Concussion Type Headbands ???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They already ruled on this.

Soft or Padded Headgear in Non-Helmeted Sports Position Statement
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS)
Sports Medicine Advisory Committee (SMAC)

The NFHS SMAC has developed the following position statement regarding soft or padded headgear products in non-helmeted sports:
The NFHS does not consider soft or padded headgear products as effective equipment in preventing a concussion in non-helmeted sports. As explained below, soft or padded headgear products may be worn in non-helmeted sports that allow for such optional equipment, but the intent of that equipment should be for reasons other than concussion prevention. Valid scientific research should be pursued to more definitively determine evidence-based efficacy regarding using such products to decrease the incidence of concussion. However, no currently available soft or padded headgear can prevent a concussion.

The NFHS recommends caution in using soft or padded headgear devices to permit medical clearance of a student-athlete, if he or she would otherwise not be medically cleared to participate in sports. Currently, wearing such headgear as a condition to play in order to prevent another concussion is not scientifically or medically supported; therefore, a medical waiver for wearing this type of equipment in the case of hastening return to play after a concussion is inappropriate. However, this equipment may be used to cover lacerations and sutures, if these devices are deemed appropriate within the sport’s playing rules.

Current design and recommended use of these devices do not address the proposed mechanism of concussive injury, that being acceleration, deceleration and rotational forces acting on the brain. Schools should refer to equipment standards from the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), and the Hockey Equipment Certification Council, Inc. (HECC), when considering protective equipment for student-athletes, and monitor that the equipment is being used for mitigating the risk of injuries for which the equipment is designed.

When considering the use of optional soft or padded headgear products in non-helmeted sports, athletes and coaches should take the time to read the qualifying statements provided with such products that address specific limitations, particularly those related to preventing serious head injuries. Wearing such products may provide a false sense of security in concussion protection to student-athletes, coaches and parents. Moreover, a false sense of security in concussion protection may increase the likelihood that players, coaches and parents will consider a given medical condition to be adequately addressed and may cause them to place less importance upon avoiding head impact, reporting concussion symptoms and recovering fully before returning to play.

The NFHS SMAC will continue to monitor developments in soft and padded headgear and will consider adjustments to its position should valid scientific and clinical evidence arise.

Approved June 2013

Nice position statement, but it's general to all sports covered by the NFHS. In regard to basketball specifically, it leaves more questions than answers.

Is soft and padded headgear to cover sutures or lacerations appropriate for the sport of basketball?

If so, is it like head coverings, medical devices that must be approved by state associations on an individual basis, with no mention of color restrictions either way?

Or, is it like a knee brace, a medical device that are always legal, with no color restrictions?

[JRutledge]

As I said they already ruled on this. Your post proves exactly what I stated. They commented on these devices and told you what about them was legal or not, but every sport has the right to take issue with specifics based on the level of contact.

In the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook (2017-2018), there is a picture of head coverings (both religious and medical) on page 13 under the Part 2 Section (covers POEs). And the medical example looks more like regular bandages on the head, not a head device that you put on the head like a helmet or protection device that is bulky in any way. So it appears that at best they NF has made it clear that these devices for basketball are not likely approved. But the book does state that you need state approval so I would assume that if a state wanted to approve them you could wear them as I stated earlier on this topic.

There were similar devices outlawed in football because they did not prove to work as advertised and my state did not allow them to be used in games but are used in some situations during practices. That is why my state put out a ruling on the matter I am sure that did not allow these for basketball (they also ruled on them in football as they were also not approved).

Now if your state has not done that, well most of us cannot help you there. But not sure why the NF has to give any more information on the matter if they already had a comment about these devices? I do not see what this guy you reference is going to find out any more than has been published some time ago and in this year's publication.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook (2017-2018) ... the book does state that you need state approval ... this year's publication.

Thanks JRutledge. Sounds pretty definitive.

JRutledge: If you have a few extra minutes could you please post the exact wording used in the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook (2017-2018) regarding such devices (padded protective headbands)?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not see what this guy you reference is going to find out any more than has been published in this year's publication.

He'll come back with the same new (2017) citation that you've already come up with. Your citation was what we needed as a followup to the 2013 Position Statement (generic, not specific to basketball). No need for anything more.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So it appears that at best they NF has made it clear that these devices for basketball are not likely approved ... not sure why the NF has to give any more information on the matter if they already had a comment about these devices?

Appears? At best? Not likely? That's why I wanted more information from the NFHS on the matter, and it looks (thanks to JRutledge) like I finally got it.

The citation in the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook (2017-2018) requiring state approval for padded protective headbands is clear, unambiguous, and definitive.

We had to wait until 2017 to get a clear, unambiguous, and definitive interpretation of the unclear, ambiguous, and indefinite 2013 position statement (specifically in regard to basketball), but at least we finally got it. It was worth the wait.

That's all I need. That should be the end of the story. Say good night Gracie.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The citation in the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook (2017-2018) requiring state approval for padded protective headbands is clear, unambiguous, and definitive.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge: If you have a few extra minutes could you please post the exact wording used in the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook (2017-2018) regarding such devices (padded protective headbands)?

I would still like to see the actual wording of the citation. Is it generic to all medically necessitated head coverings, or specific to padded protective headbands, including one type that almost looks like a regular legal headband, just a little more padded?

[Raymond]

Only 3 posts in a row, you're not obsessing Billy.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Only 3 posts in a row, you're not obsessing Billy.

I blame whoever it was who commented on how slow the board was. Sometimes, slow is better than the alternative.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Only 3 posts in a row, you're not obsessing Billy.

