Talk:National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment

We have a question regarding Ear flaps required on a catchers helmet. The 2003 rule book states they are required, but the 2013 states nothing about ear flaps.

Douglas Best dbest8@nc.rr.com

Page Rewritten and Repaired Yet Would Benefit From Expansion
Although the NOCSAE subject matter is now more thoroughly described and negative and positive bias has been removed, citation sources are not available at this time for certain important facts. PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

One such fact is that NOCSAE's requirement that equipment makers apply to a third-party certification organization to verify compliance acts as a sort of firewall to prevent conflicts of interest. It also appears to be a significant 'fact of the world' that part of the third-party certification process includes a requirement that makers must have QA/QC plans approved by the certifying organization. PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Another important fact is that NOCSAE funded and/or directed research has been responsible for several scientific breakthroughs. Funding research is part the the information gathering process for standards development. PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Previous Page Version Did Not Adequately Describe the Subject Matter
✅ The fix for this problem is to reorganize the page to mirror other Wikipedia pages on standards organizations, such as ASTM and ANSI. ANSI is the standards org which accredits NOCSAE. ASTM also develops standards for sports equipment.PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

New Lead Section
Edits were patterned after the American National Standards Institute and ASTM International pages. Citation sources are NOCSAE's articles of incorporation and 990 Federal Tax Return. Information lacking neutral point of view was removed. IPA notation for the NOCSAE acronym has been added. ✅ PatriciaBishop (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Three sentences which lacked neutral point of view have been removed. ✅
 * 1. Schools and universities look to NOCSAE certification of equipment, particularly helmets, to protect players and reduce liability.
 * The above sentence was deleted because it refers to a biased argument made in the NOCSAE standards, adoption, and effects section. This is the biased/inappropriate argument:"Stickers indicating NOCSAE certification are placed onto helmets.[11] Attorneys specializing in sports law advise schools and universities to purchase appropriate athletic equipment for the athletic activities offered that is of satisfactory quality, specifically football helmets that adhere to NOCSAE guidelines.[3] School athletic staff are advised by experts to search for NOCSAE certification stickers, both as part of their athletic training education and day-to-day activities .[3][11] They are warned to do this, in particular, for liability reasons, as 'serious legal reprecussions may occur if a helmet is issued to a student athletic ' lacking an approval sticker.[12]"
 * The paragraph implies that the helmet standard is a sham and that its only purpose is to shield parties from liability, ignoring the scientific research underpinning the standard's development. It violates Wiki rules against original research because it is a synthesis, using the source materials (by quoting them out of context) in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source authors. see Original Research PatriciaBishop (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 2. NOCSAE data indicate a significant reduction in athlete fatalities and brain injuries when using NOCSAE-certified equipment.


 * 3. NOCSAE has been criticized for holding a conflict of interest, and not furthering true player safety. PatriciaBishop (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

New Section - History
A History section, similar to the section on ANSI's page, would greatly improved this article by centering it on NOCSAE's activities. Also, since the org makes performance standards, defining these standards within the context of the sports industry was appropriate.PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC) More items are needed for this section.PatriciaBishop (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Completed, until more information from a reliable source can be found. ✅ PatriciaBishop (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

New Process Section to Replace "NOCSAE standards, adoption, and effects" section
The article did not describe how NOCSAE standards are developed. A process section, such as the one on ANSI's page solved the problem. I will begin research to find citation sources to build this section. It will be difficult to do without relying on information on NOCSAE's website. However, since ANSI requires certain processes for accreditation, it seemed reasonable to make inferences for NOCSAE's Process section from ANSI's Essential Requirements document.--PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The NOCSAE standards, adoption, and effects section did not adequately describe the subject matter and contained positive bias and irrelevant information: ===NOCSAE standards, adoption, and effects=== As a general matter, to be approved by NOCSAE, helmets must resist brain-injuring, concussive forces. Research from NOCSAE, in addition to targeting helmet safety standards, has also increased understanding of the mechanisms of head and neck injuries and the design and structure of helmets, headgear, and face masks.

