Mon 17 Jan, 2005
|
|
|
|
USA: Opinion: Goggles Mandate Needs to be Scrapped  x20
 |
| Top of the Circle |
January 11, 2005 
TopOfTheCircle.com
> Page Views 510
By Al Mattei
Founder, TopOfTheCircle.com
It seems almost a fait accompli that the National Federation of State High School Associations will mandate eyewear for field hockey, perhaps for as early as the 2005 season.
In a sport fighting for its very relevance in the international level, and demanding of a high level of performance for players as young as the age of 14, this is the dumbest thing that the National Federation could do.
Why?
First of all, there is a rapid improvement and spread of artificial competition surfaces from New England to California to Illinois. Coaches and athletic directors, from small towns to moneyed preparatory schools, realize that artificial grass and turf are good investments not only in the physical plant, but in their athletes.
And as a result of the smoother surfaces, you do not have the ball jumping off knots in the grass, creating the potential for injury.
Two, there is a lot more "skill" play being emphasized across America. Hundreds of players, not only a few dozen, now have those "pool table" skills which can usually be only seen in Tests. Where there may have been resistance to the enhancement of individual skill a few years ago (as opposed to teambuilding), coaches are realizing that having players with gifted hands and game sense only enhance teambuilding.
Third, there is the beginning of a movement in the United States towards more pragmatic and safe tackling on the ball. Tackling from the left of a ballcarrier creates more injuries in the game than just about any other action. But in 2005, USA Field Hockey hired Terry Walsh, the former coach of the Australian and Dutch men's sides, as U.S. Director of High Performance. His philosophy on tackling is to match the right shoulder of the tackler with that of the possessor of the ball -- no tackling from the left, in other words.
The final reason that goggles are not a good idea is that metallic eyewear such as worn in lacrosse is not allowed at the highest level of field hockey -- international Test rules. And, given the fact that all universities, plus a handful of high schools, play international rules, any NFHS ruling will have no bearing on them.
But significant damage could be done to player development if eyewear were to be made mandatory. Players would lose peripheral vision -- especially downward. The goggles, meant to be used for a sport where the ball is at eye level for lacrosse, are in no way meant for a sport where the ball is on the ground.
In addition, players from states where goggles were mandatory may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage when they get to the next level of play because they would have been taught how to tackle properly, strike the ball low and flat, and, in general, would not have learned how to play the game safely.
The impending goggle mandate is a little like banning the dunk in basketball or eliminating bodychecking in the offensive zone in ice hockey -- two ideas which were tried until their effects on the competitive level of the athletes in these particular sports were questioned.
The proof is in the results; was it any wonder that the United States Olympic men's basketball team lost the 1972 gold medal in the middle of the ban on the dunk in the college game? Was it any wonder that Canada was able to win the Summit Series with the Soviet Union after the international ban on offensive checking was lifted in 1968?
In order to dramatize the level of opposition to the rule, coaches' associations in the 26 states that sanction the sport (plus the various multi-state leagues such as WNEPSAA, MAPL, ISL, SPL and MWAA) need to call on their rulesmakers to switch from National Federation rules to FIH rules.
Mind you, it's not because goggles aren't a good idea; indeed, they are great for people recovering from a head injury and for protection for high-risk duties such as corner flying. But they should not be made mandatory, by fiat of the Federation; a "strongly recommended" phrase would suffice.
Your opinion counts.
Rate this article or enter your comments below.
|
Opinions expressed here do not represent the official views of PlanetFieldHockey.com or its staff. Comments will be removed if they are considered offensive or of a personal nature.
Comments on this article
|
Glasses
01-11-2005 8:23 pm
|
Report this post
|
To those pushing for goggles.....
1 - who is driving this in New England?
2 - isn't it really "facial injuries" that are going up?
3 - a field hockey ball doesn't fit in an eye socket - lacrosse balls do. So don't compare the two (that's a parallel you'll hear).
4 - if you support this, I wonder why you aren't asking for helmets and cages
Bad skill is causing FACIAL injuries. Eye goggles won't stop the nasty scar on the cheek.
