I suspect this is correct. I believe there have been studies on similar types of equipment in soccer that found no benefit. (That did not stop one state from mandating them in HS for a period of time.) There may be players who have a legitimate medical reason to where such headgear, but I doubt it is actually for concussions.

Jeff:

I am going to use your comments as my jumping off point because I am surprised that Illinois would rule that it is illegal. That said...

In the "Ancient Days", the NBCofUS&Canada Rules Committee (now that NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's Rules Committees) did make a ruling with regard to players and face masks to protect broken noses. We have all see the type of clear molded acrylic mask. The Rules Committee ruled that these types of masks were legal, but what the Rules Committee did say was that a football helmet face mask could not be worn instead of the molded mask.

Let us now jump ahead to the present time. I officiated H.S. (NFHS Rules) soccer only but did not officiate travel soccer (USSF, now USA Soccer Rules) from 1993 to 2005. Concussions started to be discussed around the turn of the century Full 90 produced its first type of head piece for soccer players. The head piece was made of a soft material like this one but was not initially ruled legal because soccer players used their heads to strike the ball (gee, I wonder why a soccer player would get a concussion). I personally, thought that it was a no brainer for it to be legal, but what do I know.

Mark, Jr., and I have officiated Special Olympics basketball games on a number of occasions in which a player has worn the Full 90 head gear and I have never given it a second thought. In fact we have officiated a boys' basketball game in which one of the players wore an insulin pump as well as a girls' fast pitch softball tournament in which one of the participants also wore and insulin pump.

I just do not see how this product can be ruled illegal and if it is legal I do not believe it should be subject to the color restrictions. Just my two cents.

MTD, Sr.

There's various reasons players wear headbands.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/08/08ec8...a0e051483a.jpg

No Restrictions ...
 

According to a trusted and esteemed member (whom I personally know) on the IAABO (International) Officials' Education and Development Committee, a 2015-16 NFHS PowerPoint slide exists that contains the statement: Concussion Head bands – No Restrictions

"No color restrictions for concussion headbands" used to be a "Connecticut Only" rule for many years until this slide came out in 2015-16, so this statement was deleted from our "Connecticut Only" rules because this slide seemed to cover the situation.

I definitely remember seeing this slide, but I can find no reference to this specific slide online. I will try to further followup on this matter.

This may of been one of those hybrid NFHS/IAABO PowerPoints, and thus, may only apply to states, or schools, served by IAABO officials.

Color Restrictions ...
 

Somewhat agree. Then why does the NFHS state that knee braces have no color restrictions? The NFHS also states that headbands do have color restrictions, and are not concussion headbands one form of a headband that goes around the entire head (only wristbands must be moisture-absorbing)?

Mark their justification was simple. They did not have any scientific evidence these things worked and did not fit any appropriate basketball usage. They did something similar with some covers on helmets. Now why would that surprise anyone? The NF has not even addressed this publicly. I am sure the NF is also leery of these things and probably why they have not approved them nationally. And basketball is a contact sport that the things you have on will likely strike another player. Those things are different than what is allowed in sports like baseball or softball where there is almost no contact in the game.

Peace

They Work, But Not for Concussions ...
 

What many of us are calling "concussion preventing headbands" are not actually called that because they don't actually reduce, or prevent, concussions (as many Forum members have correctly pointed out), and are no longer marketed that way.

But there is evidence that this type of headband can actually prevent some injuries. Medical professionals agree that such headgear is suitable for preventing fractures, lacerations, and bleeding.

OK, then why has the NF or the NCAA allowed such things to be used?

Peace

Shakespeare On The Forum ...
 

"Ay, there's the rub." (Hamlet, William Shakespeare)

3.5 SITUATION A: What are the standards which the referee must use in determining whether a team member will be permitted to wear certain equipment?

RULING: The referee must rule on the legality of any piece of equipment which is worn to protect an injury. 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 guards, casts or braces made of hard and unyielding leather, plaster, plastic, metal or any other hard substance shall always be declared illegal “even though covered with soft padding.” Thus, the rule does not permit that this provision be set aside. The prohibition of the use of hard substance material does not apply to the upper arm, or shoulder if the hard material is appropriately padded so that in the judgment of the referee it is not hazardous to others. Knee and ankle braces which are unaltered from the manufacturer’s original design are permitted and do not require any additional padding/covering. Equipment which could cut or cause an opponent to have an abrasion is also always illegal and, therefore, is prohibited. It will be noted that the listing of equipment which is always illegal is not inclusive. It cannot identify every item which is not permitted. The generalization is required since the referee’s judgment is necessary.

The second standard provides that “any equipment which is unnatural and designed to increase the player’s height or vertical reach, or to gain a competitive 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 provided it is worn molded to the face with no protrusions. Eyeglass protectors are considered appropriate equipment for basketball provided they meet the qualifications for legal equipment, including the third criterion.

First point: the item which BillyMac is talking about is known as headgear. I've seen several in soccer under the marketing of a company known as Full90.

This optional is equipment is permitted in soccer, but not in basketball. It does not meet the requirements for a headband in basketball. It is not a continuous band a maximum of 4" wide. Hence, a basketball player must be granted a special exemption from the state office to wear this headgear/headcovering.

Many state associations are not endorsing them for soccer because the scientific benefits have not been substantiated and doing so would expose them to a lawsuit.

As a referee, a problem which I have observed is that kids who wear these play more aggressively and even recklessly because they have a false sense of security in wearing this form of protection. This has led to more of these kids and kids with whom they collide suffering injuries.

Appropriate For Basketball ...
 

The Full90 model may not meet the definition of a headband, but other protective headband models may:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....hL._SX355_.jpg

The Full90 model may sneak into a game, not as a headband, but as a medical device like a knee brace, ankle brace, protective goggles, etc. It's not dangerous to others, it's doesn't provide an unfair advantage, and it's not confusing. But is it "appropriate" for basketball? The NFHS appears to be moot on this subject and has left it up to individual officials and/or individual states. Such headbands are legal in Connecticut, and were, at one time, legal in Ohio, and as medical devices, have no color restrictions.

I would be hard pressed to not allow a medical device that seems to meet the NFHS criteria which determine the legality of equipment, and has been shown to prevent head fractures, lacerations, and bleeding (but not concussions).

It's also specifically illegal in NCAA, based on the recommendations of the Sports Medicine Committee (or something like that).

I reserve the right to be wrong on this, but does this new NFHS POE settle this issue for those whose states follow such things? (I don't recall anyone posting this yet and it seemed germane to the point).

Basketball Points of Emphasis - 2017-18
By NFHS on June 02, 2017
1. Equipment worn on head for medical or religious reason. Specific procedures have been established for allowing a head covering to be worn for medical or religious reasons. A player who is required to wear a head covering for medical or religious reasons must provide a physician statement or appropriate documented evidence to the state association for approval. If approved, the state association shall provide written authorization to the school to be made available to officials.

Because of officials like you. Who need everything spelled out. Can you imagine if they left that out? Would you collapse in a game where kids had different color knee braces? I don't care, and a kid better have an exemption if he wants to play in a game I'm officiating with a helmet on.

If that is the case you could wear a cast on your head too. Obviously that is not allowed by other rules, so why would this be different if the device or devices like this are spelled out to be legal because it is a medical device. I think states can define what is used for medical (be more strict) as to what is allowed. Again, if the NF wants this to be legal, they can justify it by saying they are legal. But I would think a state could require more information that they are wearing it for medical reasoning. I would think that any state could require documentation where the NF has not jurisdiction over that kind of issue other than what they put in the rules.

Peace