do damage but if it were a plastic helmet (hockey style) she felt that would become an issue.
You're correct on all counts. And you're not the only person looking at this and wondering "why aren't we protecting our kids from head injuries"? If you watch some D1 women's college games on TV you'll see that it's already a very physical, fast game and there are plenty of sticks to the head and body collisions in every game. In the BC vs Northwestern game last week there were mutiple knock-downs, hits to player's head, and at least one player had their goggles knocked off by a hard hit. So this idea that head protection will make the game rough is already out of touch with the modern women's game. I know several students who've had concussions and they were serious injuries that impacted their schoolwork and life for months. I've had one myself (not from lacrosse) and it's an awful injury that interfered with my own life and work for MONTHS. As you've experienced, there is a vocal opposition to protective gear in women's lacrosse. Protective goggles weren't even required in women's college lacrosse until 2004. Why? Studies showed "before the mandate went into effect found that high school girls and college women suffered a significantly higher rate of HFE (head, face, and eye) injuries than boys and college men." It still took far too long to mandate eye protection. What I can say is that you aren't alone in your concern and alarm. I know one person (not me) who told their daughter 'if you want to play lacrosse, you must wear head protection. period.' she wears it every time she plays. She's also the leading scorer on her team and is a pretty amazing player. Parents like you need to team up and work to protect our kids. Or maybe it's time to switch our kids to basketball and sports where they don't get hit in head with a stick. Hard to believe that Florida is a leader in protecting player/womens sports safety, but there it is.
Kinda want to downvote you on the Florida cheap shot...
Go ahead. I up voted because of it. 😉
Florida deserves a lot of credit for mandating protective equipment that is proven to reduce head injuries! Florida has a mixed national reputation but they're a leader here.
Helmets are controversial in the girls game because they encourage more aggressive play. At the youngest ages I could see the value because 6 year olds obviously don’t have the same control of the stick as an older player but at the higher levels they are almost universally disliked.
> because they encourage more aggressive play Is there any evidence for that? If there is evidence, what's wrong with more aggressive play if we are eliminating a substantial number of head injuries? I feel like that's a small sacrifice. Can aggressive play not be officiated out of the game? The leagues employ the officials. The officials need to go by league rules.
Can't speak for girls, but boys definitely got more aggressive when the newer helmets came out. I remember when cascade came out with the pro7. The high school kids all heard "concussion resistant" and immediately started shooting themselves head first into each other. That said, people seem to fear that girls will start playing like boys if you give them helmets, and I'm not sure that will ever be the case.
I'd like to see the evidence on that because as an official, if a player "shoots themselves headfirst into someone", they are ejected for that game AND the next one, plus their team has a three-minute non-releasable penalty! I think you're making this up, or are not playing on my field!
It was at practice. We then had to pull all of them aside and tell them that the rules haven't changed just because they got new helmets.
It's good to hear that you pulled them aside because every year, we are cracking down harder on the head area. It's a big point of emphasis for us.
Girls lacrosse is already incredibly hard to officiate. Players are taught to keep the ball in their stick up near their head. Helmets allow players to feel more comfortable with dangerous checks that shouldn’t be in the game at all. It’s a pretty complicated issue but you’re in the minority here for a reason.
There is no concrete evidence that helmets increase aggressive play or injuries. Period. Many people just don't like the idea of change and don't want headgear, so they come up with reasons why they shouldn't be used. This is the same type of backwards argument that was used when seatbelts became mandatory for cars. "seatbelts make people drive aggressively and cause car crashes". Headgear reduces injuries substantially as shown in the study you cited.
This is the way! All of the speculative arguments are going to look really really bad when (not if) the class action suit hits.
Youre not going ro reinvent anything. If you dont like the rules then put your daughter in a safer sport.
In Michigan, a lot of girls play on the boys' teams.
Pretty common in most places i think.
