Shock Doctor Gravity mouthguard illegal for NFHS lacrosse

Discuss the rules of the game & the world of officiating.

Postby horn17 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:25 pm

look at the loyola bench durring the first four from two weeks ago...shock doctor lower mouth guards...you notice the green - hard to miss....

obviously this is something that is up for much debate, my vendor has stated that they are inquiring into it...not sure what that necessarily means, but I figured that if the governing body for youth approves it, though they dont set the rules , the NHFS will probaly re-examine it at that point - and take into consideration...they werent going to US Lacrosse seeking certification on the guard, just getting their "ducks in a row"....mistated earlier...

Still, I still think they (NHFS) is liable - as mentioned above - if is proven to reduce the amount of injuries, and they wont allow it on the field - its like saying, "we love the sport, but your MINOR's health isnt a concern for us"...

Laxref -
I find it quite intresting then that these manufactures are basically making sure the sticks they make fall within the "guidelines"...not neccesarily are approved at any level... does the NHFS have the same rules, can I say that stick isnt NHFS approved, so that goal doesnt count? :lol:
Rob Horn
University of Minnesota Duluth
Assistant Coach (the little Rob)

"You can't outwork mother nature."

Upon viewing Paul Rabil in person, this is the quote of the century. (stolen from a different message board .
User avatar
horn17
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:22 pm


Postby laxfan25 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:09 pm

horn17 wrote: can I say that stick isnt NHFS approved, so that goal doesnt count? :lol:

No, but as the visiting coach you could say that the balls don't have the NFHS-approved stamp on them - another no-no.
Knowing how the NFHS operates, I'm sure they just looked at the current rule saying "upper-teeth have to be fully covered" to come out with this ruling. It will take someone submitting a rule change request to get this revised for next year, and hopefully they will then take into consideration the effectiveness of the device and not just its location in passing judgement. After all, Shock Dcotor probably has the most liability at stake here, and they're not going to put a product out for concussion protection that doesn't pass muster. It really is very innovative, improving breathing (which is often an issue with standard mouthguards) and improving clarity of speech, which may or may not be an improvement from the ref's perspective! :lol:
User avatar
laxfan25
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
Scoop, Cradle, & Rock!
 
Posts: 1952
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:06 pm

Postby horn17 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:14 pm

I might try it out to see what its like...I agree laxfan...these things take time, and it just has to go throught the proper channels, and at least Shock Doctor is attempting to that ...so kudos to them!
Rob Horn
University of Minnesota Duluth
Assistant Coach (the little Rob)

"You can't outwork mother nature."

Upon viewing Paul Rabil in person, this is the quote of the century. (stolen from a different message board .
User avatar
horn17
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:22 pm

Postby LaxRef on Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:40 pm

horn17 wrote:look at the loyola bench durring the first four from two weeks ago...shock doctor lower mouth guards...you notice the green - hard to miss....


As I always say, what particular officials do or do not call in a game has little bearing on whether the thing in question is actually illegal or legal according to the rules. Some bearing, but not much. (I know of an official who disallowed a goal because the ball was not white and the coaches hadn't agreed to change colors, but there's no rule that says that that's the correct procedure, although some people might have come away from watching that game thinking it was the rule.)

horn17 wrote:lobviously this is something that is up for much debate, my vendor has stated that they are inquiring into it...not sure what that necessarily means, but I figured that if the governing body for youth approves it, though they dont set the rules , the NHFS will probaly re-examine it at that point - and take into consideration...they werent going to US Lacrosse seeking certification on the guard, just getting their "ducks in a row"....mistated earlier...

Still, I still think they (NHFS) is liable - as mentioned above - if is proven to reduce the amount of injuries, and they wont allow it on the field - its like saying, "we love the sport, but your MINOR's health isnt a concern for us"...

Laxref -
I find it quite intresting then that these manufactures are basically making sure the sticks they make fall within the "guidelines"...not neccesarily are approved at any level... does the NHFS have the same rules, can I say that stick isnt NHFS approved, so that goal doesnt count? :lol:


Well, you can say all kinds of stuff, but the question is whether it's true. :D

There are no rules saying the sticks have to be approved, just that they have to meet the requirements in the rules regarding dimension, rollout, pocket depth, etc. Thus, you can't rightfully disallow a goal because the stick isn't NFHS-approved, but you can if it doesn't meet the requirements laid out in the rules.

OTOH, lacrosse balls must have the NFHS seal on them to be legal for play. An NFHS directive e-mailed around has stated that if they do not have the seal, play the game anyway and report the infraction to TPTB.

The problems with, say, the NCAA getting into the "approval" business are (1) liability (2) lack of control over the process. Suppose Warrior submits a stick which is legal but which is exactly 6.5 inches across the top. The NCAA approves it, and then—through manufacturing variation before sale, from user modification, or due to use after the sale—the stick is 6.25 inches. The stick is "approved," but it does not meet the rule requirements any longer. This could create a quandry that the NCAA wants no part of.
-LaxRef
User avatar
LaxRef
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:18 am

Postby horn17 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:44 pm

Thanks for the insight on the balls...I'll make sure to look for those and buy them like crazy just to keep em around...

And I figure that its really a ref discretion at that level (Loyola) for the mouth guards, espically if Coach Toomey mentioned to him ahead of time...

I was always wondering why some of the warrior sticks we used to sell were actually 6.48....
Rob Horn
University of Minnesota Duluth
Assistant Coach (the little Rob)

"You can't outwork mother nature."

Upon viewing Paul Rabil in person, this is the quote of the century. (stolen from a different message board .
User avatar
horn17
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:22 pm

NFHS Seal

Postby GrayBear on Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:57 am

OTOH, lacrosse balls must have the NFHS seal on them to be legal for play. An NFHS directive e-mailed around has stated that if they do not have the seal, play the game anyway and report the infraction to TPTB.


