I disagree that this device constitutes headwear, which is apparel more like a headband or a decorative or religious head covering (hat, bandana, head scarf, etc.). So I don't think 3-5-3 is applicable to this device.
This is equipment rather than apparel, and is a kind of "guard" subject to the provisions of 3-5-2. It's not worn below the elbow, so 3-5-2a doesn't apply, nor on the upper arm or shoulder (b), nor on the leg (c). So, provided it meets provision d, that it's worn for medical reasons (and of course 3-5-1), it would be legal.
Helpful in this regard is 3.5 SITUATION A, which I've excerpted below.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2009 Case Book
There are three criteria which determine the legality of equipment. First,
any equipment which, in the judgment of the referee, is dangerous to others. In
this respect, elbow, wrist, hand, finger or forearm guard, cast or brace made of
hard and unyielding leather, plaster, pliable (soft) plastic, metal or any other hard
substance shall always be declared illegal “even though covered with soft
padding....” The second standard provides
that “any equipment which is unnatural and designed to increase the player’s
height or reach, or to gain an advantage, shall not be used.” The referee is given
no leeway here and judgment is not required. The third criterion provides that
equipment used must be appropriate for basketball and not be confusing. In this
sense, gloves, football face masks and helmets are not acceptable. A protector for
a broken nose, even though made of hard material, is permissible if it does not
extend so as to endanger others, if it is not sharp and if it has no cutting edges.
Eyeglass protectors are considered appropriate equipment for basketball provided
they meet the qualifications for legal equipment, including the third criterion.
|
Just as a protector for a broken nose might meet these 3 criteria, I believe a head guard to protect from concussion might as well.