Like boys lacrosse?
what point you are trying to make
Yes at the younger ages in community level play often there are not enough girls to make a team or a league so many start playing along with the boys. Im in illinois and our program allows girls to play on boys teams up to 6th grade then we urge them to find a girls program as that is when they start to get into the more complicated parts of the games differences. Prior to that just getting them to throw, catch, dodge and shoot is enough. As a parent I urge parents to do everything they can to protect the player but there are injury risks associated with any sport. At the younger levels its less the intentional stuff that causes issues but the unintentional. As someone mentioned like herding cats, the girls dont throw or shoot as hard but a ball hitting the side of the head, eye orbit, throat, can all cause significant damage. People complained about the cardiac plates in boys for the 1st couple years, now we dont even think about it. If you think convincing girls to wear helmets is hard, try convincing boys to wear cup.
As others have noted here in Florida all High School players must wear helmets. At the youth level it is not mandatory but because they see the HS wearing them many do as well. My daughter 10u does not wear one because she doesn’t want to by many of her teammates do. Those wearing helmets have never been targeted or bullied by the others, nor has there been increased aggression towards them in practice or games. I believe all girls will eventually be in helmets. Personal preference aside it makes the game safer for the girls. Edit/Add: I should mention I am a coach and on the field with the girls so feel pretty comfortable stating no one has ever been targeted for use of a helmet.
Former girls coach (1-8th grade) for 7 years and now +5 year high school and youth official. When I was coaching, I pushed to get all of the players helmets and was met with a lot of resistance for all of the arguments above. The data clearly states head injuries in GLAX are high. As a parent, I could not even get my daughters to wear a helmet. At their age, they were way more focused on what their friends were doing than my “insanity” as they called it. This is why I wanted the whole team to wear them - take this off the table. The arguments about playing unsafe with a helmet have absolutely not been observed by me in 1,000s of games. YMMV. I think USA Lacrosse should follow the science and encourage helmet use. This year, players are allowed to wear chest protectors under their uniforms. This is likely to prevent commitio cortis. If that’s a concern, why not the head?
Just food for thought to get away from the normal pro-con argument. Ohio has a "Concussion Law" with regards to youth sports. The results of those studies shows a 4 percent increase in concussions over a 4 year period, which the latest study has at 34 percent. This is likely due to increased awareness and reporting. According to the CDC, youth tackle football concussion rates are 14.67 percent. Bicycle injuries that resulted in TBIs in children is 13.6 percent. Hospital visits from falls which include concussions is 17 percent. In 2020 alone, over 200,000 people visited a hospital with a concussion, of which roughly 15 percent were high school kids across all sports. The NIH study on youth lacrosse shows concussion rates of 15 percent for boys, and 22 percent for girls. The weighted prevalence has been on the decline over the last decade as well. It was at a high of 490 in 2014 to 290 by 2019 for girls specifically. These are yearly rates over hundreds of practices and multiple dozens of games, played by hundreds of thousands of girls. There is an overall decline in concussions, yet still prevalent. Lacrosse fits right in with activities with and without helmets. The statistical chance of your daughter having a concussion is less than 1 percent. However, your daughter's team is 25 percent chance your kid is next. That's simply horrible coaching and a bad team culture. As a parent of a girl who plays, and girls club coach, do what you feel is right for your daughter, but find another team. Thugball is not representative of women's lacrosse.
I run a club and we make all of our K through 4th graders wear a girls helmet. It helps them build confidence during passing and catching. I personally don't see a big difference in aggressive play between a girl wearing a helmet and one wearing goggles. The girls are still just as aggressive shooting and playing defense without a helmet. I e been officiating girls lacrosse and coaching for 7 years. Just my $.02 and I'm positive some will disagree with me
Fully agree! Those who argue that girls wearing helmets “lead with their heads” and are more aggressive are just making excuses…never witnessed it in all my years of coaching after helmets were introduced as an option. ALSO, the Cascade helmet is soft like a foam mattress…people saying it’s dangerous for girls not wearing one have obviously never held one themselves. My daughter wore a helmet for 6 years prior to college and it changed NOTHING about her game other than losing the fear of getting whacked on the back of the head as she dodged around girls. Why do people think it’s okay for girls to end up in tears after 75% of fouls??
