In the debate over eyewear in field hockey, some people have seen the imposition of goggles in girls’ and women’s lacrosse as a two-part acid test.

Part 1 is the determination as to whether goggles offer the necessary protection under the conventional rules and they way they are being interpreted. Part 2 is whether the 2004 adoption of mandatory eyewear is likely to lead to the “superman” effect when it comes to stick-checking, leading to more violent play, and calls for female lacrosse players to don helmets and pads.

Today, we got our answer on the latter. This report from the American Journal of Sports Medicine, leads off with this paragraph: “Women’s lacrosse, envisioned as a genteel version of the sport, apparently could benefit from the helmets, masks, and gloves used by men.”

Apparently, there is a movement, based on the misguided notion that female athletes need “protection,” to try and encase field hockey, lacrosse, softball, and other girls and women in cumbersome equipment which is detrimental to their performance on the field.

Note that this study did not report on whether there was improvements when it came to eye injuries; the data comes from the five years straddling the mandate for eyewear.

There is also one thing to notice in the data. Although the data says that there are twice as many injuries per thousand exposures when it comes to head, neck, and eye injuries, it is significant to note that there does exist a number for comparison of head, neck, and eye injuries in boys’ lacrosse, where the head is cocooned in a helmet and full cage face mask.

And the injury rate for women is twice that very small number. And when you note the injury rate for exposures to field hockey in Pennsylvania that we explored here a few weeks ago, you’d understand that it’s a pretty small risk.

Also, note the patronizing tone of the narrative: “Focused training and education in stick handling may help in preventing some of these injuries.”

More education in stick handling? In an era when stick skills are at an all-time high? Er, no. The one thing that would help return the game of lacrosse to the flowing, skillful game of a few years ago is the banning of the offset stick.

And if the umpires nationwide emphasize penalization of stick checks towards the head (i.e., ones which do not land on the head), you might have something.

It’s completely evident where the whole “protection” regime is going. Someone at U.S. Lacrosse needs to do something about it.