Unless equipment certified to NOCSAE standards is required by a sport governing body in its rules of play, NOCSAE standards are voluntary.

NOCSAE reports that by 1985, the number of head injury fatalities had fallen significantly, with zero deaths in 1990, the first season with no deaths since reporting began in 1931. It also claims that the incidence of serious head injuries had fallen from 4.25 players per 100,000 in the late 1960s to 0.68 players per 100,000 in the late 1980s.

Completed, until more information from a reliable source can be found. ✅PatriciaBishop (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Page Had Significant Bias Issues
The page violated Wikipedia's neutrality rules against false balance, undue weight, and expressions of doubt (“claims”), and weasel words (“critics note”, “observers note”). Some information was based on original research. The page seemed to have been written around two books which are opinion pieces, Throwaway Players by Culverhouse and Head Games by Nowinski (forward is by Jesse Ventura). Opinions expressed in these two books were given the same weight as facts in the other, scholarly sources (false balance). The best way to fix the issues in this page was to name the source of the criticism within the sentences and integrate the valid negative material across sections, according to Wikipedia rules.--PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Original Research
The sources underpinning this paragraph were broadly discussing the fact that NOCSAE has compiled scientific information to inform standards that describes how protective equipment must perform for the athlete. And, that because of these standards that are based on scientific evidence, people and institutions who provide NOCSAE compliant equipment to athletes have a measure of protection against liability lawsuits. The following paragraph is a synthesis, using the source materials in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source authors:

"Stickers indicating NOCSAE certification are placed onto helmets.[Amato, p. 257] Attorneys specializing in sports law advise schools and universities to purchase appropriate athletic equipment for the athletic activities offered that is of satisfactory quality, specifically football helmets that adhere to NOCSAE guidelines.[Wong, pp. 122, 149] School athletic staff are advised by experts to search for NOCSAE certification stickers, both as part of their athletic training education and day-to-day activities .[Wong, pp. 122, 149][Amato, p. 257] They are warned to do this, in particular, for liability reasons, as 'serious legal reprecussions may occur if a helmet is issued to a student athletic ' lacking an approval sticker.[Eaves, p. 36]"

The above quoted paragraph from the page implied that the helmet standard is a sham and that its only purpose is to shield parties from liability, ignoring the scientific research behind the standard's development.PatriciaBishop (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources and  deleted because they had only been used to support this paragraph, and they were misquoted, used for original research. (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Misleading paragraph removed. ✅ PatriciaBishop (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Separate Criticism Section Was Inappropriate
The appropriateness of a Criticism section for this page was reevaluated based on Wiki rules requiring a neutral point of view and because the criticisms were outdated. PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this section should be renamed Concussion Controversy, but then the question becomes whether an exploration of an old controversy belongs on an encyclopedic page about a standards organization. The controversy certainly became a part of NOCSAE's history, so maybe its proper place is in the History section. There is plenty of information explaining all sides of the issue in this U.S. Senate subcommittee hearing transcript source: In this 2019 hearing, a panel of experts, including NOCSAE's executive director (who was questioned by Senator Udall, at the time, a NOCSAE critic) gave testimony about various culture problems in team play and the unlikelihood that any helmet technology will ever advance to the level of concussion prevention because such a helmet would act as a battering ram against other players or would cause neck injuries in the wearer. An important point made in the hearing was that there is no science to support the absolute effectiveness of a helmet against concussion, no matter what its design. Concussion is a sort of brain whiplash effect that causes damage on the cellular level.PatriciaBishop (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sentence By Sentence Analysis of Old Criticism Section
1. The first sentence had 2 parts.
 * a) "Critics note that NOCSAE has "a close working relationship with" the sporting goods industry,..." PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This quote is out of context and is misleading. See item no. 2 for the full quote from the source.PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * b) "...and that because NOCSAE is funded by those few companies, it has "an inherent conflict of interest". Source: PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This source is self-published and so does not rise to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, and it seems the author mistakenly believed that, at the time, NOCSAE was directly funded by helmet makers. NOCSAE's 990 tax return and testimony given in a 2019 Senate hearing refute this; see below.PatriciaBishop (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * According to testimony given by NOCSAE's executive director in the 2019 Senate Subcommittee hearing, "Funding for the operations and research that we undertake is received through licensing fees that we charge to manufacturers who want to certify equipment to our use our trademarked and registered logos, properties, and phrases." PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ANSI accreditation requirements set rules to prevent conflicts of interest in standard-setting bodies. NOCSAE is an ANSI accredited standards developer, so the balance of interests represented by voting board directors is dictated by Lack of Dominance rules in ANSI's Essential Requirements document. Sources: and  PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NOCSAE's 990 Federal Tax Return details its funding sources. PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

