Concussion Type Headbands ???
 

Has the NFHS ever come out with a rule, or interpretation, that states that concussion type headbands do not fall under equipment color restriction rules (similar to equipment color restriction rule exception for knee braces)?

I thought that they did, but I can't find any references. Did I dream this, or is this an IAABO interpretation (that I also can't find any reference to)?

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon...._AC_US218_.jpg

Well our state told us that these were illegal. I do not think the NF has directly addressed this situation.

Peace

Such items are not permitted unless the state association has granted the wearer an exemption for either medical or religious reasons.

We've been told if its for medical reasons that they are allowed.

If I'm told it's for a medical reason, they can play. Not a battle I'm going to fight with respect to having "proper documentation." Let the state deal with it after the game.

If it's truly for a medical reason, then the team/player won't have any problem getting an exemption from the state authority. Until that is granted, I, as the Referee, cannot allow the kid to participate BY RULE.

Pirates Do Like To Play Basketball In Their Spare Time ...
 

Devil's advocate here. Are there equipment color restrictions on medical devices such as eyeglasses, band aids, athletic tape, ankle braces, hearing aids, or eye patches? Does the state high school interscholastic sports governing body have to make exceptions for these equipment items? Does an official need to see documentation for such exceptions?

[Facepalm Smiley Goes Here]

If that's the way that works for you or the way it's expected from your assigner/association, great. Here, the expectation for things like this (which pose zero safety issues whatsoever) is to play along and write a report afterwards. If they didn't cross every T and dot every I, the state can issue the disciplinary action.

Really Billy? The concern should be whether or not the equipment is allowed by your state, not what color it is.

We were told these were not appropriate for basketball. Similar to a player wearing a cast which is for medical reasons. I think that is why each state has to make their own decision here. I cannot think of any reason why this would be required for medical reasons. If you have a concussion, this is not likely going to help you prevent that considering how concussions actually work. If that was the case than football helmets would prevent concussions.

Peace

You need permission for protective equipment?

If this is for someone who HAS a concussion they shouldn't be playing anyhow.

If it's to prevent a concussion then why ban it?

If you can only have one only if you had a concussion in the past isn't that like telling a catcher or umpire they can't have a mask until after they've been hit in the face once?

Not fair or I think correct to say that football helmets or this type of headgear don't prevent concussions. It is perfectly reasonable and correct to say they don't prevent ALL concussions. That is very different from saying that headgear cannot reduce the frequency and severity of concussions.

I fully expect that gear manufacturers are using the science to reduce injuries even if they will never prevent all injuries.

Kind of the point.

Is there any evidence that these things actually prevent any injury? I mean a concussion is about how your brain goes up against your skull. The outside has little or nothing to do with preventing a concussion occurring. Similar devices are made for football helmets and the same scientific conclusion has been made before on those devices.

Those prevent other injuries to the face and head. But if you get hit in the head right, you will still have concussion. But head gear in basketball can hurt or harm other players if they contact this device. This is what I feel is the reason these are not usually allowed in the first place. Players in basketball do not hit their head that hard typically to where this would prevent a problem.

Peace

You mean that a company would sell something without proper science? :rolleyes:

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

Nothing To Do With The Game Of Basketball ...
 

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.

There's Got To Be A Better Way ...
 

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.

http://www.basketball-goggles.com/wp...mesworthy1.jpg

Helmets ...
 

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 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

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.

Same Page ...
 

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.

Consistency ...
 

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.

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

Consistency ...
 

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.

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

IAABO Mechanics ...
 

NFHS rulebooks. IAABO mechanics.

Protect The Free Throw Shooter ...
 

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.W...=0&w=300&h=300

Ordinary Legal Headband ...
 

Sounds like you guys really have your act together.

Are all protective headbands illegal in Illinois?

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

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

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

I've seen these ...

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon...._AC_US218_.jpg

... 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) ...

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

I have not seen them because the state outlawed them. Problem solved.

Peace

I would allow the second -- it meets (from the picture) the rule requirements. The first does not (logos, size).

Outlaws ...
 

If the state outlaws protective headbands, then only outlaws will have protective headbands.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.L...=0&w=344&h=163

Hey Billy,
Have you seen this?
http://www.nfhs.org/media/1015199/20...headgear-1.pdf

Appropriate ...
 

Nice find Nevadaref.

