NOCSAE does not certify or approve equipment, and we never have. We say specifically that NOCSAE "sets certification standards." We don't say the NOCSAE itself certifies. In order for a helmet mfgr to be entitled to a NOCSAE sticker, however, they must certify that their helmet meets those standards. He is playing word games, and splitting hairs. Yes, we do use the phrase "whose helmets it certifies" in the last sentence of the first full paragraph on page 48 of the article, but that needs to be seen in context of what comes before where we make clear that what it does is set certification standards. In short, the article uses "NOCSAE certification" and "decertification" as short hand for certification standards set by NOCSAE.
NOCSAE has not voided any helmet certification for the use of an aftermarket item. What? Footnote 8 and the text at the top of page 49 (which quotes from NOCSAE's own statement) provides complete and accurate information and, as we lawyers like to say, speak for themselves. The reader can decide what the effect of NOCSAE's statements were. Clearly, as indicated in footnote 8, some schools and state athletic associations have viewed NOCSAE's actions as meaning that the NOCSAE sticker - which means that the helmet meets or exceeds NOCSAE's certification standards - no longer provides such assurance. Again, Oliver is simply acting as a spin doctor: how is language that says an after-market addition to the helmet "voids the certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standard" any different than saying that the sensor voids the certification? Hair splitting.
The presence of manufacturers' interests in a minority position on the board when acting as a consensus body is required by ANSI Due Process requirements, a key requirement of the original federal legislation on youth football standards and equipment introduced by Senator Udall. It does not present a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest allegation comes, not from us, but from the Hohler article in footnote 7 (I think it is Stefan Duma's quote). So, we are not alone in alleging a conflict of interest. More importantly, Oliver is conflating the composition of the board with the source of NOCSAE's funds: the fact that the helmet manufacturers only have 2 seats on the board doesn't mean that there is no conflict of interest when, as is a proven fact, NOCSAE gets all its funding from the stickers helmet manufacturers can only put on their helmets if they pay NOCSAE a fee and comply with its standards.
NOCSAE made no changes to its standards or its procedures in response to the aftermarket issue. It explained why the manufacturers' certification of compliance with NOCSAE standards could be jeopardized by adding material and equipment to a model already certified in a different configuration. Again, just more spin from Oliver, and not even accurate spin at that: see the language at the top of page 49 quoting NOCSAE: it doesn't say "jeopardize," it says, flat out, that aftermarket add-ons "voids the certification of compliance" with NOCSAE's standards.
There has never been a process or procedure where NOCSAE could give approval to any aftermarket device. NOCSAE does not even approve the helmets certified by the manufacturers. More spin.
The current policy, which has been the policy since August 7, 2013 is not, as described in the article:
"NOCSAE's policy applies to any after-market add-on that alters a helmet's geometry or mass.12 By its plain language, this standard encompasses face masks/shields, decals, chin straps, and colored scrimmage caps."
The actual NOCSAE policy states:
"Any changes, additions or alterations of the model, except for size,
color or graphics, even if made by the original manufacturer, require that a new model name be created and a separate certification testing process begin for that new model. This concept of limiting certification to a specific model is commonly found in national and international helmet standards." More spin.
NOCSAE did nothing other than clarify that the entity which
certified the helmet in the configuration offered for sale would have the
authority to void that certification if items were added as defined in the
statement above. This was not a new grant of authority. And, why, pray tell, did it make this statement? To protect the manufacturers from a liability standpoint, not in the interest of safety.
Does the addition of two types of sensors, and outside covering and extra padding on the inside alter or change the performance of the previously certified helmet? How heavy is too heavy for a sensor package? Are you arguing only for a particular brand of sensor here? should there be a limit as to the total extra mass that can added to a helmet with sensors and caps and strips and chevrons? Who decides those questions? Ducking the question: if NOCSAE is doing its job, then it should set those standards. We were able to get Schutt to test its helmets with the Shockbox sensor, and the sensor-equipped helmet still met NOCSAE's very lenient certification (see quotes from Albert King). Oliver also inappropriately lumps sensors and padding products together when their effect on helmet performance needs to be evaluated separately, especially since one doesn't purport to provide any additional protection against the forces that cause concussion (sensors) and one does (padding).