One was a "bump".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I would still like to see the actual wording of the citation. Is it generic to all medically necessitated head coverings, or specific to padded protective headbands, including one type that almost looks like a regular legal headband, just a little more padded?

It is not just the wording, it is the picture. And if you want to see everything, go buy the book. Been moving and really do not have the energy to post this so that you can see something that has already been addressed in previous years. Seems like you are the main one worried about this. I hope you get block-charges right as much as you spend time on this very specific situation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Seems like you are the main one worried about this.

You live in a state where your referee association, and/or your state interscholastic sport governing body (perhaps independent of the NFHS, perhaps not) made padded protective headbands illegal. No fuss. No bother. No mess. Crystal clear. (I still question how the padded protective headband that pretty much looks like a regular headband (a little puffier) can be made illegal, but that's just my professional curiosity.)

I live in a state that unilaterally (independent of the NFHS, and independent of IAABO International) made padded protective headbands legal, with no color restrictions (like knee braces). That was several years ago and only in Connecticut (we call stuff like this "Connecticut Only Rules And/Or Mechanics" (there are just a few)).

Last year IAABO International made an interpretation that padded protective headbands were legal, with no color restrictions, I believe, independent of NFHS rules. This IAABO interpretation was, obviously, only for games officiated by IAABO members.

While I was preparing an educational article regarding equipment restrictions, I came up against these conflicting (IAABO vs. NFHS) interpretations, so I've been trying sort this out. I do not want my article published unless I can back up everything that I've written in the article. I'm not "worried" about the rule/interpretation, I'm "worried" about my professional reputation as a basketball official educator after my article is published.

Hopefully, I'll get some closure from my local interpreter after he attends the NFHS Interpretation Meeting in Indianapolis on September 21, 2017. After that all should be the same under both NFHS and IAABO rules/interpretations, or at least, IAABO will acknowledge that its interpretation is in conflict with NFHS rules.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You live in a state where your referee association, and/or your state interscholastic sport governing body (perhaps independent of the NFHS, perhaps not) made padded protective headbands illegal. No fuss. No bother. No mess. Crystal clear. (I still question how the padded protective headband that pretty much looks like a regular headband (a little puffier) can be made illegal, but that's just my professional curiosity.)

Our local official's association that I belong to have no "interpretation" role in our state. The IHSA is the only body that can give an official interpretation. Even as a State Clinician, we only go by what we are told to do or can go to our Head Clinician for clarification as needed. But the IHSA already ruled on this.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I live in a state that unilaterally (independent of the NFHS, and independent of IAABO International) made padded protective headbands legal, with no color restrictions (like knee braces). That was several years ago and only in Connecticut (we call stuff like this "Connecticut Only Rules And/Or Mechanics" (there are just a few)).

Last year IAABO International made an interpretation that padded protective headbands were legal, with no color restrictions, I believe, independent of NFHS rules. This IAABO interpretation was, obviously, only for games officiated by IAABO members.

Well, take that up with your local association. Not sure why you are asking the NF to rule on something they have already seemed to rule on. The NF is not likely to change or add more to what they have already stated.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While I was preparing an educational article regarding equipment restrictions, I came up against these conflicting (IAABO vs. NFHS) interpretations, so I've been trying sort this out. I do not want my article published unless I can back up everything that I've written in the article. I'm not "worried" about the rule/interpretation, I'm "worried" about my professional reputation as a basketball official educator after my article is published.

Fair enough, but this was already discussed here. Maybe you need to contact your higher ups and not keep whining here? I, me and we have told you what we know. If you are that concerned, it is time to pick up the phone or send an email to the people that are over your association. This has always been my issue with IAABO and never join them if you cannot get something this simple clarified.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Hopefully, I'll get some closure from my local interpreter after he attends the NFHS Interpretation Meeting in Indianapolis on September 21, 2017. After that, all should be the same under both NFHS and IAABO rules/interpretations, or at least, IAABO will acknowledge that its interpretation is in conflict with NFHS rules.

I am sure he has more to worry about than this issue. BUT if he doesn't, let him tell you what you need to know. But otherwise, we are not in a position to tell you any more than we know.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You live in a state where your referee association, and/or your state interscholastic sport governing body (perhaps independent of the NFHS, perhaps not) made padded protective headbands illegal. No fuss. No bother. No mess. Crystal clear. (I still question how the padded protective headband that pretty much looks like a regular headband (a little puffier) can be made illegal, but that's just my professional curiosity.)

I live in a state that unilaterally (independent of the NFHS, and independent of IAABO International) made padded protective headbands legal, with no color restrictions (like knee braces). That was several years ago and only in Connecticut (we call stuff like this "Connecticut Only Rules And/Or Mechanics" (there are just a few)).

Last year IAABO International made an interpretation that padded protective headbands were legal, with no color restrictions, I believe, independent of NFHS rules. This IAABO interpretation was, obviously, only for games officiated by IAABO members.

While I was preparing an educational article regarding equipment restrictions, I came up against these conflicting (IAABO vs. NFHS) interpretations, so I've been trying sort this out. I do not want my article published unless I can back up everything that I've written in the article. I'm not "worried" about the rule/interpretation, I'm "worried" about my professional reputation as a basketball official educator after my article is published.

Hopefully, I'll get some closure from my local interpreter after he attends the NFHS Interpretation Meeting in Indianapolis on September 21, 2017. After that all should be the same under both NFHS and IAABO rules/interpretations, or at least, IAABO will acknowledge that its interpretation is in conflict with NFHS rules.

So what if NFHS and IAABO are not the same? Publish what applies to IAABO and your state.

Or, don't address the subject at all in your article. No one will notice or care that it is not addressed.