"However, this equipment may be used to cover lacerations and sutures, if these devices are deemed appropriate within the sport’s playing rules."

Is the NFHS passing the buck, forcing state associations, or individual officials, to deem these devices appropriate (as in 3.5 SITUATION A)?

I don't read it that way. They are saying "if the band meets the sport's requirements on size, material, logos, color, etc., then go ahead and wear it. If not, then don't." Basketball falls in the latter category.

I agree with Bob.

Appropriate For Basketball ...
 

I personally believe that these items are appropriate for basketball, but I don't think that the NFHS is saying that. They aren't saying that they are appropriate for basketball. They aren't saying that they are appropriate for basketball.

Please note thre "if" in the statement above.

These are the NFHS standards for such equipment (not already ruled legal or illegal) to be legal: Must not be dangerous to others. Must not be unnatural and designed to increase the player’s height or vertical reach, or to gain a competitive advantage. Must be appropriate for basketball and not be confusing.

Protective headbands conform to all NFHS standards for equipment to be legal, with the possible exception of one. Are these appropriate for basketball?

There is nothing in the standards regarding colors, or logos.

The NFHS has deemed that nose protectors and eyeglass protectors are appropriate for basketball, and are not color, or logo, restricted.

Again, I believe that these items are appropriate for basketball. Medical professionals agree that such headgear is suitable for preventing fractures, lacerations, and bleeding (but do not prevent concussions).

I'm sure that many other intelligent, respected, and esteemed, Forum members don't. And it appears that some state associations (e.g., Illinois) don't.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon...._AC_US218_.jpg

It's time for the NFHS to fish or cut bait.

Billy,
The Full90 headgear is not allowed in an NFHS basketball game under the current rules, unless the player is granted a specific exemption by the state association.
The puffy headband of which you also posted a picture does seem to meet the current NFHS basketball rules.

Again, Illinois said these were not appropriate for basketball and were not to be used even with some medical provision. Also they are not withing the size of a headband or any head gear for that matter. It is not used to control hair and even the specific device has logos that would not fit either. So the only question is that the NF would have to as a start approve such device and do so by rule or interpretation. But since it has been stated by both the NF and some states that this is not appropriate for basketball, then it cannot be used unless you live in a state that allows such device. So if someone from another state comes to my state and plays, they will not be allowed to wear these devices regardless what their state allows or what they might think about the issue.

I am really confused why this is so hard to understand?

Peace

Headwear For Medical Reasons ...
 

Under the following rule, I can't disagree. The key word in the rule is "headwear". The "if" in the NFHS statement "this equipment may be used ... if these devices are deemed appropriate within the sport’s playing rules" makes sense in the application of this rule, leaving it up to the state association, with input and documentation from licensed medical physicians.

Head decorations and headwear, except those specified above, are prohibited. EXCEPTION: State associations may on an individual basis permit a player to participate while wearing a head covering if it meets the following criteria: a. For medical or cosmetic reasons – In the event a participant is required by a licensed medical physician to cover his/her head with a covering or wrap, the physician's statement is required before the state association can approve a covering or wrap which is not abrasive, hard or dangerous to any other player and which is attached in such a way it is highly unlikely that it will come off during play.

With some states allowing these devices and others not allowing them, I still think that the NFHS need to fish or cut bait.

Seems that this version can be legal under normal "headband" restrictions (solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the uniform jersey, nonabrasive and unadorned, maximum of 2 inches) with no need to call it a medical device (even though it really is, suitable for preventing fractures, lacerations, and bleeding). Certainly makes any general statement like "protective headbands are illegal" debatable, since this protective headband is clearly legal (with a blue uniform jersey) under NFHS rules.

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

The first headband does NOT meet the basketball rules requirements. AND, since the NFHS medical committee (whatever it was called) says it does not help with concussions, it's not allowed. The secodn headband meets (appears to meet) the basketball requirements. IT would be allowed.

I am done.

Ask you local people. We obviously do not have the answer for you. :rolleyes:

Peace

Appears ...
 

Good point. I've never actually seen the "puffy" protective headband type, so "appears to meet" is a good statement..

(Or maybe I have seen them and thought that they were just "regular" headbands.)

This headband is allowed by our local rec league. I think other organizations should adopt its use.


https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st...t-quality=auto

This Is Your Body On Drugs, Any Questions ???
 

It's not a solid color.