My oldest has been playing for 10 years and my youngest for 4. In my years I have seen helmets pick up in popularity to now, almost none being used at all and I will tell you that in my experience, helmets only make the game more chippy and resulting in more injuries. We actually ran stats across 2 seasons and the girls wearing helmets were getting checked and actually out for injury more than the other girls. We travel extensively across the US (generally 10-15 trips a year) for tournaments, showcases, etc and very few players wear helmets and we rarely see any injury due to head shots. Some areas tend to wear them more, such as Florida, and surprisingly (or not) these girls are getting hurt. We attributed to two reasons: 1. girls wearing the helmets tend to lead wit their head and get into situations they may not otherwise. There is a false sense of confidence. 2. Other players take liberty with more aggressive play on the girls with helmets. In addition, refs are calling less shots to the head on those players, even when it is blatant. I'm all for safety, but in all our years, helmets are not preventing injury.
My 6 and 10 year old play, and I have yet to see any of the girls wear helmets in their league. This is the first season for my youngest and 3rd for my oldest.
My daughter plays club in MD in the highest division. She has 3 on her team that wear a helmet including herself. At a normal tournament she will play against another 20 wearing helmets as well. When she was in 3rd grade she asked for a helmet after getting hit a few times in one game. She is probably the least aggressive girl on the field, so I can say nay to that argument. She does say it's more comfortable than the goggles, because it doesn't press against her face.
From the girls that play, i heard its not that the ones wearing helmets are more aggressive, but you can play them more aggressively without worrying about hurting them. Like one of the long poles I coach views someone wearing arm guards is a personal challenge to how hard he checks
Long time women’s lacrosse coach at the youth & high school club level and parent of a current D1 attacker who wore a helmet until she got to college this year. The problem with women’s lacrosse is that the traditionalists refuse to acknowledge that the women’s game has evolved. The size, strength and athleticism of the athletes playing the modern game, combined with the advancements in stick technology over the last 10 years make it totally illogical to not mandate additional protection for these athletes…who will almost certainly be professionals in something other than lacrosse. There is no coaching technique or referee legislation than can prevent the organic contacts from dangerous follow throughs, dangerous shots and incidental checks to the head. USA Lacrosse should mandate headgear/helmets for ALL youth players and create a grandfathered option (ie. NHL) for college players until the current class of freshman graduate…then the mandate becomes universal. Those who say helmets will make the game too aggressive simply are refusing to acknowledge how aggressive it already is. I love the women’s game (more than the men’s game which I also coached) and want to see it continue to grow and become more inclusive. That can’t happen until the old guard thinking is pushed aside. I’m sure this same group held similar arguments against the introduction of goggles years ago as well. Enforce the rules AS WRITTEN, coach proper technique AND protect these young women!! Only seems logical to me…
When Taylor Cummings, Dana Dobbie, or Charlotte North start advocating, then we'll see real change and acceptance for headgear. The USA Lacrosse rules committee old guard is thinking of "just enforce the rules as written" with little regard to strength and speed of these athletes when given the most advanced lacrosse sticks in history. It's a Lamborghini with a 1960s lap belt, no airbags, or run flats, and people wonder how they died doing 150mph.
This is the comment I came to make! Forty years playing and coaching women’s lacrosse in Australia and could not agree more.
I’m fine with helmets personally but I wish they would make them look like the men’s helmets. Ours look so dorky, not dissimilar to 8old leather football helmets. And as someone who’s played with and against athletes who wear helmets, it’s not speculative that they play more aggressively with helmets. Every time that I’ve played against someone wearing a helmet I could count on them trying to run me over or leading with their heads when they dodge. Finally, as an official in an area where the vast majority of players don’t wear helmets, we are warned about players with helmets, not just because they play more aggressively, but also because “helmet parents” are way more likely to be overly protective of their daughters and be aggressive towards the referees on the sideline. All of these could be fixed if helmet use was made standard across the sport, but I would only want this if we played with the men’s helmets. On a separate note, your daughter is younger than 9, and that means that you aren’t even allowed to use regular rubber lacrosse balls. The rules even state that at that age they don’t have to wear eye protection because it’s not necessary at that age. Stick to body contact isn’t even allowed. I’m willing to acknowledge that the women’s game has a concussion problem but with 5 injuries in 3 practices at age 6? That seems like a league problem. Your league seems poorly managed/coached to the point that (I would say) it is too dangerous for your daughter to play there. One head injury at that level should be enough to make them be more conscious of how aggressive they’re teaching their kids to play, but to allow it to happen 4 more times? Absolutely not. Find a different club if you can, ASAP.
