The best protection for girl
lacrosse players against concussions, “many experts insist, is no protection at
all,” reports The New York Times. These experts believe that if girls wear
helmets similar to those worn by boys, the girls will feel safer and, as a
result, play more aggressively, leading to more, not fewer concussions.
Not everyone buys that having
girls wear helmets would lead to more concussions. In an EPSN episode on injuries suffered by
girls playing lacrosse, Dr. Micky Collins says he sees far fewer severe head
injuries among boys playing lacrosse than girls because the boys are wearing
helmets. His evidence is anecdotal as is
much of the evidence of the opponents of having girls wear helmets.
Dr. Robert Cantu believes
girls should wear helmets, arguing in a NewYork Times op-ed that concussions would surely decrease if referees
continue to strictly enforce the rules of girls’ lacrosse. For example, referees could continue to
penalize players who let their sticks come within seven inches of another
player’s head, which is known as the 7-inch halo rule.
But referees are human
too. I can hear the fans now, “Come on, ref! Give the whistle a rest. Just let 'em play!” If referees think that the girls are safer in
their helmets, then they are likely to decrease the number of penalties.
Girls are likely to play
more aggressively and referees are likely to call fewer penalties if girls wear
helmets like the boys. That’s human
nature—we have been programmed for millenniums to weigh benefits and
costs. But as long as the response isn’t
too great, the net effect should be fewer concussions and fewer whistles, which
could be a win-win situation for parents and fans, although perhaps not for some
players who like the greater finesse of girls’ lacrosse.
A lacrosse dad told me
one day that I was lucky to be a softball dad because girl’s lacrosse was soooo
boring to watch, a sentiment that high school boys seem to universally agree
with. One said that he found girl’s
lacrosse “annoying to watch,” because of the constant chorus of whistles. Girls do not universally agree with this,
being more likely to argue that they appreciate the greater finesse exhibited
in the girls’ game.
I decided to test whether
girls’ lacrosse is less fan-friendly to watch by collecting the attendance at
men and women’s lacrosse games in the spring of 2014 at the 11 NESCAC colleges,
which are Amherst, Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Connecticut, Hamilton, Middlebury, Trinity,
Tufts, Wesleyan, and Williams. Only 138
fans, on average, watched the women’s lacrosse games compared to 235 fans at
the men’s games. That’s 97 fewer fans at
the typical women’s lacrosse game.
But, of course, fans may prefer
watching men play sports, regardless of whether one sport is more fan-friendly
to watch than another.
While men and women’s
lacrosse are very different games, men and women’s soccer are very similar. Hence, I decided to use the attendance at soccer
games as a comparison to control for the possibility that fans just like
watching men play sports better than watching women. In the fall of 2014, there were 64 fewer fans
at women’s NESCAC soccer games than men’s.
The bigger drop in the
number of fans who watch women’s lacrosse than women’s soccer compared to the
men’s lacrosse and soccer games, respectively, does suggest that women’s lacrosse
is a less fan-friendly sport to watch. I
did some fancy econometrics, controlling for other factors and changing
everything into percentages. The results
were the same—bigger drops for women’s lacrosse than women’s soccer.
The debate over whether
girls and women who play lacrosse should wear helmets has centered almost
entirely on whether wearing helmets would reduce the number of
concussions. It would also likely change
the nature of the game, which would appeal to some players and not to others,
being an issue of finesse versus power.
But, my results suggest that having girls and women wear helmets would
make it more enjoyable to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment