Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

eschnur66

SG Helmets ... Thoughts ... Feedback ... Reviews?

Recommended Posts

From my understanding, when they are reconditioned, they do NOT return with a NOCSAE approved sticker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My nephew in Brownsburg swears by his.  He's had it for a few years and loves it.  It is so light that it feels like a toy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Major Reisman said:

From my understanding, when they are reconditioned, they do NOT return with a NOCSAE approved sticker.

Whats the reasoning behind this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, eschnur66 said:

Whats the reasoning behind this?

First let me say that the helmet, when new is NOCSAE approved.

 

My understanding is that Bill Simpson, the manufacturer of the helmet, will not allow the helmets to be put through all of the test that NOCSAE requires to be reconditioned.  I have also heard that these helmets don't pass some of the tests and that is why Simpson wont allow them to be tested.  But, Simpson does his own testing, and puts their own sticker in the helmet to say that they have been reconditioned.  

 

But, from my knowledge, when a referee asks a coach if "all of his players are properly equipped" before the game and the coach says "yes" and his team has helmets that are not NOCSAE stickered, then that is a violation.

 

My concern would be, who holds the liability of a injured player wearing one of these helmets that does not have NOCSAE approval: school, coach, referee, S/G? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lighter the helmet, the more head movement on impact (transfer of momentum from heavier object to lighter).  It sounds good on paper, but it is at least one man's opinion that concussions are possibly easier to come by.  This is the best example I can think of...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Major Reisman said:

But, from my knowledge, when a referee asks a coach if "all of his players are properly equipped" before the game and the coach says "yes" and his team has helmets that are not NOCSAE stickered, then that is a violation.

 

My concern would be, who holds the liability of a injured player wearing one of these helmets that does not have NOCSAE approval: school, coach, referee, S/G? 

There are limits as to what officials can do, checking possibly 200 helps could push that envelope. I would say ultimately this falls on the school and coach. But when the lawsuit comes, I'm sure our crew will be included. I have multiple insurance policies for such events. Perhaps @bobref could weigh in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Von2Rov said:

The lighter the helmet, the more head movement on impact (transfer of momentum from heavier object to lighter).  It sounds good on paper, but it is at least one man's opinion that concussions are possibly easier to come by.  This is the best example I can think of...

 

I believe in Simpson's case, where they're coming from a different sport. In racing, weight is key in eliminating G-Force in cornering and stressing the neck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:19 PM, Major Reisman said:

First let me say that the helmet, when new is NOCSAE approved.

 

My understanding is that Bill Simpson, the manufacturer of the helmet, will not allow the helmets to be put through all of the test that NOCSAE requires to be reconditioned.  I have also heard that these helmets don't pass some of the tests and that is why Simpson wont allow them to be tested.  But, Simpson does his own testing, and puts their own sticker in the helmet to say that they have been reconditioned.  

 

But, from my knowledge, when a referee asks a coach if "all of his players are properly equipped" before the game and the coach says "yes" and his team has helmets that are not NOCSAE stickered, then that is a violation.

 

My concern would be, who holds the liability of a injured player wearing one of these helmets that does not have NOCSAE approval: school, coach, referee, S/G? 

By book rule, it would be the Athletic Director and Head Coach. Book says helmets must be NOCSAE approved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2017 at 3:06 PM, Impartial_Observer said:

There are limits as to what officials can do, checking possibly 200 helps could push that envelope. I would say ultimately this falls on the school and coach. But when the lawsuit comes, I'm sure our crew will be included. I have multiple insurance policies for such events. Perhaps @bobref could weigh in.

 

IMO, the officials' liability ends when the coach certifies that his players are legally equipped unless someone were to bring the lack of NOCSAE certification to the officials' attention, or it would otherwise become apparent to the official. The "standard of care" for officials does not include pregame inspection of helmets. Additionally, someone attempting to prosecute a personal injury claim based on the lack of a NOCSAE certification for a reconditioned helmet faces a formidable task of proving that it was the failure to meet NOCSAE standards that caused the injury: a formidable task. Bottom line is the risk to officials of being found liable if someone is injured playing with a reconditioned helmet that does not have a NOCSAE sticker on it, while not zero, is about as close to it as you can get.

However, that's not to say that officials would be left out of such a lawsuit. All it takes to file a lawsuit is to come up with the nominal filing fee. People get sued when they're not liable all the time. That's why every official should carry liability insurance. Not to indemnify them from liability so much as to pay the costs of defending them in a non-meritorious lawsuit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nohuddlenoproblem said:

From the horse's mouth (Simpson), the helmets are being discontinued.  Too much money spent and not enough in return. 

My understanding is they are discontinuing the current design and releasing a new one in March. It is supposed to be more appealing aesthetically, which was the biggest reason given by schools for not wanting to try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CoachMiller said:

My understanding is they are discontinuing the current design and releasing a new one in March. It is supposed to be more appealing aesthetically, which was the biggest reason given by schools for not wanting to try it.

WHAT? Schools are buying helmets to protect young skulls for of mush based on aesthetics? This makes pants that don't cover the knee seem really insignificant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×