Concussion Type Headbands ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

Would you collapse in a game where kids had different color knee braces?

No. Different color knee braces are legal.

Would you allow players wearing a variety of headband, wristband, arm sleeve, leg sleeve, and undershirt colors in your varsity high school game? Are you one of those officials who doesn't enforce equipment restriction rules because such rules have “nothing to do with the game of basketball”?

I do what we are locally taught, and what we are rated on by our peers, and by members of our observation team.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... 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.

I fully understand your point, but why is it that some medical equipment requires documentation (head covering) and some does not (prescription eyeglasses, knee brace, ankle brace, protective goggles, broken nose shield, hearing aid, medical alert medal, mouth guards), some of which are already covered by NFHS rules (as stated by JRutledge), while others aren't.

Also, the NFHS states that it cannot identify every item which is not permitted, yet it attempts to list about a dozen items (gloves, helmets), even such items as shoes with flashing lights.

When new items show up on the radar (protective headbands), the NFHS should respond, legal, or illegal.

Or we can go with the old adage that if it's not illegal, then it's legal.

There's got to be a better way.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

... a kid better have an exemption if he wants to play in a game I'm officiating with a helmet on.

Even with written documentation from the state, he still may not be able to wear a helmet (based on how one reads the casebook play below). The NFHS has specifically deemed helmets illegal, because the NFHS has decided that helmets are not appropriate for basketball.

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? ... 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.

Read the last sentence in 3.5 SITUATION A (note no comma after "mask"). Are all helmets illegal, or are football helmets illegal?

[JRutledge]

I do not care why some are and some are not. And as stated it is officials like you that make this issue difficult because you want to get something that has not been given. Ask your local people and have them give their interpretations. It happens that way with everything else. And my state for example came out last year and told us what they were not going to allow as it must have come up somehow to if those things were legal or not. Now if the NF cannot do that, I cannot explain why, I do not work in Indianapolis to know either way. We also had history with this because there was a similar football item on the helmet that were addressed and also ruled illegal that claimed to have been concussion preventing.

Peace

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Even with written documentation from the state, he still may not be able to wear a helmet (based on how one reads the casebook play below). The NFHS has specifically deemed helmets illegal, because the NFHS has decided that helmets are not appropriate for basketball.

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? ... 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.

Read the last sentence in 3.5 SITUATION A (note no comma after "mask"). Are all helmets illegal, or are football helmets illegal?

I'm sorry, but any state athletic association ruling will override the "rule/case" book anyday. Like I said earlier, things need to be spelled out because of officials like you. There are no shortage of them in any association. You are the polar opposite from the "I just do it for the money and dont care" officials. Like life, either extreme is not good for anyone's health.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

I'm sorry, but any state athletic association ruling will override the "rule/case" book any day.

In the highly organized IAABO world that I live in, a ruling from the IAABO state board, or my local board, will do it for me. Luckily, in 100% IAABO Connecticut, the state interscholastic high school sports governing organization (CIAC) and the IAABO state board do an excellent job of communicating with each other and always seem to be on the same page.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by deecee

... things need to be spelled out because of officials like you.

Consistency, especially consistency among basketball official educators like me, is always important. Unfortunately, sometimes NFHS "gray areas" can lead to inconsistent rulings among officials. That's why I offered the compression shorts rule change to the NFHS a few years ago, that was eventually accepted, and added to the rulebook. What's a "uniform color", especially when the uniform jersey may be a different color than the uniform shorts? The old rule was interpreted in two different ways by officials, now it isn't.

The reason why I started this thread is because I'm writing an article for publication on equipment restriction rules, often called "Fashion Police" rules, and I needed some up to date information on protective headbands. I take my role as a basketball official educator quite seriously.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Consistency, especially consistency among basketball official educators like me, is always important.

Isn't that resolved if your state or chapter of IAABO just says this is the way it is done? Why do you need the NF to clear this up when the NF is likely not dealing with the fall out? States are dealing with the fall out or have direct jurisdiction over your games. That is why my state made a ruling on the matter because what is considered "medical" is going to be ultimately based on the rules of the state. Just like when a player can or cannot play with concussion-like-symptoms. The medical professionals are determined and licensed by states or even state law, which is the case here. Why would a state that can govern many laws need the help of the NF when the laws in state are different?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Isn't that resolved if your state or chapter of IAABO just says this is the way it is done?

That's the way it's supposed to work, but it doesn't always work that way. I respect IAABO. I respect our state board. I respect my local board, but we're certainly far from perfect. An interpretation is made, it's announced at a meeting. Some guys miss the meeting. Some guys aren't paying attention at that meeting. Later, rookie officials, and transfers from other areas, including non-IAABO, never attended that past meeting. Even before such interpretations are made, some local board interpreters aren't aware that there are minor unannounced changes in NFHS rules that might be confusing, and such interpretations are never made.

So later, down the line, a few officials are having a post game discussion about, let's say for example, a player wearing green compression shorts that may, or may not, be of a legal color. If this discussion group had happened a few years ago, and if they opened up their NFHS rulebook, the rulebook would say that compression shorts must be the same color as the "uniform". The player in question had red uniform shorts, and a green uniform jersey. Do they go by the older rule that the compression shorts must be the same color as the uniform shorts, or do they use some newer guidelines that say that equipment must be one of a limited group of colors, one being the color of the uniform jersey. The rulebook can't help them, it only says the same color as the "uniform". None of them were at the meeting where the interpretation was announced, or weren't paying attention at that meeting. Or that local interpreter didn't realize that the NFHS had made a minor unannounced change in the compression short rule (change the rule from color of the uniform shorts to color of the "uniform").

