Foul by Hair?

[Kansas Ref]

Did a game yesterday, BV jamboree, couple of players had their hairstyles as those long dreadlocks. You know the type of hair that drapes down to their shoulders and flys all over the place when they swing their heads. Well, A1 (the long dreadlocked player) had the ball and B1 was playing tight defense.
A1 dribbled and spin move dribble, his A1 hair went flailing all over and a big clump of those dreadlocked hair strands swept-struck B1 across the face and on his left eye area. Left a mark on face near eyebrow that was reddish and B1 held his eye area, blinking, expressing difficulty with vision.
Is this a "common foul" or a "play on" type of situation? Caught me by surprise.
What I actually did was kill the play, let B1 go out and get medical attention, then gave possession back to team A. I advised team A coach to put a bunchie tie on A1 hair.

[JRutledge]

I cannot imagine I would call anything just because the contact was with the hair. Maybe you could by rule, but I think that would have to be an extraordinary situation where that would be the case it is a foul.

How you handled it is probably exactly what I would do. It would be similarly to if a player was hit with the ball while in possession of a player (that has been discussed here before).

Peace

[JetMetFan]

Well, here's NFHS 3-7...

The referee shall not permit any team member to participate if in his/her judgment any item constitutes a safety concern, such as, but not limited to, a player's fingernails or hairstyle.

It seems it created a safety concern but the horse is already out of the barn if the player is on the court.

[maroonx]

Actually they are not dreads. Hair is twisted after washing matted into twists. Its just braided and twisted hair. Takes hours to do. This hair style is often described as "dookie braids" because the hair resembles goose droppings.

[Adam]

If contact by the hair creates an advantage, call it. It would have to be a very clear advantage, though, such as a poke in the eye.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Adam

If contact by the hair creates an advantage, call it. It would have to be a very clear advantage, though, such as a poke in the eye.

What would the signal be? Illegal contact?

(Eye poking is not a signal, unless you're a stooge.)

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Well, here's NFHS 3-7...



It seems it created a safety concern but the horse is already out of the barn if the player is on the court.

Not necessarily...we just didn't notice the safety concern at first. Now we are aware of it, and A1 needs to do something with his hair before he is allowed to continue playing.

[Nevadaref]

There is an NFHS ruling that a player's hair, uniform, and equipment is all part of the player.
The reason that I recall this is an old ruling about a player's ponytail touching out of bounds and thus making the player out of bounds.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is an NFHS ruling that a player's hair, uniform, and equipment is all part of the player.
The reason that I recall this is an old ruling about a player's ponytail touching out of bounds and thus making the player out of bounds.

2005-2006 NFHS Interpretations

SITUATION 9: A1 recovers a loose ball on the playing court near the sideline, with his/her body entirely in bounds. However, A1's head is hovering out of bounds and his/her hair (which is in a long ponytail) is touching the floor, out of bounds.

RULING: A1 is called for the out-of-bounds violation. (7-1-1; 7-1-2; 9-3-1)

[Kansas Ref]

Thanks a ton for the clarifications and well-stated exemplars.