The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 29, 2009, 11:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle View Post
*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?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 29, 2009, 11:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Jerry City, Ohio
Posts: 394
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 30, 2009, 12:53am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
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.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming

Last edited by Back In The Saddle; Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 01:26am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1