NOCSAE has not voided any helmet certification for the use of an aftermarket item. What? Footnote 8 and the text at the top of page 49 (which quotes from NOCSAE's own statement) provides complete and accurate information and, as we lawyers like to say, speak for themselves. The reader can decide what the effect of NOCSAE's statements were. Clearly, as indicated in footnote 8, some schools and state athletic associations have viewed NOCSAE's actions as meaning that the NOCSAE sticker - which means that the helmet meets or exceeds NOCSAE's certification standards - no longer provides such assurance. Again, Oliver is simply acting as a spin doctor: how is language that says an after-market addition to the helmet "voids the certification of compliance with the NOCSAE standard" any different than saying that the sensor voids the certification? Hair splitting.
The presence of manufacturers' interests in a minority position on the board when acting as a consensus body is required by ANSI Due Process requirements, a key requirement of the original federal legislation on youth football standards and equipment introduced by Senator Udall. It does not present a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest allegation comes, not from us, but from the Hohler article in footnote 7 (I think it is Stefan Duma's quote). So, we are not alone in alleging a conflict of interest. More importantly, Oliver is conflating the composition of the board with the source of NOCSAE's funds: the fact that the helmet manufacturers only have 2 seats on the board doesn't mean that there is no conflict of interest when, as is a proven fact, NOCSAE gets all its funding from the stickers helmet manufacturers can only put on their helmets if they pay NOCSAE a fee and comply with its standards.
NOCSAE made no changes to its standards or its procedures in response to the aftermarket issue. It explained why the manufacturers' certification of compliance with NOCSAE standards could be jeopardized by adding material and equipment to a model already certified in a different configuration. Again, just more spin from Oliver, and not even accurate spin at that: see the language at the top of page 49 quoting NOCSAE: it doesn't say "jeopardize," it says, flat out, that aftermarket add-ons "voids the certification of compliance" with NOCSAE's standards.
There has never been a process or procedure where NOCSAE could give approval to any aftermarket device. NOCSAE does not even approve the helmets certified by the manufacturers. More spin.
The current policy, which has been the policy since August 7, 2013 is not, as described in the article:
"NOCSAE's policy applies to any after-market add-on that alters a helmet's geometry or mass.12 By its plain language, this standard encompasses face masks/shields, decals, chin straps, and colored scrimmage caps."
The actual NOCSAE policy states:
"Any changes, additions or alterations of the model, except for size,
color or graphics, even if made by the original manufacturer, require that a new model name be created and a separate certification testing process begin for that new model. This concept of limiting certification to a specific model is commonly found in national and international helmet standards." More spin.
NOCSAE did nothing other than clarify that the entity which
certified the helmet in the configuration offered for sale would have the
authority to void that certification if items were added as defined in the
statement above. This was not a new grant of authority. And, why, pray tell, did it make this statement? To protect the manufacturers from a liability standpoint, not in the interest of safety.
Does the addition of two types of sensors, and outside covering and extra padding on the inside alter or change the performance of the previously certified helmet? How heavy is too heavy for a sensor package? Are you arguing only for a particular brand of sensor here? should there be a limit as to the total extra mass that can added to a helmet with sensors and caps and strips and chevrons? Who decides those questions? Ducking the question: if NOCSAE is doing its job, then it should set those standards. We were able to get Schutt to test its helmets with the Shockbox sensor, and the sensor-equipped helmet still met NOCSAE's very lenient certification (see quotes from Albert King). Oliver also inappropriately lumps sensors and padding products together when their effect on helmet performance needs to be evaluated separately, especially since one doesn't purport to provide any additional protection against the forces that cause concussion (sensors) and one does (padding).
