Eilis McCall was a girl before her time, all because a lacrosse ball struck her in the head last summer.
The injury seemed minor at first — “I didn’t feel dizzy or anything until like half an hour later,” the Timber Creek sophomore said — but the impact resulted in a concussion and damaged McCall’s inner ear.
Symptoms included balance issues, memory loss, nausea and headaches, and when she returned to the field three months later, a doctor suggested McCall wear protective headgear.
She won’t be alone next spring after an FHSAA ruling that will require such protection statewide, creating widespread debate.
“I’m against it, but not because I’m against safety,” Winter Springs coach Todd Brock said. “I don’t think it’s going to promote a safer game. If nothing else, the quickness with which they’re planning on implementing this is really going to be a nightmare next season.”
Orange County athletic director Matt Fitzpatrick favors headgear.
“I consider it like wearing a seatbelt in the car,” Fitzpatrick said. “You can have the best education, driving rules and a cop at every corner, but we’d be fools to get rid of seatbelts or mandate that some people don’t wear seatbelts, because they might drive more aggressively.”
FHSAA spokesman Corey Sobers acknowledged that reaction within the sport “has been mostly negative,” in contrast to outside that realm, including from parents who have had a daughter injured.
“It doesn’t change the nature of the game in any way and adds a layer of protection for the girls,” FHSAA executive director Roger Dearing said.
A specific helmet has not been selected, but many think it will be soft, not hard, like the ones worn by boys lacrosse players. Soft models range from $30 to upward of $80.
Opponents worry that requiring headgear will change the sport. They claim wearing headgear will make players more aggressive, leading to increased head injuries; helmets have not been tested properly and will not prevent concussions; and because helmets aren’t required in college women’s lacrosse, players will be hurt in recruiting.
Those in favor tout the safety aspects of headgear.
Boys lacrosse requires players to wear helmets and shoulder pads.
“We don’t want helmets. We don’t want pads. We don’t want to turn this into rugby,” Oviedo girls coach John Darley said.
U.S. Lacrosse asked the FHSAA to postpone its mandate until 2016, when a study by the sport’s national governing body to standardize girls headgear will be complete.
US Lacrosse’s current rules give players the option to wear soft headgear, but most wear only the required goggles. The goalie must wear a hard helmet.
Although no area statistics were available, injuries to the head and face made up 35.3 percent of all girls lacrosse injuries during the 2012-13 season, a University of Colorado study sponsored by the National Federation of State High School Associations showed.
Lake Brantley coach Casey Paris said the Patriots suffered nine concussions in 2013 and none this past season.
Elaine Saso, a Lake Brantley graduate, wore a helmet last year after two concussions and other head injuries.
“She felt relieved she had something giving her more protection,” said Saso’s mother, Christine.
A petition on change.org to overturn the FHSAA’s mandate has more than 3,300 signatures. Sobers said that is unlikely, and even if the decision is reversed, Fitzgerald said Orange County will require helmets next season anyway. Thirty-four area teams play in FHSAA districts.
The debate rages on.
“It’s crazy that it’s gotten this big,” said Winter Springs senior Haley Brock, no relation to the Bears’ coach. “They want us to be protected. Their hearts are in the right place, but they jumped the gun a little bit.”
McCall’s mother, Stephanie, coaches youth lacrosse and, despite her daughter’s use of headgear, does not think it should be mandatory.
“I’m not advocating that they shouldn’t wear some sort of protection,” she said, “but it should be the right protection.”
