<p>Interesting review of the debate and an interview with Columbia University players about whether or not the governing authorities should require helmets for the women. I've wondered why the gals don't have head gear, since they use sticks just like the men and the lacrosse ball can cause no little amount of damage if you get hit in the head. In some ways womens' lacrosse reminds me of the old style of womens' basketball when they couldn't cross half-court. Are the 'restricted contact' rules in womens LAX unfair to the players? See the NY Times story today.</p>
<p>If you read the article, there are definite rules about not being able to check into the head (the Halo-an imaginary bubble 7" around the head)and they are intended to protect the head from being checked. It is a MAJOR FOUL if a player is caught doing this, and refs do not like it one bit.
Women’s lacrosse is a completely different game from men’s. It requires finesse, grace and speed vs. brute force. Might be worth your while to see one some time, you don’t know what you are missing.</p>
<p>and the punishment for a major foul is: “If a major foul occurs outside of the 12 meter fan or eight meter arc, the fouler must stand four meters behind the player she fouled”</p>
<p>that will stop 'em?</p>
<p>What radannie said. It’s a different game - and hugely fun to watch. </p>
<p>You don’t get hit in the head with the ball.* And as the article points out, the concussions that do happen are from collisions, not so much from flagrant fouls.</p>
<p>The rules are not unfair to the players. Girls and women who play lax love their game. I think this quote from the article probably speaks for the vast majority of girls and women who play: " “Wearing a helmet,” Richardson said, “would just bring us closer to football and hockey.” " I suspect there was an unspoken " . . . and men’s lax."</p>
<p>*Except maybe if you’re goofing off and not paying attention during practice. (Come to think of it, I’m closely related to someone who got her nose broken that way.)</p>
<p>What the article glosses over is that women’s lacrosse has a lower rate of concussions than basketball and soccer, neither of which involve sticks or rubber balls. Most of the concussions in these sports come from body collisions and falls, and as a former college lax player, I would venture that a large number of concussions in women’s lacrosse come from collisions and falls rather than stick contact. And unlike the other 2 sports, in lacrosse girls are required to wear mouthguards, whose main purpose is to prevent concussions (by cushioning a blow so the jaw doesn’t bash the brain).</p>
<p>And even though the men have helmets, women still have a 15% lower rate of concussions. </p>
<p>Anyway, the main argument against helmets is that they will change the game by making it ‘okay’ to be more physical and aggressive. As long as players, coaches and referees are diligent there is no reason to think that helmets are necessary or even helpful.</p>
<p>I also find it SO frustrating to hear people say women’s lacrosse is not as physical or aggressive…an athlete can be physical and aggressive w/out having to beat the heck out of an opponent.<br>
Jennalee, yes! being 4 yards behind a player puts your team at a significant disadvantage, as in a player down. And, you will get kicked out of the game if you have too many of those hits towards the head! It is a VERY WELL known rule, and it is VERY TABOO to do this! One of the most important rules youth are taught.
I don’t know of any player in my hs and college career, and now as a hs coach, who suffered a concussion…a broken nose here or there, yes, but not concussions.</p>