How many eyes have been lost in the past five years? That'll help start the discussion.
|
|
bella
01-11-2005 10:40 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
ridiculous....the world will just keep laughing at america - just let it be, and put the energy into something else!! I mean, it is the same as telling the gks to wear mouthguards and a helmet....HOW about for all those out there pushing this - try protecting your gks better, it is ridiculous that hs football teams are outfitted better than fh - goggles will not solve anything, and if anything what happens when they get to the intl level and DONT wear them - setting a HYPER motive for young people - if you think you will get hurt - you will. So lets teach our kids to be paranoid....hey, I know lets not allow tackling in football as someone may get hurt. COME ON FOLKS!
|
|
Tom Harris
01-11-2005 11:24 pm
|
Report this post
|
In our local Field Hockey Federation in Southern California, we have children as young as five playing hockey. We have never had a facial injury to a child. (I know we could have one tomorrow.) It seems to me the critical elements are good coaching and a good playing surface. (Not necessarily artificial.) I must admit, I was nervous when my granddaugters played against some, not-so-well-coached players. However, my effort was not to get eye-guards but to get better coaches.
Hockey, like every sport, involves a certain element of risk. It seems to me the rules are written with the saftey of the players in mind. With this thought, the coaches should remind their players not defend from the left until they are coached in this technique by the highest level coaches.
At my advanced age, I attempt to direct the opposing player to my right. If, somehow they get to my left, I wish them well, tell my goaltender to beware and look for another player to defend.
|
|
Law suit society
01-12-2005 2:29 am
|
Report this post
|
Eye protection should be worn voluntarily by those paranoid enough and those recovering from, or susceptible to, eye injury. Mouth guards are a must because teeth can be damaged quite easily and permanently.
It just seems ridiculous to make this eye protection mandatory when, as noted above, in the USA many GKs are not properly protected. GKs throw themselves in front of the ball, outfielders dont. I think eye protection misses the point entirely. Eye damage is caused by dangerous play, either intentional or not, and accidents. In years of playing in Europe i have never actually seen an eye injury in hockey, but a few fat lips, swollen cheeks and broken teeth.
USA are missing the point. Players need to be taught more individual skill and team movement and not to be worried about protecting themselves against freak accidents. If the game is played properly, nobody will get hurt.
USA has a great chance as a 'developing nation' in terms of hockey, to take the best parts from Australia, Europe and India and Pakistan and create an effective hockey side. Maybe the new director can facilitate that for them.
|
|
AZ Player
01-12-2005 11:13 am
|
Report this post
|
What stupidity!!!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for safety, but like some people have mentioned, educate your players on how to tackle. And have better playing surface. I did a coaching stint in IN and I was sick to my stomack to see the playing surface those girls had to play on. You couldn't see the ball if you were 25M away, the ball was hidded in the grass. It was so long.
Stop this, and teach the kids how and when to tackle.
|
|
Cali
01-13-2005 2:51 pm
|
Report this post
|
not this argument again
Sigh. While I hate goggles in general, at least for girls' lacrosse it makes more sense: sticks swinging around the head and face. In hockey, though, not so much of that. In hurling we have a common saying: If you get hit, it's your fault; you are either too close or not close enough (to avoid being hit by a stick). I have my own version: if you get hit (by a ball or stick), you simply are not paying attention - whether it is paying attention to what you are doing or paying attention to what others are doing near you. Goggles will do nothing but hinder the game.
As for Bella's comments about goalkeepers and mouthguards, goalkeepers are not required to wear mouthguards to protect their teeth. Mouthguards are worn to protect against concussions. As a goalkeeper myself, I have had several concussions while wearing a helmet and a mouthguard. The mouthguard has saved me from having really bad concussions, for which I am very thankful. Thank you Shock Doctor!
|
|
Observer
01-13-2005 4:54 pm
|
Report this post
|
Add helmets and pads as well
Then high jack the game and call it American Hockey. Just like you fools did with Rugby and turned AMERICAN FOOTBALL in to the worlds most boring sport!
|
|
namelessderro
01-14-2005 12:44 am
|
Report this post
|
goggles?
why on earth would you wear goggles while playing hockey? i mean cum on there are sum things that take safety to the extreme and sum things that are just stupid, all they do is giv the players worse vision so there is more chance of them gettin hit.