2. "U.S. Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico requested that a federal agency, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, assume an official role in helmet safety testing and certification, effectively displacing NOCSAE."
 * NOCSAE and the CPSC are separate entities with separate responsibilities and expertise; NOCSAE is a standards organization and the CPSC is a government regulatory agency. This sentence seems to have no point other than to imply NOCSAE's illegitimacy and does not contribute to an understanding of the page's subject matter. Again, the source is a self-published book, which is not a reliable source, and the author gives no support for their opinion. PatriciaBishop (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

3. NOCSAE's certification standards have been criticized for authorizing helmet models that are "archaic or did not score well on specific impact tests."


 * The source material was misunderstood or was purposely misinterpreted by the Wikipedia writer. The source material does not say NOCSAE standards allow helmet models that are archaic or scored poorly on impact tests. The full statement in the source is critical of the NFL, not NOCSAE. Wikipedia writer confused the NFL's rules with NOCSAE published standards documents. The NYT article reads, "The [NFL] rules governing helmets are not complex. The league stipulates only that any helmet certified by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, or Nocsae, may be worn. That broad standard allows players to use models that may be archaic or did not score well on specific impact tests." PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The information is now outdated. A NOCSAE representative testified before Congress in 2019 that standards were revised to include testing to measure rotational forces.

4., 5, and 6. - All 3 sentences are leveling the same criticism.


 * #4 - "In addition, NOCSAE's tests focus on preventing catastrophic injuries like skull fractures, not concussions."


 * #5 - "Observers note that such testing is equivalent to judging a car's safety based on its seat belts, with no consideration given to air bags."


 * #6 - "The sole reliance of the NFL on NOCSAE certification, without considering the tested safety results and other data on helmet models, has been criticized by the players' union. PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sentences 4, 5, and 6 of the Criticism section are referring to the same issue, which is now outdated. At issue was the role played by rotational acceleration forces in causing concussions and whether any helmet can reduce the affects of these forces. At the time, advertisers were claiming they had products that protected against concussion-causing rotational forces. A NOCSAE representative testified before Congress in 2019 that NOCSAE standards do take into account rotational forces. PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

7. Critics note that while NOCSAE standards call for equipment to be reconditioned, where possible, and recertified every year,[4] a school may keep its helmets as NOCSAE-certified simply by never submitting them for re-certification.
 * U.S. Senator Pryor questioned NOCSAE's executive director about helmet recertification during the 2019 Senate Hearing. The NOCSAE representative testified that, although NOCSAE has no enforcement authority in the matter, 90% of helmets are reconditioned each year but that NOCSAE is trying to address, both through the CPSE as well as through their own work, the fact that football organizations at the youth level aren’t subject to state control or NCAA control. So for those helmets, it isn't known how many are not being reconditioned, "If they don’t voluntarily submit those helmets to a recertification program or replace them on their own, there really is no umbrella organization that is in charge of most of those players in those clubs. And that is an area that does need to be addressed." PatriciaBishop (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Criticism