Not that the "why" matters if it's already a firm rule, but I'll go ahead with the dumb question anyway: Why do otherwise acceptable game balls (NCAA approved) have to bear the NFHS seal?
G. F. Gallagher
Ordo Anatis Fluvialis
User avatar
GrayBear
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Re: NFHS Seal

Postby Sonny on Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:03 am

GrayBear wrote:
OTOH, lacrosse balls must have the NFHS seal on them to be legal for play. An NFHS directive e-mailed around has stated that if they do not have the seal, play the game anyway and report the infraction to TPTB.


Not that the "why" matters if it's already a firm rule, but I'll go ahead with the dumb question anyway: Why do otherwise acceptable game balls (NCAA approved) have to bear the NFHS seal?


Because NFHS is a different set of rules & governing body then the NCAA.
Webmaster
Image
Image
User avatar
Sonny
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby horn17 on Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:58 am

LaxRef wrote:
horn17 wrote:look at the loyola bench durring the first four from two weeks ago...shock doctor lower mouth guards...you notice the green - hard to miss....


As I always say, what particular officials do or do not call in a game has little bearing on whether the thing in question is actually illegal or legal according to the rules. Some bearing, but not much. (I know of an official who disallowed a goal because the ball was not white and the coaches hadn't agreed to change colors, but there's no rule that says that that's the correct procedure, although some people might have come away from watching that game thinking it was the rule.)

horn17 wrote:lobviously this is something that is up for much debate, my vendor has stated that they are inquiring into it...not sure what that necessarily means, but I figured that if the governing body for youth approves it, though they dont set the rules , the NHFS will probaly re-examine it at that point - and take into consideration...they werent going to US Lacrosse seeking certification on the guard, just getting their "ducks in a row"....mistated earlier...

Still, I still think they (NHFS) is liable - as mentioned above - if is proven to reduce the amount of injuries, and they wont allow it on the field - its like saying, "we love the sport, but your MINOR's health isnt a concern for us"...

Laxref -
I find it quite intresting then that these manufactures are basically making sure the sticks they make fall within the "guidelines"...not neccesarily are approved at any level... does the NHFS have the same rules, can I say that stick isnt NHFS approved, so that goal doesnt count? :lol:


Well, you can say all kinds of stuff, but the question is whether it's true. :D

There are no rules saying the sticks have to be approved, just that they have to meet the requirements in the rules regarding dimension, rollout, pocket depth, etc. Thus, you can't rightfully disallow a goal because the stick isn't NFHS-approved, but you can if it doesn't meet the requirements laid out in the rules.



Thats what I was looking for....now I can start to mass produce sticks made out of reinforced jello.... :lol:
Rob Horn
University of Minnesota Duluth
Assistant Coach (the little Rob)

"You can't outwork mother nature."

Upon viewing Paul Rabil in person, this is the quote of the century. (stolen from a different message board .
User avatar
horn17
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:22 pm

Postby GrayBear on Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:07 am

Not that the "why" matters if it's already a firm rule, but I'll go ahead with the dumb question anyway: Why do otherwise acceptable game balls (NCAA approved) have to bear the NFHS seal?


Because NFHS is a different set of rules & governing body then the NCAA.


I guess I'm laboring under a misapprehension that the balls would be "otherwise acceptable". Indulge me in one last ballsy question then--are the dimensional and/or performance specs different between the NCAA-approved ball and NFHS-approved ball? If "no", I repeat my original question--If "yes", then never mind.
G. F. Gallagher
Ordo Anatis Fluvialis
User avatar
GrayBear
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Postby Sonny on Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:12 am

GrayBear wrote:
Not that the "why" matters if it's already a firm rule, but I'll go ahead with the dumb question anyway: Why do otherwise acceptable game balls (NCAA approved) have to bear the NFHS seal?

Because NFHS is a different set of rules & governing body then the NCAA.


I guess I'm laboring under a misapprehension that the balls would be "otherwise acceptable". Indulge me in one last ballsy question then--are the dimensional and/or performance specs different between the NCAA-approved ball and NFHS-approved ball? If "no", I repeat my original question--If "yes", then never mind.


The balls aren't any different at this present day and time, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be different in the future. NFHS has different rules for equipment then NCAA.
Webmaster
Image
Image
User avatar
Sonny
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8183
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: NFHS Seal

Postby LaxRef on Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:22 pm

GrayBear wrote:
OTOH, lacrosse balls must have the NFHS seal on them to be legal for play. An NFHS directive e-mailed around has stated that if they do not have the seal, play the game anyway and report the infraction to TPTB.


Not that the "why" matters if it's already a firm rule, but I'll go ahead with the dumb question anyway: Why do otherwise acceptable game balls (NCAA approved) have to bear the NFHS seal?


I'd be willing to bet that the NFHS makes money on their seal of approval.

The specs on the balls are the same, IIRC. NCAA does not require a seal on the ball.
-LaxRef
User avatar
LaxRef
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1381
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 7:18 am

Postby GrayBear on Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:21 pm

I'd be willing to bet that the NFHS makes money on their seal of approval.


We have a winner. That's what I was driving at.
G. F. Gallagher
Ordo Anatis Fluvialis
User avatar
GrayBear
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
The Chief is Dead - Long Live the Chief!
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Saint Paul, MN

Postby StrykerFSU on Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:49 pm

I use this mouthguard and love it. I also suffered several concussions in high school and college while wearing traditional mouthguards covering the upper teeth. If the powers that be are so worried about concussions, why are any helmets besides the Riddell allowed?
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Previous

Return to Lacrosse Rules & Officiating

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


cron