and also i have one question? how sturdy are these goggles, cause i know if a ball hit me in the eye i wud rather have the black eye that have the goggles burst and cut the **** out of my eye with all the shards of glass flying at it
|
|
Irish Hockey
01-14-2005 6:02 am
|
Report this post
|
goggles
we people over here can say it, it could only happen in america! I have been playing hockey for nearly 15 years and have not once been hit anywhere around the head, because as someone pointed out earlier, i have been vigilent on the pitch and watch the ball not the player. Goggles on the pitch, i ask you, what next men wearing skirts and women wearing jock straps!!??
|
|
foreigner in USA
01-14-2005 8:31 am
|
Report this post
|
|
This issue was brought up because of some collegiate players who have been hit in the head and there have been some near fatal accidents. I am completely against the idea, and think it should be a choice. If someone feels that much better wearing them then so be it, but then there is a difference of opinion through the officials. So, there needs to be a standard pair of goggles that an athlete can choose to wear if desired. Making them mandatory is stupid.
|
|
huh?
01-14-2005 7:01 pm
|
Report this post
|
Re: Foreigner in USA
You've shown how idiotic this proposal is. Near fatal head injuries (in the NCAA) won't be stopped by wearing goggles. IF this is the argument people are making then please change it to helmets and face shields. Goggles won't help when a ball rattles off your forehead while playing post or you tackle from the wrong side and get a stick to the head.
This is beyond assinine.
|
|
Ping Pong
01-14-2005 10:05 pm
|
Report this post
|
The REAL Reason for Goggles!
Quite simply - the reason is that the company who makes these goggles stand to make a small fortune from sales.
They are in on the thick side with the NFHS...whoever said high school sports didn't have have the potential to make money?!
This is how America works, everyone must make a buck; while the athletes slowly become the laughing stock of the world.
|
|
referee
01-15-2005 9:17 am
|
Report this post
|
Goggles
I totally agree with all that is being said,the US will be made to look ridiculous!! It should be an option for players on the high school level, not a REQUIREMENT or MANDATE!! The skills, coaching, and playing sufaces are improving and the old school "protect the delicate female athlete psyche" still exists in America along with corporate greed at the Federation level . The umpiring at the high school level should also keep pace with the improving skills, this alone would improve the players chances of executing a skill correctly and not dangerously. I think it is both ridiculous and an insult to the field hockey community to require such equipment as goggles, in a sport that is so very beautiful to both watch and play at the highest levels...
|
|
foreigner in USA
01-15-2005 6:57 pm
|
Report this post
|
|
I am just stating where this came from...i agree that the standard of hockey needs to improved in this country, and by doing so the whole argument for goggles would not be an issue. People here think goggles will solve the problems, i didnt say i agree with it. Hockey should not require face guards...but some people feel safer wearing it, i dont know, i have never worn one and never plan to.
|
|
yknot?
01-15-2005 8:38 pm
|
Report this post
|
head gear
look at the progression of football, ice hockey, lacrosse...it is a no brainer. why are we so stuck in the past an dnot advancing to head gear? it will improve our game!!! enuff about the lack of vision, or making it more dangerous. it is a sign of progression not regression. gear up and express our game the way it will be..its now or our game will be never.
|
|
Stiches
01-15-2005 11:03 pm
|
Report this post
|
improvements yes, goggles no
As a player currently recovering from a significant head injury caused by a chip shot directly to the forehead, I don't agree that protective eyewear is the right direction to be heading. Younger players are becoming stonger and more skilled using powerful equipment (composite sticks). Injuries, and serious ones, are bound to occur. Everyone in the game is responsible for dangerous play. Coaches need to teach and refine skills to keep players safe, players need to be responsible for their play at all times, and finally umpires too must be given direction as to what is dangerous play and to penalise it consistantly and effectively. Players wearing goggles are more dangerous in my mind than the peaked caps that are already forbidden in the game. I've bumped heads with players in tackles and have never been as seriously injured as I am now -- dealing with the post concussion aftermath of a careless shot in practice with a new composite stick.