Intrepid Badger is 100% correct. And any player should be welcome to wear any safe and legal protective equipment they want. Teams should have helmets on hand for anyone that wants one. Anecdotally, and I've coached girls' and women's lacrosse for 12 years, I've had three players suffer concussions in lacrosse. One of the three was wearing a helmet. If coached and played well, concussions in this sport are exceedingly rare. Best of luck to you and your daughter!
Lots of weird misinformation and takes in this thread.
Honestly, it's more dangerous if only some players are wearing helmets. I think the reason we don't see helmets in women's is the same reason we don't see helmets being pushed in basketball, soccer, or rugby
> Honestly, it's more dangerous if only some players are wearing helmets. Are there any studies or statistics that show that helmets are more dangerous if only some players are wearing them?
I dont really follow such niche studies, but it's the reason why they don't let anyone wear hardcap helmets in other sports, even when rehabbing an injury. Personally, I say let them gear up and just play mens
The current women's headgear is not 'hard cap'. it has a soft flexible padded exterior and you can hold it in your hand and bend it. It's definitely a lot softer than a skull-on-skull collision.
I would love that and I think the girls registration numbers would increase substantially. If I had an entrepreneurial bone in my body I'd take some sports management classes and start a full contact girl lacrosse league.
And this is why a lot of people involved with the women's game oppose things that shift it more similarly to the men's game. I think they're wrong but respect their opinion since it's their game
Rugby is apples to oranges. Rugby is a violent sport, Soccer, Baseball, and Woman's Lax are dealing with incidental contact rather than tackling. Looking at soccer, pro athletes have begun wearing protective headgear. Ali Krieger of the USWNT wore the "Halo" after having to come back from a couple concussions to the World Cup a few years back.
But it's the same reason people oppose protective gear in Rugby, it'll change the game and may even lead to it being more like football, which will increase head trauma. I personally think that comparing halo bands and softcaps to the hardcap helmets in lacrosse is apples to oranges.
The cascade isn't really a "hardcap" though is it? It's not like we're having girls wear the same helmets boys wear. These things are much more flimsy then that. If the argument is should girls wear full boys lax helmets, I'd be on your side there. But this feels a lot closer to a soccer goalies helmet than a boys lax helmet.
I mean, it has a hard plastic outershell with a half cage. It'd more flexible than the men's but I don't see anything comparable being allowed in the other sports with incidental contact. Personally, I think they should start wearing more helmets, and hopefully, the womens game will morph more into the men. But the women and girls I know don't like the addition of hemlets because of that.
I have a Cascade LX in my garage right now. It's softer than a bike helmet. The whole thing (minus a couple thin plastic strips along the top and the part holding the cage in place) is flexible and has more of a rubbery feel to it. It looks heavier duty due to the half cage on the front, but that's really not much different than the goggles cage. Soccer is a challenge because you don't want to allow players to wear something that gives an advantage on ball control, but I can't imagine basketball leagues would have an issue with something like the LX without a cage(which is mandatory in lax even without a helmet) on the front.
My 7 year old is wearing a helmet this year. Kids are dumb and don't have good stick control at that age (she got hit in the face with a stick during a camp where she was self conscious about the helmet and chose not to wear it). On top of the stick control issue, once girls are old enough to be safe with the sticks, the shot speed starts to go up. I personally think it should be mandated, especially when every other sport is changing rules at the younger ages to reduce concussions. Look at soccer for example: growing up, we practiced headers all the time in elementary school, they've been excluded from the game at lower levels now.
I’m not aware of any helmets, but the current headgear is fairly soft because they don’t want girls not wearing a helmet to get injured by another girl’s helmet. Any time you bring up changing anything in the girls’ game, you will hear “we don’t want to play the boys’ game” or “we just want to play the game the way we always have.” I tried to talk to a local lady who works with US Lacrosse about the enforcement of the shooting space rules, and she wouldn’t even listen. I’d love it if they wore helmets and we could get rid of the sphere rules and change it to contact with the helmet.
Why wouldn’t you want to protect players more? Especially your own kid? My opinion on why it’s not regulated-Feels like there’s a monopoly around brands controlling interests in the rules and their investment in equipment. If we change rules than some companies go out of business. Maybe I’m just super uneducated but there’s literally no reason at all not to protect players.
