NOCSAE Helmet Certification

[Curious]

Just got out of a State (Michigan) rules meeting and we have been told that:

1. NOCSAE and helmet manufacturers have declared war over claims that third party modifications provide additional safety for players.

2. NOCSAE has issued a caveat to their certification label indicating that any modification to or change in a helmet (other than face shields) will invalidate their certification.  This includes the helmet caps which have become popular lately - even though they claim to help protect players from head injury.

3. Even though coaches are required to stipulate that "all players are legally equipped", these modifications, if discovered by officials, are not to prohibit their use, force removal, prohibit a player's participation, or penalize the coach.

4. Even though these modifications invalidate the NOCSAE certification, we are to play the game; then report the incident to the State Authorities.

I'm concerned about officials' liability here in the case of player injury.  Has anyone else been advised to "overlook" the non-certification; or share my concern? 

Has any other state authority similarly advised officials in this matter; or have they have ruled differently?   

[Rulesman]

Haven't heard it but that directive is a slippery slope that I'm glad I'm not on.

[HLinNC]

State supervisor went over it briefly at state clinic.  Basically told us its a manufacturer issue between helmet makers and supplemental product mfg.  Liability falls to the wearer and maybe the school for allowing it.  If I am an administrator, I direct my coaches to not permit the players to wear the item(s) as to not invalidate the NOCSAE certification on the helmets our system purchased and issued.

[bama_stripes]

Illegal in Alabama.

[Rulesman]

Any lawyer (who doesn't have to be a very sharp one, either) will pick an official apart on the stand if the official knowingly (key word) allows a player to participate with illegally modified equipment, and that player gets hurt. I feel for those in Minnesota who, IMO, are in a no-win situation. Just be sure your liability premium is paid.

[Atlanta Blue]

Guardian Caps do NOT invalidate the NOCSAE certification, as they do not modify the helmet.  Helmet manufactuters are trying to claim that adding them invalidates the WARRANTY (which is under legal review), but not the certification.  The NFHS does not endorse products, but have said that use of the caps in games does not violate any NFHS rule.

http://guardiancaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NFHS-Letter_8.24.12.pdf

[HLinNC]

Actually AV in July it did but NOCSAE has since revised their stance.

http://usafootball.com/news/coaches/nocsae-adding-products-helmet-nulls-certification

[NorCalMike]

California has declared things like the Guardian Cap as illegal for this season. Makes it easy for us official. I expect this decision will be revisited after the season.

[younggun]

Does anyone's state have a form they have the HC sign before the game to take liabllity of the equipment off of the officials. I know we verbally ask the coach before the game but how good is that? Just wondering.

[Rulesman]

Does anyone's state have a form they have the HC sign before the game to take liabllity of the equipment off of the officials. I know we verbally ask the coach before the game but how good is that? Just wondering.

Arkansas does. But just like the "verbal", how good is that signed card in a court of law?

[AlUpstateNY]

Does anyone's state have a form they have the HC sign before the game to take liabllity of the equipment off of the officials. I know we verbally ask the coach before the game but how good is that? Just wondering.

The purpose of having the Umpire present when a verbal certification is requested, and provided, is intended, in part, to serve as a witness to the exchange, in the event certification of that exchange ever becomes necessary.

[Curious]

Guardian Caps do NOT invalidate the NOCSAE certification, as they do not modify the helmet.  Helmet manufactuters are trying to claim that adding them invalidates the WARRANTY (which is under legal review), but not the certification.  The NFHS does not endorse products, but have said that use of the caps in games does not violate any NFHS rule.

http://guardiancaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NFHS-Letter_8.24.12.pdf

AB etal: Interesting that your note says the manufacturers are claiming these caps invalidate only the warranty - not the certification.

The slide provided to us did reflect and highlighted an addition to the NOCSAE certification label specifically invalidating their certification of any modification made to a helmet that changed the original production of the helmet or added mass to it (my recollection)...

This certification label change seems to have come down (7/13) after Mr. Tenopir's letter to Guardian (8/12) as noted by HL in NC.  Is Georgia sticking with the August, 2012 letter now?

Finally, Have there been any rulings regarding helmet modifications for other than Guardian Caps?  Apparently, there can be numerous ways to alter them.  The rules are pretty consistent in their declaration that "altered equipment" is illegal....

   

[Atlanta Blue]

This certification label change seems to have come down (7/13) after Mr. Tenopir's letter to Guardian (8/12) as noted by HL in NC.  Is Georgia sticking with the August, 2012 letter now?