Players are making excellent use of the new technologies in the game. We just need to make sure that the equipment does not exceed the capabilities of a player's current skill level. Adding protective gear is a reaction to and not an address of the potential for head injuries in hockey.
|
|
shinpads
01-16-2005 12:08 am
|
Report this post
|
No Brains
Hockey is not a contact sport. Hockey has rules to limit the amount of physical and dangerous contact. This sport is predominantly played with the ball on the ground and if not, any sense of danger is usually policed... (not well enough or often enough at the lower level though)
To compare this sport with what I presume is American football is like comparing a straw house to a brick one. Besides there are a lot more dangerous football related sports than Gridiron that do not use any protection at all. The same goes for Ice Hockey.
It may be interesting to the thought police in the US to see a few games of Rugby, Rugby League or Australian Rules or even Soccer to see how soft the Mc. Donalds and Mickey Mouse Society has become.
So, if you feel threatened by the little white ball and people with big sticks, go and put all the padding on and play the sports that need head and eye protection so you will feel safer.
It is good to remember that more people are seriously injured with eye and facial injuries playing Netball than there are in our sport. Do we stop netballers from enjoying themselves and put full body armour on them too?
The P.C. society is on the way out and reality life experience (not rubbish "Reality" TV) is coming back thank goodness
|
|
namelessderro
01-16-2005 2:28 am
|
Report this post
|
head gear a progression?
yknot, i actually did what you said and had a look at american football, ice hockey and lacrosse and you know what i realised? that in their progression they have not grown outside the USA apart from maybe ice hockey and then i looked at some other sports, namely soccer, cricket and rugby. I noticed that none of them involve large amounts of padding and all three are very popular around the world.
We already have people complaining about how much it costs to buy hockey gear, a helmet will not help that situation, as well as the fact that wearing a face guard will only impare vision making the game a lot less skilled as well as encouraging dangerous tackles ('thats why we wear a helmet' psychie)
ok it really is not a progression, its jsut a quick fire way to avoid sum idiots going and trying to make a quick buck after they get hit playing the game.
|
|
Hockey Player
01-16-2005 6:12 am
|
Report this post
|
yknot get a brain
yknot - have you actually ever played hockey?
Hockey or field hockey as you call it, is a non-contact sport. It is a fast and skillful game with no room for the heavy padded physicalities of American Football or Ice Hockey. It will in no way make the sport any better and do you actually believe this is a progression? Why not take those few no brain ideas and start your own sport. Call it American Hockey, pad everyone up, include players who can come on the field just to fight and split the game up with countless adverts. Leave those who want to play the game properly to get on with it. Ever wondered why no other country has ever considered this farcical idea? It's because it is ridiculous. In my 20 years of playing and coaching the sport, I have never seen or heard of an injury that would have been prevented by the wearing of goggles. If kids are coached properly and tackle from the correct side, they will not put themselves in the dangerous position to be hit.
People on this site so desperately want hockey in the US to develop, but things like this will just make you a laughing stock.
|
|
Please No!
01-16-2005 3:58 pm
|
Report this post
|
just an opinion and some "info"
The only people required to wear googles at the moment from my understanding are the young women playing high school hockey in Massachusetts. If it have reached into other new england states than I apologize for my error.
From hear say, I believe the reason the goggles mandate began was because of an overzealous father who's daughter or daughter's friend got hit in the eye area...this father apparently thought it would be a great safety device (i also believe he had never played the game to really understand) and appealed to the MIAA for the requirement. Also after hearing from various sources and I say this knowing that is may very well be conspiracy chatter in the hockey world, that this man has made a profit off his great idea.
Personally, I have been hit while playing a "higher level" game in the lower forehead with a shot (fyi - I was in the proper positioning, it was the shooters error) and honestly can say it would have been worse if I had been wearing these ridiculous goggles. These things are a hinder to the game and poor judgement by the MIAA to make them a requirement.
I hope that this mandate never occurs! US hockey may be completely damned if it does...even without the USFHA having anything to do with it...imagine that!
|
|
|
|
 |
HOME | FEATURES | CLUBHOUSE | CAMPS | LINKS | ABOUT US | STORE | ADVERTISE
Use of this site is subject to certain Terms & Conditions.
|
|
|
