LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

From Kent Summers, NFHS Boys Lacrosse Rules Editor

The Shock Doctor Gravity mouth guard does not meet the specifications rule 1-9-1c nor the requirements on page 83, Points of Emphasis, in the NFHS Boys Lacrosse Rule Book. Thus, it would not be allowed for play under NFHS rules.

The same question has been submitted to the NCAA and is being run up the chain of command.

This is the mouthguard that fits on the lower teeth.



http://www.shockdoc.com/mouthguards/gravity.html

I hope the NCAA approves it, and then maybe the NFHS will come around next year. It is a quality product that serves to prevent concussions, covers all of the lower teeth, thus keeping them separate from the uppers, and allows the player to breathe and speak easier. I hope they reconsider for next year.
Given that Shock Doctor is HQ'd in Plymouth, MN I assume you may see more of them up there!

laxfan25 wrote:I hope the NCAA approves it, and then maybe the NFHS will come around next year. It is a quality product that serves to prevent concussions, covers all of the lower teeth, thus keeping them separate from the uppers, and allows the player to breathe and speak easier. I hope they reconsider for next year.

I would think that it would be incumbent on a company making a product that doesn't conform to the playing rules to demonstrate that it works properly and to lobby the rule-making organizations for approval.

Funny thing is the doctors are recommending them as the best guard on the market, not to mention the safest one - when I went for my first aid training recently, I asked about it....

I agree lax ref...but that never happens anymore...example: Stick manufactuers and their products that some people find illegal...the Debeer Wizard, Warrior blade, etc...

I'm looking forward to the first lawsuit against the NFHS when a player wearing an "upper" mouth guard is injured, and alleges that the lower would have prevented the injury.

Rob Graff wrote:I'm looking forward to the first lawsuit against the NFHS when a player wearing an "upper" mouth guard is injured, and alleges that the lower would have prevented the injury.

I'm no legal expert, but I can't imagine that suit would go far if there is no research supporting the claim that the new design is equal or superior. (If there's no research, they might as well argue that a piece of salmon wrapped in duct tape would have prevented the injury.) And if there is such research, the manufacturers should be arguing their case with the NFHS instead of just hoping it's legal.

Per R.Horn's post, there is public recommendation from various qualified medical professionals that the new one is superior.

The suit would not be based upon comparing the two - but that the NFHS ignored/rejected an option that would have given the player the choice and that option (it would be argued) would have precluded the injury.

Rob

Rob Graff wrote:Per R.Horn's post, there is public recommendation from various qualified medical professionals that the new one is superior.

The suit would not be based upon comparing the two - but that the NFHS ignored/rejected an option that would have given the player the choice and that option (it would be argued) would have precluded the injury.

Again, I'm not an expert. It just seems to me that there's a difference between some doctors voicing an opinion that the new one is superior and actual research supporting that point. I mean, I've seen them have actual physicians on TV recommend a product I know is crap, so I'm not sure what kind of probitive value such testimonials have.

With something like this, I would think building the better mousetrap is only half the battle and the other half would be proving that it's better.

Oh, the other thing is that I've heard some people are wearing the shock doctor along with a traditional mouth guard. Nothing precludes that in the rules.

most guys on my team use this mouthguard and we love it. i hope it doesnt become illegal.

We should test this on humans. Anybody want to donate their brain?

LaxRef wrote:(If there's no research, they might as well argue that a piece of salmon wrapped in duct tape would have prevented the injury.)

LaxRef, is this your preferred mouthpiece when you're playing? If so, when's your next game, I'd love to come watch you put that in your mouth!

It just seems to me that there's a difference between some doctors voicing an opinion that the new one is superior and actual research supporting that point.

The import of the health professionals' statements is that these are in fact expert opinion. Tort cases are won and lost on the strength of expert opinion. Juries attach great significance to them, as they should.

LaxRef wrote:

Rob Graff wrote:I'm looking forward to the first lawsuit against the NFHS when a player wearing an "upper" mouth guard is injured, and alleges that the lower would have prevented the injury.

I'm no legal expert, but I can't imagine that suit would go far if there is no research supporting the claim that the new design is equal or superior. (If there's no research, they might as well argue that a piece of salmon wrapped in duct tape would have prevented the injury.) And if there is such research, the manufacturers should be arguing their case with the NFHS instead of just hoping it's legal.

I think Shock Doctor is looking into this, not just at the NFHS level, but above them as well (per my local Lax Vendor). Certified by USLacrosse, and the trickle down effect to NCAA (where it's currently leagal) , and then on to the NFHS - they can always change it durring the season I'd be assuming as well

horn17 wrote:

LaxRef wrote:

Rob Graff wrote:I'm looking forward to the first lawsuit against the NFHS when a player wearing an "upper" mouth guard is injured, and alleges that the lower would have prevented the injury.

I'm no legal expert, but I can't imagine that suit would go far if there is no research supporting the claim that the new design is equal or superior. (If there's no research, they might as well argue that a piece of salmon wrapped in duct tape would have prevented the injury.) And if there is such research, the manufacturers should be arguing their case with the NFHS instead of just hoping it's legal.

I think Shock Doctor is looking into this, not just at the NFHS level, but above them as well (per my local Lax Vendor). Certified by USLacrosse, and the trickle down effect to NCAA (where it's currently leagal) , and then on to the NFHS - they can always change it durring the season I'd be assuming as well

I would dispute your point that it is currently legal under NCAA rules. The NCAA rules also state that the mouth guard must cover all upper teeth, and if it were legal I don't think it would be taking me so long to get an answer from the national rules interpreter on its legality. He was not able to get a quick answer from TPTB and is running it up the chain of command.

Thus, it may end up being legal for NCAA play, but I think it is too strong a statement to say that it [i]is[/b] legal for NCAA play.

Also, US Lacrosse does not certify equipment, nor does it write the playing rules for any levels of which I am aware besides boys youth lacrosse (based on exceptions to the NFHS rules) and women's non-NCAA lacrosse.

As a side note, the NCAA doesn't certify euipment either, they just make the rules about it. If anyone ever tells you, "This can't be illegal because the NCAA certified that it is legal!" they're feeding you a pile of you-know-what. I don't know if there are any manufacturers that state that the equipment is NCAA certified—the usual claim is "meets NCAA specs," which may or may not be true—but if they are claiming that they're lying.