I'm at work, but I'm sure you can Google it.

And while it didn't get to court, there was an issue here a couple years ago when a parent was mad because her daughter told to remove an earring and it caused an infection.

Legal in Ontario. I can't see any reason why they would prohibited.

Much of law is not black and white, but people (whether judge or jury) parsing through the gray.

If some yahoo were to claim that you created danger by forcing his child to take off something, which do you think is going to play better to a jury?

"I told her to take it off."

or

"I told her it was her decision whether to take it off or not, but that under the rules I couldn't let her play with it on."

But forget about the very low risk of ever being in court over something like this -- which is easier for you to manage? I'd submit that the second one is. You explain and put the ball in the player's court -- it is now up to the player to make a decision on whether to play or not.

Specifically NOT allowed in NCAA (based on a recommendation from the Sports Medicine Group (or something like that).

I think the rationale is along the lines of: If you have a concussion, you shouldn't be playing, with or without a headband. If you don't have one, these won't prevent one based on the types of collisions typically seen in basketball (head-to-head or head-to-floor). They are allowed in sports such as soccer where they can/might reduce the cumulative effects of low-impact collisions such as head to ball.

It's the "it's happened before" that I was questioning. Has it really?

For all the fear of lawsuits, precious few actually happen. And if I get sued, I'll make a call to NASO.

Bad advice. Better to just follow the rule for headwear.

This is me backtracking and apologizing.

Frankly, I'd forgotten the rule for headware.