Headguards ???

[Back In The Saddle]

And just to pile on a bit...

3-5-3e Exception a, of course, follows hard on the heels of 3-5-3e which quite clearly prohibits the device in question: "Head decorations and headwear, except those specified above, are prohibited."

To call it a guard would be a generalization, at best. But 3-5-3e specifically disallows all headwear not enumerated in 3-5-3a - 3-5-3d. The specific prohibition trumps any more general ... hibition? So to be legal, it would have to be individually permitted by the state association per Exception a.

I would not presume to constrain what the state association may choose to allow, especially if it is for medical reasons, but... Exception a specifically addresses a covering or wrap for the head. This contraption is neither.

:shrug:

[mbyron]

I disagree that this device constitutes headwear, which is apparel more like a headband or a decorative or religious head covering (hat, bandana, head scarf, etc.). So I don't think 3-5-3 is applicable to this device.

This is equipment rather than apparel, and is a kind of "guard" subject to the provisions of 3-5-2. It's not worn below the elbow, so 3-5-2a doesn't apply, nor on the upper arm or shoulder (b), nor on the leg (c). So, provided it meets provision d, that it's worn for medical reasons (and of course 3-5-1), it would be legal.

Helpful in this regard is 3.5 SITUATION A, which I've excerpted below.

Originally Posted by 2009 Case Book

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 guard, cast or brace made of
hard and unyielding leather, plaster, pliable (soft) plastic, metal or any other hard
substance shall always be declared illegal “even though covered with soft
padding....” The second standard provides
that “any equipment which is unnatural and designed to increase the player’s
height or reach, or to gain an 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 if it does not
extend so as to endanger others, if it is not sharp and if it has no cutting edges.
Eyeglass protectors are considered appropriate equipment for basketball provided
they meet the qualifications for legal equipment, including the third criterion.

Just as a protector for a broken nose might meet these 3 criteria, I believe a head guard to protect from concussion might as well.

[Back In The Saddle]

Hmmm, headwear. Something worn on the head. If a wrap or covering worn for medical reasons falls under the category of headwear, I think you're trying to wrangle definitions to call it what you want it to be

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Hmmm, headwear. Something worn on the head. If a wrap or covering worn for medical reasons falls under the category of headwear, I think you're trying to wrangle definitions to call it what you want it to be

Exactly.

Headwear is WORN on the HEAD.

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

It's headwear.

[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 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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

And just to pile on a bit...

3-5-3e Exception a, of course, follows hard on the heels of 3-5-3e which quite clearly prohibits the device in question: "Head decorations and headwear, except those specified above, are prohibited."

To call it a guard would be a generalization, at best. But 3-5-3e specifically disallows all headwear not enumerated in 3-5-3a - 3-5-3d. The specific prohibition trumps any more general ... hibition? So to be legal, it would have to be individually permitted by the state association per Exception a.

I would not presume to constrain what the state association may choose to allow, especially if it is for medical reasons, but... Exception a specifically addresses a covering or wrap for the head. This contraption is neither.

:shrug:

I agree. This is a piece of soccer equipment. It is approved for NFHS soccer games, but is not appropriate for basketball. Just as a football helment would not be appropriate either.
A player would need a special written document to wear it in an NFHS game for which I were the referee. I referee a great deal of youth and HS soccer and am quite familiar with this Full 90 headgear. It is billed as a piece of preventative equipment on the company website: Home - Full 90 Sports

Originally Posted by mbyron

Just as a protector for a broken nose might meet these 3 criteria, I believe a head guard to protect from concussion might as well.

A faceguard for a broken nose requires a doctor's note and must be worn to protect a previous injury. Such cannot be worn by a player without an injury as a preventative measure.
Rules citations:

3.5 Situation A
"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 if it does not
extend so as to endanger others, if it is not sharp and if it has no cutting edges."

"The referee must rule on the legality of any piece of equipment which is worn
to protect an injury. Protective equipment must be individually inspected and
approved using the criteria outlined. 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."

[BktBallRef]

A protector for a broken nose does not require a letter from the state association.

The case play says, "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.

There's no other requirement. If your state association requires it, fine. But there's no NFHS rule requiring state asscoiations to first approve it.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

A protector for a broken nose does not require a letter from the state association.

The case play says, "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.

There's no other requirement. If your state association requires it, fine. But there's no NFHS rule requiring state asscoiations to first approve it.

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.

"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."

[Back In The Saddle]

*Buzz* Thanks for playing. The correct answer is "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." It is found in 3.5 SITUATION A. NFHS says it's legal. Game, set and match to NFHS.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

*Buzz* Thanks for playing. The correct answer is "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." It is found in 3.5 SITUATION A. NFHS says it's legal. Game, set and match to NFHS.

You are aware that 3.5 SITUATION A contains both sentences, right?

[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.