As soon as Watertown built a 2-0 lead in the Div. 3 state final at WPI, Newburyport head coach Shannon Haley called a rare, first-quarter timeout to settle down the Clippers.

What followed was an instant classic.

By the end of the half, Newburyport snapped the Raiders’ national-record, 41-game shutout streak with the first goal Watertown allowed in nearly two seasons. By the end of the third quarter, the Clippers tied the score at 3-3. And by the end of the game, it was Molly Driscoll’s 150th career goal that propelled long-unbeaten Watertown to a three-peat.

Newburyport gave a great fight, but Watertown still accomplished what many thought it would to perfectly embody what we saw across the entire sport this year.

For as many close calls and regular season upsets as there were, the main powers from the last three seasons still held up the ultimate trophy. Uxbridge outscored playoff opponents 36-0 to three-peat in Div. 4. Walpole beat Andover in their third straight Div. 1 state final matchup. Reading and Norwood were exceptions with Div. 2 state final debuts, but the Rockets’ title was three years in the making.

Don’t get it twisted, this was arguably the most parity we’ve seen in field hockey since 2020; loaded with program-firsts and individual milestones. But the fact that two teams still three-peated, and a third almost did, is a sign for tournament changes. It’s time we revisit the idea of something like a Super 8.

Many voices call for teams like Watertown and Uxbridge to move up to Div. 1, setting them up to play other historically premier programs come tournament time. But that’s just moving a Div. 3 or Div. 4 problem into a Div. 1 problem. Andover, Walpole and Acton-Boxboro are already thorns in Div. 1, so throwing Watertown and Uxbridge in there only complicates things.

Instead, let’s recreate the Div. 1A, double-elimination tournament.

Selection wouldn’t be political – you take the top-10 teams in the power rankings and put seeds 7, 8, 9 and 10 in a play-in round. Selection wouldn’t be exclusive to bigger schools – Watertown (Div. 3), Reading (Div. 2), Norwood (Div. 2), Uxbridge (Div. 4) and Newburyport (Div. 3) all ranked in the state’s top-10 this year.

Field hockey is already a sport with parity among the best in each division, so sending a qualified Div. 4 team to play a Div. 1 team isn’t putting it in an unfair situation. And whenever any of the dominant teams within the lower divisions aren’t at their peak, they aren’t committed to playing well beyond their enrollment in the Div. 1 tournament.

Safety and boys

The state tournament made national news when a Dighton-Rehoboth girl was tragically hospitalized because a ball – from a Swampscott boy’s sweep during a corner – struck her in the mouth and caused significant facial injuries.

I talked about the incident with well over a dozen prominent coaches who saw the tape – none of whom want boys playing with the girls. Here are two main takeaways from these conversations:

First, what cannot be overlooked from this is the need for mandatory facial protection when defending corners. The speed and height of this particular ball weren’t extraordinary for what most players see in any given game, as high-velocity, wayward shots on corners happen often. Some say the ball even looked tipped, which is also common. Field hockey face-shields are available for such instances, and it can no longer be optional to wear them on those plays.

Second, most coaches want boys to play. Field hockey isn’t any more a strictly girls’ sport than ice hockey was a strictly boys’ sport. They want it for everyone, just not co-ed because it is provenly unsafe, unfair, and does take opportunities away from some girls.

Change will not come from just pointing fingers at the MIAA, though. This is a 44-year fight that can’t be fixed by just banning boys.

Girls hockey partly came to prominence in the MIAA by parents, clubs and youth leagues promoting the sport. It built interest outside of MIAA competition. The MIAA certainly could look into running more camps and clinics to help build that interest, and could take another dive into potentially altering the conditions of boys’ participation on the girls’ teams without outright banning them.

It is clear, though, that boys need to leave the girls’ sport soon – not just for the girls’ sake, but the boys’ too. Hopefully co-ops and independent 7-on-7 teams will form sooner than later. It seems to be the best spark for change.

Table officials

Newton North’s protest of its 3-2 first-round state tournament loss to Needham is understandable.

With under three minutes to go, officials waved off a game-tying goal on a corner due to a Tigers illegal substitution before the insert. The officials didn’t see the substitution – Needham brought it to their attention, and a consultation with the table led to their decision. The official timer is responsible for monitoring substitutions, so officials followed the right protocol. But Newton North’s issue is that the timer and keeper of the official book were Needham students.

It’s common for the table to be made up of the hosting school’s students, but that needs to change for the playoffs. At least one adult should be at the table with a clear understanding of their responsibilities moving forward, which is already suggested as “experienced timer” in the rulebook.