Headguards ???
 

Here's what a girl was wearing in a scrimmage yesterday:

http://www.full90.com/media/products...-frontside.jpg

F90 Premier HeadGuard - Products - Full 90 Sports

I've never seen one before so I asked the player about it. She had gotten a concussion during soccer season, had to wear the headgaurd for the soccer, and thought it would be a good idea to wear it for basketball as well. She didn't have a doctor's note, but it was the same color as her teammates headbands, I didn't think that it was a safety concern, on the contrary, I think it would be a safer game for more players to wear them, so I let her wear it, and decided to do some research when I got home.

I don't believe that we would define this as a headband, rather, I would think that it meets the NFHS definition of a guard:
3-5-2: Guards, casts, braces and compression sleeves must meet the following guidelines:
a. A guard, cast or brace made of hard and unyielding leather, plaster, pliable (soft) plastic, metal or any other hard substance may not be worn on the elbow, hand, finger/thumb, wrist or forearm; even though covered with soft padding.
b. Hard and unyielding items (guards, casts, braces, etc.) on the upper arm or shoulder must be padded.
c. Knee and ankle braces are permitted but all exposed hinges must be covered. Most over-sleeves recommended by manufacturers are acceptable. These braces may be padded or unpadded.
d. Must be worn for medical reasons.

If it meets the definition of a guard, as in 3-5-2, then I believe that it would not require a doctor's note (braces don't require such a note), nor would it fall under any "color" guidelines (braces don't fall under any "color" guidelines).

That's my interpretation of these headguards. Comments from the peanut gallery ???

I think 3.5 Situation A sums it up nicely.

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.

Headwear For Medical Reasons Or Guard ???
 

tjones1: Good citation, but one that poses a problem. If we deem this device to be "headwear for medical reasons", then 3.5 Situation A may require us to ask for, and get, proper documentation from the state association. On the other hand, if we deem this to be a "guard", as in 3-5-2, then the player doesn't need to get proper documentation from the state association to play in the game.

Would a note from the state association be required? NFHS 3-5- 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. It just says that the state association must approve the head covering based on a statement from a doctor. It doesn't say if the state association must provide written documentation for the team to show to officials.

This team was from out of our area, but I did suggest to the coach that he get a doctor's note and keep it in his first aid kit, just in case the device was questioned. It looks like I gave him some bad advice. If it's a "guard" then he doesn't need a note. If it's "headwear for medical reasons", then a doctor's note won't do him any good, he'll need a note from the state association, or maybe not, according to what I questioned in my second paragraph.

Additional comments from the Forum would be appreciated.

3-5-2-a doesn't restrict headwear, only the elbow, hand, finger/thumb, wrist or forearm. B covers only upper arm or shoulder and C covers only knees and ankles. D seems to apply but the term "medical reasons" doesn't state a doctor's note is required, so your state regulations pertaining to that requirement, if any, would apply. If I felt it wasn't a "threat" to others, I would let it go, if it was just padding and not hard plastic.

I agree with Mark in that 3-5-2a does NOT address headwear. Therefore, it doesn't apply.

3-5-3e Exception a. would apply. If they don't provide a letter, then how are you to know it's approved. I would ask for the letter.

And just to pile on a bit... :D

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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."

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."

*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? :eek:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

Haberdashery
 

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

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!