Hey Mark Padgett, is that you? You look pretty good for a guy who's been dead for twenty-five years. Wait? I'm being told ... Not dead? Never mind.

I have never seen this head gear worn in H.S., college, AAU, and YBOA games that I have officiated over the years, BUT I have seen a few players in Special Olympics games wear it.

MTD, Sr.

It's actually worn by members of the U.S. Olympic Pole Dancing team. :D

And no - I'm not posting a photo of someone pole dancing. :rolleyes:

Regarding Padded Protective Headbands ...
 

My local IAABO interpreter will be attending the IAABO Fall Seminar this coming week and the NFHS meetings in Indianapolis the following week.

He has promised me that he will get to the bottom of the padded protective headband controversy, that is, the NFHS seemingly viewing padded protective headbands to be like head coverings, medical devices that must be approved by state associations on an individual basis, with no mention of color restrictions either way; while IAABO views padded protective headbands to be like knee braces, medical devices that are always legal, with no color restrictions.

I'll let the Forum know when I get a definitive NFHS interpretation, hopefully in a few weeks.

My breath is being held.

Waiting To Exhale (1995) ...
 

Exhale, it will be a few weeks, if there is a definitive NFHS interpretation.

Why would you think that a definitive NFHS interpretation would come out of an IAABO Fall Seminar?

NFHS Meetings ...
 

Because of this:

So you think this will be a big agenda item for the NFHS?

They already ruled on this.

Peace

Traditionally, the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor addresses the IAABO Fall Rules Interpreters meeting on Saturday afternoon. He/she also takes part in a question and answer session on Saturday. Not to mention the outgoing NFHS Basketball Rules Committee Chairman is Peter Webb of Maine.

MTD, Sr.

Position Statement ...
 

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?

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

Definitive ...
 

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)?

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.

Clear ???
 

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.

Let's Put This To Bed ...
 

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?

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

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

New Dance Craze ???
 

One was a "bump".

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

Background ...
 

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.

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.


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.

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.

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

Check, Check, Check ...
 

My article will go far beyond my local association, it will go out to thousands (200 local boards in 38 states) of IAABO members, so the interpretation must go beyond local.

That was the purpose of my most recent posts, to let Forum members know, especially those who are IAABO members, that my local interpreter will first be addressing this issue with IAABO International, and then he will address it with the NFHS. If that's not higher ups then I don't know what a higher up is. I have personally contacted the Executive Director of IAABO to discuss the matter which will be on the agenda and be discussed at the IAABO Fall Seminar over the next few days. And my local interpreter is anxious to come up with a solid, hopefully single, interpretation regarding this issue, he's a great interpreter and educator.

Why don't you just write the article just on what you know? Seems simple enough. Then if they come out later with an interpretation, that can be noted? Is this really that hard?

Peace

Two Steps Ahead Of You ...
 

I'm way ahead of you.

I was all set to do that with the following line:

IAABO has determined that padded protective headbands (often called concussion headbands), are legal and, like knee braces, are under no color restrictions.

The Executive Director of IAABO wanted to change that to:

Padded protective headbands (often called concussion headbands), are legal and, like knee braces, are under no color restrictions.

I refused his edit and pointed out the conflict in the NFHS and IAABO interpretations. He decided to wait until after the IAABO Fall Seminar (occurring now) and the NFHS Interpretation Meeting in Indianapolis on September 21, 2017, for clarification on this issue. My local interpreter, as a member of the Education Committee, will be leading the charge on this clarification. When the dust clears, either all should be the same (one way or the other) under both NFHS and IAABO rules/interpretations, or 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.

Thousands ???
 

My article will go far beyond my state association, it will go out to thousands (200 local boards in 38 states) of IAABO members.

It's the IAABO International Executive Director who wants to edit my article, and he wants to wait until the NFHS Interpretation Meeting in Indianapolis on September 21, 2017, for further clarification. I was content to just call it an IAABO "Only" interpretation.

States' Rights ...
 

My local IAABO board interpreter came back from the NFHS Interpretation Meeting this past week in Indianapolis with the following information regarding padded protective headbands.

According to the NFHS, padded protective headbands are medical devices that must be approved by state associations on an individual basis, in other words, it's up to each individual state.

About twenty states were represented at the NFHS Interpretation Meeting in Indianapolis. Some states do not allow padded protective headbands under any circumstances. Some states allow padded protective headbands but must have a licensed medical physician's statement before the state association can approve such a medical device.