Under such conditions, a player may be allowed to wear one color compression shorts on one night, and not be allowed to wear the same shorts under the same conditions the next night. That's certainly not very consistent. What are coaches, players, and fans to think when they see inconsistent rulings from night to night?

Now that the NFHS has made it clear that compression shorts are to be treated like almost any other type of equipment (white, black, beige, or the color of the jersey), it's more likely that interpretations will be consistent. It's right there in the rule book for everybody to see in black and white. The rule can't be misconstrued.

Now back to protective headbands. And I don't even care about what goes on in other states. We've got officials walking around Connecticut with a NFHS rulebook in their back pocket that think that they're not allowed, no matter what color. We've got guys that think that they're allowed, but they must be a proper color (like any equipment). And we've got guys that think that they're allowed with no color restrictions. And I haven't even brought up the variable of state documentation. And those are the guys that care, not to mention the guys that don't give a damn about fashion issues. What are coaches, players, and fans (parents that pay fifty bucks for one of these protective headbands) to think when they see inconsistent rulings from night to night?

Protective headbands? There was one slide displayed at one meeting a few years ago. Nothing in writing. No followup. Nothing. I'm a pretty good rule guy, and I couldn't remember the exact interpretation, or its source. I've been searching and I can't find a copy of that slide. I thought it was a NFHS ruling. As it turns out, it's probably just an IAABO ruling tacked onto a 2015-16 NFHS "New Rules" PowerPoint.

Is the NFHS oblivious to the fact that these headbands are showing up, granted, on a very limited basis, in our games? I never saw shoes with flashing lights in any of my games until after the NFHS came up with a caseplay stating the they were illegal. They reacted to shoes with flashing lights, why won't they react to these protective headbands?

Now, would somebody please help me down off this soapbox. I'm getting dizzy up here.

Since the educational "Fashion Police" article that I'm writing is only for IAABO members, I'm writing that protective headbands are allowed and have no color restrictions, just as God, and IAABO intended.

With apologies to Admiral David Farragut, damn the NFHS rulebook, full speed ahead.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's the way it's supposed to work, but it doesn't always work that way. I respect IAABO. I respect our state board. I respect my local board, but we're certainly far from perfect. An interpretation is made, it's announced at a meeting. Some guys miss the meeting. Some guys aren't paying attention that the meeting. Later, rookie officials, and transfers from other areas, including non-IAABO, never attended that past meeting. Even before such interpretations are made, some local board interpreters aren't aware that there are minor unannounced changes in NFHS rules that might be confusing, and such interpretations are never made.

They announced their ruling by putting the information out on their website (We all have a personal website from the IHSA) and they got the word out with the IHSA Clinicians and Rules Interpreters. So if people did not know the ruling, shame on them. Attending a meeting is not the only way to get out information. All you had to do was read an email, website or attend meetings if you belonged to an association. And in many cases the Arbiter is used to make these rulings even more public as the assignors pass along these important rulings.

Sounds like IAABO is just what people say they are. They do not seem like a very competent organization if this is a problem. I thought IAABO made their own rulebooks and mechanics material?

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I thought IAABO made their own rulebooks and mechanics material?

NFHS rulebooks. IAABO mechanics.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS rulebooks. IAABO mechanics.

IAABO seldom (almost never) makes up their "own" rules and interpretations, counting on the NFHS to do that. One infamous exception was a few years ago when IAABO decided, unilaterally, to come out with a "protect the free throw shooter" interpretation when the NFHS made the change from hit to release. The NFHS made the IAABO "protect the free throw shooter" interpretation "official" the following year with a NFHS rule change. If the NFHS hadn't made the rule change, IAABO would have looked pretty silly with an interpretation that could not be supported by a "written" rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They announced their ruling by putting the information out on their website (We all have a personal website from the IHSA) and they got the word out with the IHSA Clinicians and Rules Interpreters.

Sounds like you guys really have your act together.

Are all protective headbands illegal in Illinois?



This protective headband (above) looks like it would pass for an ordinary legal headband if worn with a blue uniform jersey (solid color, nonabrasive, unadorned, maximum of 2 inches, one visible logo permitted).

JRutledge: I'm curious. How was the Illinois protective headband restriction worded?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sounds like you guys really have your act together.

Are all protective headbands illegal in Illinois?



This protective headband (above) looks like it would pass for an ordinary legal headband if worn with a blue uniform jersey (solid color, nonabrasive, unadorned, maximum of 2 inches, one visible logo permitted).

JRutledge: I'm curious. How was the Illinois protective headband restriction worded?

I do not remember and do not care. I do not go around worrying about things that never are used or try to get into the weeds about things that are not an issue in the first place. Never saw the other device that you mentioned, so why would I worry about something else? I am sure someone insisted on using the device and the IHSA ruled on the usage of the device.

Again, there are some people that worry about things and others just do their job that is in front of them.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... things that never are used.

You probably never see them because they are prohibited in Illinois (why would a parent waste $50.00).

I've seen these ...



... in Connecticut about once, or twice, a year for the past five years, usually in girls games. The first time was in a scrimmage before any ruling was made regarding their legality. I ruled them legal for the scrimmage because we weren't enforcing equipment color restrictions, and it seemed legal under NFHS equipment rules (not dangerous to others, not designed for a player to gain a competitive advantage, not confusing, and, in my opinion at the time, appropriate for basketball).

I have not seen these (although I may have seen them and just believed that they were ordinary headbands) ...