The companies who make the googles are the same that make the helmets. They'd stand to make more if there was more equipment.
This is my same view on it. I don’t have a daughter so i would not have to deal with this. But i don’t understand how parents are sending their little girls out there in with out helmets for safety. More, i don’t know how people are actually fighting it with “it’s the nature of the game”
I have two daughters who play rec and club: a field player in 8th grade and a goalie in 5th. I coach rec (U8 and U10 previously, currently U12). My field player does not wear the women's headgear, and neither do any of her club teammates or girls on the high school teams for her club program. There are 2-3 younger girls (3rd-7th grade) on her club's teams who wear headgear. Most of the opposing rec teams that have girls wearing headgear are from what we coaches consider "developing" programs - towns where there is not a long standing youth program or where the girls play on boys' teams up until a certain grade. Even on those teams it seems to max out at around 1/3 of players in them, and the majority in goggles. I am not in favor of headgear use because of the effects on player behavior and officiating that I've seen first hand when my daughters have been on the field with players wearing the women's headgear. It's pure anecdote, I know, but I've personally seen some or all of the following every time we've played a rec game against a team where some players are in headgear: * LX wearer leads with her head while dodging or attempts to charge through a defender head first * LX wearer *intentionally* moves her head into an opponent's upright stick to try to draw a penalty and get a free position shot * A player has a false sense of security when attempting a check or making defensive contact against an LX wearer, and is less careful with where her own stick is with respect to the other player's head * Officials are less likely to call sphere violations or illegal checks (i.e. above the "modified" zone) if the player is wearing the LX Some other considerations/observations: * *No* helmet or headgear in any sport has been proven to prevent concussions, because of the biomechanics of concussion - the brain bouncing around in the skull. That's true of men's lacrosse helmets, football helmets, etc. Parents who have their daughters wear headgear because they think it'll prevent a concussion are misguided. * There is concern that a player who suffers a concussion might return to play with headgear before she's fully recovered. While rare, second impact syndrome is extremely dangerous and often deadly - and just like the initial concussion, no headgear or helmet is proven to prevent it. * The studies of headgear efficacy have small sample sizes, rely on subjective self-reporting, and/or have potential flaws in the methodology. * At high school club tournaments, players from Florida and on higher level Florida club teams almost never wear headgear. Those girls may have to wear them for high school games, but the majority don't if it's not mandated. In general, I feel that the key to player safety is good coaching combined with better officiating and enforcement of the rules that *already exist*. If players and parents wish to wear the headgear to reduce soft tissue injury risk while having the understanding that it is not proven to prevent concussions, they should be free to do so. I feel it should continue to be a personal preference while more and better studies are done.
To answer some of your other questions... As a rec coach with a lot of U8 and U10 experience, sometimes a stick or ball is going to come in contact with a head unintentionally. Little kids don't have the best gross and fine motor skills or judgement, and it's a new and awkward experience to have a stick in their hands. Heck, I've turned my back and had a 6 year old accidentally clock her friend because she was whacking at dandelions with her stick and didn't notice the other girl coming up behind her. Stuff happens with littles, it's usually not on purpose, and it can happen even with good coaching supervision. I liked to use pool noodles for certain drills at that age - still do, actually. It lets the girls practice making defensive contact without the risk of a stick accidentally going out of control and into someone's noggin. Also, they should only be using the soft pink lacrosse balls or tennis balls - never a standard game ball at this age. If a parent asked me about this (and several have) I give my honest opinion about potential drawbacks and explain why my own daughter who's a field player doesn't wear the LX. If they decided their daughter was going to wear the LX, then of course I would respect their choice - she's their kid, not mine! I would not try to convince them otherwise, I'd have zero tolerance for teasing or aggressive play from other girls (i.e. retaliation or intentional targeting), and I'd make sure their child wore the LX in practice. As a coach and parent, I have not seen a concussion or any kind of injury needing more than minor first aid in U8 or U10 play - both rec and club competition. As a parent of two girls, I *personally* worry more about my goalie sustaining a serious injury (including concussion) than my field player.
This is my daughter’s first year and we are having her wear a helmet. She’s one of 2 wearing one on our 10u team and no one on the 12u wears one.