I'm sure that IAABO will amend their statement that padded protective headbands are "legal". Well, I can only hope.

It appears that under the NFHS guidelines, in those states where padded protective headbands are allowed under medical device restrictions, there may be no color restrictions on such medical devices. At least that's my take on this aspect of the situation.

Since my educational article about equipment restriction rules will go out to thirty-eight different IAABO states, I plan to simply delete any statement regarding padded protective headbands. I hope that the IAABO International Executive Director will agree with my edit.

Amen.

Final Edit ???
 

Here's the (hopefully) final edit of my educational article. Thanks to all those Forum members who offered their assistance in this endeavor.

"Badges? We Don't Need No Stinking Badges”

What does officiating the game of basketball have to do with a quote from the 1974 Mel Brooks satirical Western comedy film, Blazing Saddles? When it comes to the enforcement of so-called “Fashion Police” rules, not only do basketball officials not need badges, many officials don’t even want badges. Officials love the challenge of calling a great game: block or charge; advantage/disadvantage on fouls; working with a good partner to get all out of bounds calls correct, etc. That said, many officials don't relish telling players that they can’t participate while wearing an illegal color undershirt, or an illegal color headband.

Yet, the National Federation of State High School Associations, the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, and state associations (state interscholastic sports governing bodies), want these equipment rules enforced, that is why they are in the rulebook.

The NFHS made changes to equipment restriction rules over the past few years that often confused some officials. In an effort to simplify the rules, references to “school color” have now been completely removed from the rulebook. Tights are now allowed, and compression shorts are to be treated the same as any other equipment item (compression shorts must no longer be the same color as the uniform shorts but now must be the solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the uniform jersey).

Rules regarding undershirts are the most restrictive, and should be the easiest to enforce by officials. Undershirts must be similar in color to the uniform jersey. According to NFHS rules, the home team must wear white uniform jerseys. Therefore, the only legal undershirt color for home players would be white, and only white. Players on the visiting team, wearing their dark road jerseys, must wear dark colored undershirts similar in color to their dark color uniform jerseys. “School color” doesn't apply to undershirts since “school color” is not mentioned in the current NFHS rulebook. Undershirts may not have frayed edges, and undershirt sleeves shall be the same length. Note that this rule does not require all players to wear the same length sleeves on their undershirts, but each individual player must have sleeves the same length on the undershirt when worn.

There is a wider array of legal color options for other equipment items such as headbands, wristbands, arm sleeves, knee sleeves, lower leg sleeves, compression shorts, and tights. All of these equipment items must be the solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the uniform jersey. All of these items shall be the same color as worn by each player. Additionally, all of these items shall be the same color for all members of a team who choose to wear them. Again, “school color” doesn't apply to these equipment items since “school color” is not mentioned in the current NFHS rulebook.

Furthermore, anything worn on the arm or the leg (except a knee brace), is defined as a sleeve, including knee pads and elbow pads (must be the solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the uniform jersey). Only a single headband may be worn on the head, and headbands are not allowed to have extensions or tails. Only one moisture absorbing wristband is permitted on each wrist, and each wristband must be worn on the arm below the elbow.

By rule, exceptions to equipment color restrictions include rubber, cloth, or elastic bands, used to control hair. Such soft hair control devices (e.g., ponytail holders) are under no color restrictions. Hard hair control devices including but not limited to beads, barrettes, and bobby pins, of any color, are prohibited. Remember, headbands go around the entire head (and must be the solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the uniform jersey), while soft hair control devices only go around hair and are under no color restrictions.
Another exception to equipment color restrictions deals with knee braces. Knee braces are not sleeves and are under no color restrictions. Knee braces are worn for a medical purpose to increase stability in the knee, and have embedded inserts to support the joint. Knee braces may, or may not have hinges, straps, or an opening over the knee cap. Remember that ordinary knee pads (as well as elbow pads) are treated as sleeves and fall under NFHS equipment color restrictions (solid color black, white, beige, or the predominant color of the uniform jersey).

The NFHS has also addressed jewelry, as well as medical and religious items, over the past several years. Players may not participate, or even warmup, while wearing jewelry. Religious medals, or medical alert medals are not considered jewelry. A religious medal must be taped, and worn under the uniform. A medical alert medal must also be taped, and unlike a religious medal, may be visible.