 * All critical citation sources predated 1) NOCSAE's ANSI accreditation in 2019 and 2) NOCSAE's adoption, in 2015, of a third-party certifying organization which is ANSI/ISO 17065 accredited.
 * I cannot find any reliable sources published since 2015 which support the conflict of interest criticism.PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Cite Check Issues
1. Last paragraph of article Criticism section: “The inflexible nature of NOCSAE guidelines, stemming from the hesitance of helmet manufacturers to take any risks that could lead to lawsuits,[Lipsey, The Sporting Goods Industry, pp. 67-68] leads some to argue that innovative helmet designs may be underdeveloped.[Nowinski, Head Games, pp. 113-115]”
 * The Lipsey source does not support the statement attributed to it. Lipsey's p. 68 describes NOCSAE in all positive terms. The Nowinski source also does not support the statement attributed to it. On pages 111-115, Nowinski makes a convoluted argument but ultimately states that NOCSAE did not evaluate the Protec helmet and goes on to point out significant problems with all the innovative helmet designs that he lists, including the Protec.PatriciaBishop (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

2. In the Criticism section, first sentence: misquotes Lipsey, whose statement is not critical. Lipsey writes, This is a blatant use of weasel language and the writer seems to have purposely quoted Lipsey out of context. Lipsey's page 67 describes the stakeholder groups represented on NOCSAE's board in positive terms.PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 3. In the Criticism section, fourth paragraph: "Critics note that while NOCSAE standards call for equipment to be reconditioned, where possible, and recertified every year,[Magee, p. 478] a school may keep its helmets as NOCSAE-certified simply by never submitting them for re-certification.[Nowinski, p. 110] " The Magee source has been quoted out of context, and actually expresses a positive viewpoint of NOCSAE's requirements for recertification. Magee writes, The Nowinski source does not cite evidence but makes a speculative statement, which (oddly) is asserted as fact for the rest of the discussion. Nowinski writes, The next few sentences in the Nowinski source are are asserted without support. This sentence should be struck.PatriciaBishop (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC) 4 In the Creation and early years section: “Based on its limited funding, NOCSAE has narrowed its efforts from protective athletic equipment in all sports toward helmets' effectiveness in reducing injury, particularly in football, lacrosse, and baseball.[Lipsey, pp. 67-68][Magee (ed.) pp. 478-479, 487, 488, 490, 791]” The source materials do not say NOCSAE's scope narrowed from equipment in all sports to helmets in 3 sports. Also the Lipsey source is writing about the present (at the time of publication), and the Magee source refers to past events. Aside from this cite check problem, the sentence does not seem important to a user’s understanding of NOCSAE; it should be struck.PatriciaBishop (talk)

Unreliable Sources
Two sources are not reliable according to Wikipedia rules:
 * Head Games (2006) by Chris Nowinski was self-published through Drummond Publishing Group
 * Throwaway Players (2011) by Gay Culverhouse was subsidy published through Behler Publications which markets "Personal journeys with social relevance"

These books do not rise to Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC) So, the information pinned to these sources should be struck. Done ✅. The authors of the books are not experts on the subject matter, and including information from their works does not usefully promote understanding of the topic of this Wikipedia page. PatriciaBishop (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree With Assessment of WikiProject: Organizations PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Organizations has misclassified the NOCSAE page. It should not have received a 'low importance' rating. The page should at least have the same rating as other organizations which compose the U.S. voluntary standards system because technical standards are part of the oil in the engine of domestic and international commerce, they protect consumers and save lives. PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC) PatriciaBishop (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Similar organizations to NOCSAE are ASTM International and ANSI; they are rated medium importance. PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

NOCSAE-funded and directed research has been responsible for major discoveries in medicine. Sudden death caused by a strike to the chest (commotio cordis) had been a mystery, mostly known through martial arts practice, for centuries. NOCSAE directed the scientific investigation into the cause of commotio cordis and funded the breakthrough research that led to the discovery of its cause. Further, NOCSAE then developed a standard for protection against this life threatening injury. Wikipedia rules, however, do not allow this discovery to be described on the page because the only citation source is the NOCSAE website, or organizations closely associated with NOCSAE. If information on the Louis J. Acompora Foundation website is a reliable source, then the commotio cordis information can be included. '''Otherwise, there does not appear to be another acceptable source. There are many more facts demonstrating NOCSAE's importance that cannot be added.''' Louis died from a commotio cordis injury during a lacrosse game when he was fourteen years old. NOCSAE's work is important and so is that of all standards development organizations. PatriciaBishop (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)