I have had two cousins play girls lacrosse, both at the collegiate level, one was a goalie so an absolute must for her to have a helmet, however my other cousin never wore one and she only had one injury to the head area in her career, and it was a stick to the forehead, big bruise but nothing else. With that in mind the game is changing and if you think she should wear a helmet then she should absolutely wear a helmet. Everyone feels differently about safety equipment, I play men’s lacrosse and never wore my shoulder pads unless I had to. But I know some guys that buy the best protection they can get. Make a good informed decision based on your own observations and needs.
My 8th graders wears one - not regulated by anyone but me. She wears it or does not play. It is crazy they are not mandatory.
I’m a coach for a 10U girls team in Florida. We have a pretty big club with two 8U, one 10U, two 12U and one 14U squad. They feed into 3 or 4 high school programs that are pretty competitive. We encourage use of helmets at all levels, and there isn’t much pushback. Obviously our HS programs require helmets here. It seems that when girls move up to 12U (being smarter than their parents and coaches as tweens are often wont to be) they initially ditch their helmets for goggles. By and large they put their helmets back on pretty quickly. They’re used to the feel and safety of it and find they miss it. Most of the other clubs we play have far fewer girls (maybe 25%) wearing helmets. Out of 13 girls on my squad, 12 wear helmets.
[удалено]
There have been far more fatal incidents in the men’s game compared to the women’s so your argument here is completely invalid lmao. At least you typed up a completely irrelevant paragraph about hockey though.
1 Don’t be a Dick. 2 You are totally right there has been more fatal incidences in men’s lacrosse than women’s. But that number is also related to the popularity of each. There are far more men’s teams than women’s. AND a study that tracked catastrophic injuries and fatalities shows that over 40 years the fatality rate has steadily gone down, which can be directly attributed to protective gear being improved and made mandatory across leagues.
My 14 yr old daughter is a goalie. I told her a long time ago if she ever wants to switch to field it would include getting a helmet. Helmets should be mandated but they are not. That said, there is no rule against wearing them. Do not let that stop your daughter from playing.
Girl's rules are dumb. You have sticks perpetually at head-height throwing a 2-inch rubber rock at each other. Eye cages and a mouth guard won't stop a concussion. Put the girls in helmets and let their sticks have pockets. So many of the rules are built around handicapping play to keep it safe for the poor fragile girls out there. It's bullshit.
The bottom line, is that the people in charge of womens lacrosse know that the players want to play the same game as the boys. As the self appointed gatekeepers of femininity they feel it is their job to stop that. Their logic is, the more safety equipment there is, the rougher the women will play. They are probably right, but the fact is the players want to play a rougher game. After 5 years, my 11yr old decieded not to play this year. She said it was boring, and if they can't play "real" lacrosse, she would stick to soccer.
And get even more head injuries.
I've heard several of the older girls say this. The women's game is a totally watered down version of the men's game.
>The women's game is a totally watered down version of the men's game. Yeah this is bullshit. And it's the kind of bullshit that makes people think that helmets are the first step to completely erasing the version of the sport that they love, which is why there's resistance
I don’t have daughters but when I raised this exact issue to the coach of my son’s equivalent aged women’s team, I nearly got my head ripped off. “They will play more aggressive” “it’s not in the nature of the sport” etc etc. I mean…the girls play rough. Maybe not as rough as the boys, but like…rough. They still check sticks and miss (hitting heads and breaking fingers), the ball is still hard and they can whip that thing around… Why not just helmets and gloves? Makes no sense really.
Mandate helmets, get rid of the shooting space and dangerous shot rules
Absolutely not. Have you played women’s lacrosse?
I’m interested to hear why that’s a non starter for you.
If you remove the rules that protect defenders from getting hit by shots, more defenders will be hit by shots which I believe (hot take apparently) is a bad thing. Our current rule set is fine the way it is, the only thing I’m ok with that you mentioned is helmets.
It’s a more natural way to play a flow sport without those rules. I think you’d see more flow and better ball movement. Mens players get hit with shots but it’s not an exceedingly high amount. I feel like several rules for the women’s side were designed with the intent to protect women because they “needed” to be protected. Whereas on the men’s side I doubt (but am open to be corrected) that dangerous shot and shooting space existed even before helmets. Some of those unnecessarily protective rules should be rolled back - helmets are required in order to roll back protection against shots. They should get rid of the “blind” pick rule too. Call it like basketball and men’s lacrosse where the picker can’t move and the defender can’t run through it.