State associations may, on an individual basis, based on documented evidence, permit players to participate while wearing a head covering for medical or religious reasons. The head covering must be not be abrasive, hard, or dangerous to any other player. It must be attached in such a way that is highly unlikely to come off during play.

According to the NFHS, padded protective headbands (often called concussion headbands) are medical devices that must be approved by state associations on an individual basis, in other words, it's up to each individual state. States that allow padded protective headbands must have proper documentation from a licensed medical physician before the state association can approve such a medical device. Officials should consult their state interscholastic sports governing body regarding guidelines on padded protective headbands.

The best time for officials to observe compliance with equipment restrictions is during pregame warmups. However, if players are wearing pregame warmup apparel over their game uniforms, it may be impossible to observe such equipment restrictions during the pregame warmup period. It’s then necessary that officials observe compliance with equipment restrictions for the starting players as they enter the court for the jump ball to begin the game. After the game begins, it’s also necessary for officials to observe compliance with equipment restrictions as substitutes are beckoned into the game.

Over the past few years, many basketball teams have held “Cancer Awareness Nights”. This often involves the wearing of special uniforms and equipment, often involving, but not limited to, players wearing the color pink. Officials should utilize common sense when dealing with these special circumstances.

Some equipment restriction rules are for safety reasons. Rules that restrict equipment colors benefit officials by allowing them to easily identify players on each team during fast paced action. Consistency among officials in the enforcement of equipment restriction rules will provide a unified statement to coaches. When some officials choose not to enforce these rules, they are only hurting the profession and setting up the next crew for criticism from the coaches, when, in fact, the officials who did not enforce the rules are the ones who deserve the criticism. For those officials contemplating not enforcing equipment restrictions because such rules have “nothing to do with the game of basketball”, in the words of author Roy T. Bennett, “Stop doing what is easy, or popular. Start doing what is right”.

Final Draft ???
 

I spoke too soon. The IAABO International Executive Director wants me to add the following paragraph to my article:

According to the NFHS, padded protective headbands (often called concussion headbands) are medical devices that must be approved by state associations on an individual basis, in other words, it's up to each individual state. States that allow padded protective headbands must have proper documentation from a licensed medical physician before the state association can approve such a medical device. Officials should consult their state interscholastic sports governing body regarding guidelines on padded protective headbands.

Funny, this was already stated some time ago. Not sure why this was so hard in the first place.

Peace

Pay Attention ...
 

Due to a conflict between an "official" IAABO International (200 local boards in 38 states) "interpretation" and the actual NFHS rule (with a generic, nonbasketball specific position statement).

And if this is an issue, this is why places where I live, people do not belong to that organization, even when they had the chance. The best thing they do is the videos with NASO/Referee Magazine, but outside of that, they are garbage if this kind of stuff cannot be easily resolved. Again, this rule or interpretation was put out some time ago. My state as I said before stated their specific position on these devices. If a guy on the NF committee or has access to that committee cannot resolve this simple issue, then you should worry more about the credibility of the organization, not what some article you might write for them.

Peace

Jumped The Gun ...
 

The 'international' interpreter has retired and there is now a group of interpreters who have replaced him.

He was very good, hard working, but sometimes overstepped the purpose of IAABO and interpreted NFHS rules, something that only the NFHS should do.

Like when we went back to moving into the lane on the release. IAABO alone came out with an interpretation not to allow a player on the lane to cross the free throw line until the ball hit. The NFHS eventually did come out with that interpretation, but it was a full year after the IAABO unilateral interpretation came out.

Last year it was "Concussion Headbands – No Restrictions". Where did that come from? Left field?

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Overall, within it's purpose, which is educating basketball officials, IAABO is a great organization.

I'm listening to the online state meeting right now and I thought it was worth adding that it said that in Ohio concussion headbands are legal to wear without any sort of permission from the OHSAA or a physician.

The only indication we have gotten is that they can wear a head covering for medical reasons. But the specific head covering for concussions has not been approved at least in Illinois to my knowledge. I even got that impression in my newer area that is not necessarily approved but I am still waiting for more information on that fact.

Peace

Yeah, I'm speaking in terms of Ohio only.

I never suggested you were not. I was commenting that it appears nothing has changed in other places as of yet. States can always come up with their own policy on medical issues. I wonder what will happen with states that border Ohio and teams play in other states from Ohio and how those things will be handled.

Peace

Sorry, misread your post. Trying to do too many things at once here.