Headguards ???

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

On the contrary, something worn on the face is certainly worn on part of the head. Therefore it comes under the last sentence of 3.5 Situation A, which requires approval from the state association based upon the submission of proper documentation to that office."

So glasses or goggles are headwear? Horse manure.

The paragraph at the end of the ruling doesn't supersede what's written two paragraphs earlier. That paragraph clearly says that a face mask and eye protection is permissable to wear. It says nothing about state approval being required. Headwear is an item worn on top of the head, not on the face.

As BITS said, "Game, set and match to NFHS." No interest in arguing it with you when you're so obviously wrong.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So glasses or goggles are headwear? Horse manure.

The paragraph at the end of the ruling doesn't supersede what's written two paragraphs earlier. That paragraph clearly says that a face mask and eye protection is permissable to wear. It says nothing about state approval being required. Headwear is an item worn on top of the head, not on the face.

As BITS said, "Game, set and match to NFHS." No interest in arguing it with you when you're so obviously wrong.

While I was initially inclinded to say the above mentioned device was legal, I'm with Neveda on this one.

The case says that it is up to the state to approve headwear. The state is not required to approve it but without such an approval, it is not legal.

It clearly not the same as glasses nor the same as an explicitly authorized protector for a broken nose as long as it has no dangerous edges.

[Back In The Saddle]

Yep, both sentences are there. It's not the sentences that are important, so much as the relationship between them. The general guidance for headwear is: "In the case of headwear for medical, cosmetic or religious reasons, the state association may approve upon proper documentation as in 3-5-3 Exception a."

However, they draw a distinction between headwear and "protective equipment". The general guidance for protective equipment is: "Protective equipment must be individually inspected and approved using the criteria outlined." And, in the case of the protector for a broken nose, they give specific guidance: "A protector for a broken nose, even though made of hard material, is permissible if it does not extend so as to endanger others, if it is not sharp and if it has no cutting edges."

So there are really two issues with your conclusion. First, the case specifically classifies this device as protective equipment, and not as headwear. Second, the case specifically rules this piece of protective equipment is legal, subject to inspection by the referee to ensure it meets the specific and general criteria specified.

No approval from the state association is required.

Edited to add: I'm speaking specifically about the broken nose protector here, not about the head protector thingee in the OP.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Exactly.

Headwear is WORN on the HEAD.

The device pictured above is not underwear, outerwear, or asswear.

It's headwear.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So glasses or goggles are headwear? Horse manure.

When I wore glasses, I wore them on my head. Where do you wear yours?

I'm glad BITS has come around to recognizing the distinction between headwear (apparel) and head guards (equipment), which seems to me the most plausible way to interpret the different provisions of 3-5. Medical headwear (e.g. head scarf for chemo patient) requires a note; medical equipment (nose protector) does not, but must meet the 3 criteria listed in 3.5 SITUATION A.

And, Nevada, I don't see why this guard could not protect a player who suffered a concussion during football season (around here still being played). Wouldn't that meet your implicit test (which is not among the criteria listed in 3.5 btw, tsk tsk!) that protective equipment must be worn to protect a previous injury?

Your other implicit test (a piece of protective equipment for one sport can never be worn in another sport) is also neither among the criteria listed in 3.5 nor does it stand on its own.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by mbyron

And, Nevada, I don't see why this guard could not protect a player who suffered a concussion during football season (around here still being played).

I've seen this device, or something similar, used in soccer as kids who enjoy "heading" the ball have suffered some and are advised to wear the darn thing and "avoid heading the ball if possible." Of course, the kids (especially the macho boys) hate it.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While I was initially inclinded to say the above mentioned device was legal, I'm with Neveda on this one.

The case says that it is up to the state to approve headwear. The state is not required to approve it but without such an approval, it is not legal.

It clearly not the same as glasses nor the same as an explicitly authorized protector for a broken nose as long as it has no dangerous edges.

Actually, you're agreeing with BITS and myself, not NVREf.

We agree that headwear must be approved by the state but neither glasses nor a nose protector is required to be approved.

NVRef says that anything worn on the face is headwear and must be approved.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by mbyron

When I wore glasses, I wore them on my head. Where do you wear yours?

So you agree that glasses and a nose protector are considered headwear and must be approved by the state association?

I wear glasses on my face, when reading. I would wear a nose protector on my face if I needed one.

Again, neither are headwear. If they were, they would require state association approval. They do not.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Actually, you're agreeing with BITS and myself, not NVREf.

We agree that headwear must be approved by the state but neither glasses nor a nose protector is required to be approved.

NVRef says that anything worn on the face is headwear and must be approved.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

OK, I had misunderstood your point. I thought you were advocating that no approval was generally necessary unless a state made approval necessary. My mistake. Now I see that you were talking specifically about the nose protector, not the padded headwear.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

So you agree that glasses and a nose protector are considered headwear and must be approved by the state association?

I wear glasses on my face, when reading. I would wear a nose protector on my face if I needed one.

Again, neither are headwear. If they were, they would require state association approval. They do not.

I was just trying to follow your logic: in your first post you seemed to imply that anything worn on the head was headwear. Now you're denying that.

Of course glasses and a nose protector aren't headwear, because they're equipment and not apparel. Just like the head guard in the OP, which is thus not subject to the headwear provisions. Don't see how you could consistently rule it otherwise.

In general, the key to interpreting 3-5 is distinguishing equipment (guards, protectors, glasses, etc.) from apparel (clothing, hats, scarves, headbands, wristbands, etc.). The rules treat these differently.

[amusedofficial]

Last time I checked, the local milliner did not sell eyeglasses.

[jdw3018]

Bottom line to all this - appropriate advice to the coach would likely be to seek approval from the state association. We can debate all we want about whether or not it's needed, but when he runs into a game where the officials on the court believe it is needed, having it is better than trying to argue out of it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Bottom line to all this - appropriate advice to the coach would likely be to seek approval from the state association. We can debate all we want about whether or not it's needed, but when he runs into a game where the officials on the court believe it is needed, having it is better than trying to argue out of it.

Agreed!