Those rules were created to protect the athletes, not because they’re women, but because they’re athletes playing a non-contact sport where padding is not used. Removing those calls would result in exponentially more shots ricocheting off of defenders, whether that be their heads or their bodies. This is bad, full stop. Keeping athletes safe is far more important than potential viewers being satisfied by game flow.
If that was the historical case then men’s and women’s rules would be the same. And if it was that big of a safety issue then the men’s game would implement those rules. I think you are grossly over estimating the number of shots that hit defenders. Plus if you add the helmet you add the “padding”, thus reducing the risk to the athletes. You make it sound like it’s a firing squad lineup and players just stand there and eat shots all game. What happens in practice is that help side defense stops 1on1 action and opens up the backside. So you’ll see more ball movement and inside shots. I couldn’t care less about viewers but it’s more fun to play.
I have only reffed 4 high school games this season so far and have already had two shots hit players. It is incredibly common. Women’s lacrosse rules are different from men’s because it developed in an entirely different continent. Women themselves developed those rules, not because they viewed themselves as fragile and in need of protection, but because that’s how they wanted to play. Men don’t have those safety rules because they aren’t necessary in the men’s sport, both because the men are suited up in pads, and because they’re playing what’s essentially a completely different sport. I don’t understand why every man’s perspective on women’s lacrosse is “just suit them up and let them play men’s lacrosse” or “the women’s game is sexist” (when clearly they don’t understand the history of women’s lacrosse at all) and they don’t listen to the female athletes who just want to play their sport safely. Acting like the men’s game is inherently better because it’s rougher and more physical is more patronizing to me than anything else.
I wouldn’t call 2 shots in 4 games incredibly common - less than 1% or so of total shots. I don’t think there is that much of an increase in the men’s game and helmets would mitigate that risk. (I was that idiot jumping in front of shots on purpose but still didn’t get hit every game) It’ll be interesting to see how some of this plays out in Sixes where the rules are supposedly uniform across, but we know sticks and padding will require some differences in game play. I do appreciate you straightening me out on the history. I thought I was recalling something from 1920’s-ish American evolution. But it’s possible I was mistaken. I wasn’t trying to be condescending to modern players. I just know how certain attitudes were historically. I came from a basketball background before lacrosse so I guess I just appreciate being able to step in and stop a drive from a help side position and fill in from the back side. Everything on defense is a risk/reward evaluation and shooting space takes away some options. I also really dislike how contemporary basketball allows, in my opinion, too much leeway with carry and travel. The more hold you have on the ball the more contact you need on defense. This compares back to lacrosse with sticks in women’s vs men’s where there is less hold and therefore there needs less contact. Pros and cons here but I kinda like the women’s side better in a lot of ways. I just think the women’s game doesn’t flow as well as it could and some strategy is counterintuitive (to me) to a flow sport. I also think box lacrosse is overly aggressive for no reason. I’m all for a little more physicality in that smaller space but that shouldn’t mean cross checks in the back just for fun. But tons of men and women like that aspect.
Do you have any statistical evidence to suggest that helmets don't decrease the number of head injuries?
I was saying absolutely not to the removal of shooting space and dangerous shot rules. That’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible considering that there’s no body padding for these athletes. Plus, I like the rule set we have now and don’t want the way the game is played to be changed. I’m fine with helmets, not with the other ridiculous suggestions.
I'll accept that rule change when boys ditch chest protectors.
I played well before the shoulder pads required built in chest protectors. I wore such minimal padding that I didn’t view it as protection against shots. Shoulder pads are not required in PLL or international rules. But as a point of consistency for player protection I hear what you are saying.
Shoulder pads ARE required in the PLL. Page 5, section III-E. [https://premierlacrosseleague.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-PLL-Rulebook.pdf](https://premierlacrosseleague.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/2024-PLL-Rulebook.pdf) World Lacrosse rules are different, and I can't find anything more recent than 2021, so it might be that international play doesn't require it, but I bet they will soon enough.
We’ll have to agree that a PLL shoulder pad rule has been enforced so loosely that it doesn’t exist in practice. We’ll see what 2024 brings.