Headguards ???

[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?

[Daryl H. Long]

I saw the samething in my first game of the season last week. The person who wore it did have a note from state but in my opinion there is no rule that would specifically make it illegal therefore I would have allowed it any way.

PS. I am the Officials Supevisor for the Ohio Special Olympics State Basketball Tournament when played in Bowling Green. There are many athletes who wear padded headwear but our sole judge to legality of that "equipment" lies within the NF rule book. If the official deems it safe by rule than OK. There are no special olympic mandates as to which equipment is illegal/legal.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.