Don't know.  We looked into the issue in January and February, 2013, and were informed by both the company making the Guardian Caps and the GHSA that they were legal in games.  (The company is in the Atlanta area, and in fact, is owned by the family of a player of one of our region opponents).  At that time, the caps did not change the NOCSAE certification, which is why I made the statement.

As HL has pointed out, apparently things have changed since February, when we got our ruling.

[Kevin Durst]

In West Virginia, we were told if a coach asks about additions to the helmet to tell them if added, the helmet is no longer leagal equipment.

[NorCalMike]

Just to muddy the waters a little more, NOCSAE has backed off a little on its previous statement and issued a new release attached below. NOCSAE is now saying its up to the helmet manufacturers to say whether these add on void the certification.

With this change and the lack of any manufacturer commenting on the additions CIF has rescinded its previous interpretation disallowing the use of these additions. They are now legal in California.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Atlanta Blue]

OK, so we are part of a DOD study, where sensors have been added to the inside of our helmets.  These sensors measure impact, and translit the info to a computer on the sideline.  Does the addition of these sensors (funded by the US goverment!) invalidte our NOCSAE certification?  When we tell the officials we are legally equiped, are we?

[Curious]

OK, so we are part of a DOD study, where sensors have been added to the inside of our helmets.  These sensors measure impact, and translit the info to a computer on the sideline.  Does the addition of these sensors (funded by the US goverment!) invalidte our NOCSAE certification?  When we tell the officials we are legally equiped, are we?

For real...a DOD study! How do you get yourself into these situations?

It appears that the NOCSAE change noted by NorCalMike keeps everyone shooting at a moving target. The Michigan High School Athletic Association originally said to allow the modifications, then changed it's mind to disallow them.  As of today, they are back to allowing "some modifications by some manufacturers".  We (officials) are to be provided with a clarifying letter this Monday.  Film at eleven!

[HLinNC]

These sensors measure impact

I am assuming that these sensors are stuck on the inside of the shell with adhesive without any removal of the padding.  No different than a helmet sticker, really.  Just inside instead of out.

Those cap things that I've seen appear to be a rugby cap strapped on to the outside of the helmet.   Why not wrap it in moleskin?  A case of prewrap?  That would surely soften a blow, maybe.  I imagine the problem is twofold- 1) the helmet mfr's have had little to no opportunity to test the products and 2) since their R&D didn't come up with it, they're not making any income on it.

Somebody came up with this idea in the 60's but it fell by the way side:

[bama_stripes]

Just to muddy the waters a little more, NOCSAE has backed off a little on its previous statement and issued a new release attached below. NOCSAE is now saying its up to the helmet manufacturers to say whether these add on void the certification.

With this change and the lack of any manufacturer commenting on the additions CIF has rescinded its previous interpretation disallowing the use of these additions. They are now legal in California.

Was notified today that, because of this release, Alabama HSAA football officials will not penalize any participating team during a contest that is using these (add-on) products.

Just in time, too.  We start jamboree games tonight.

[Atlanta Blue]

For real...a DOD study! How do you get yourself into these situations?

A physician associated with both Emory University School of Medicine and Georgia Tech is an expert on traumatic brain injuries (and she is VERY good looking - not that it matters, but it helps).  She compiled a team of doctors, bioengineers and others, and created a study to measure impacts in helmets.  She got the DOD to fund it, with the results being applied to soldiers in the field, and at what point they become risks to themselves and others following blows to the head.  The study is being done with two high school teams (ours being one), a D3 team (Univ of Rochester) and one D1 team (North Carolina).

The sensors are not attached with adhesive, but come in a circular band that fits between the pads that already exist in the helmet.  They were designed in conjunction with Riddell, and only Riddell helmets are being used in the study.  Yes, Riddell helped, which is why we agreed, but technically, they are additions to the helmet that have not been tested with NOCSAE.  If NOCSAE insists that all additions have to be retested as their memo of July 22 said, then technically, our helmets are not in compliance.

[jwkde]

Seems to me that common sense should prevail in this situation.

In this case the sensors are not designed to change the performance of the helmet.  At some point, human testing is necessary

[Atlanta Blue]

Seems to me that common sense should prevail in this situation.

In this case the sensors are not designed to change the performance of the helmet.  At some point, human testing is necessary

I agree, just playing devi's advocate.  After all, I'm a coach, you expected less?

[COLOUMP]

Illegal in Colorado.