PROtector Skull NOT legal for BE XC

LeannePip

LeannePip

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 August 2010
Messages
3,184
Location
Southampton
Visit site
Has any one seen this?

https://www.facebook.com/e.venting....7724236610043/990235554358906/?type=3&theater

apparently that little ridge at the front is technically a peak therefore the hat is not legal for XC activities!

After having a few too many falls in my HS1 i replaced it in January and this was the only snell level hat that fitted, £200 later i have a nice hat that is no use to me whatsoever for competition. i have a separate hat for DR & SJ'ing . . .
 
I really hope that PROtector appeal, and succeed! I don't see how that little lip can cause any damage?

As e-venting say, it's also going to be unfair on competitors who have no idea of this, and turn up to a competition with no alternative hat :(
 
Cragrat said:
I really hope that PROtector appeal, and succeed! I don't see how that little lip can cause any damage?

As e-venting say, it's also going to be unfair on competitors who have no idea of this, and turn up to a competition with no alternative hat :(
Click to expand...

I know, BE should release a statement because its obvious that since the rule change a lot of people will have bought this hat which is marketed as XC skull and now be in breech of the rules.

Bt you'd have thought the Protector would have run the design past the body of sport that they are aiming equipment at to check it conforms to all their rules!
 
What a mess. At least the good news is if it was sold as a cross country hat they will be forced to refund everyone who bought one because it's not fit for purpose.
 
ycbm said:
What a mess. At least the good news is if it was sold as a cross country hat they will be forced to refund everyone who bought one because it's not fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

Unless the labelling says suitable for BE or the retailer sold it as such I don't think they will have to.
 
Goldenstar said:
Unless the labelling says suitable for BE or the retailer sold it as such I don't think they will have to.
Click to expand...

I personally think that a class action on the grounds that it is not suitable for the only affiliated cross country that it's possible to do in the UK would succeed, myself. It is specifically marketed on their website as a cross country hat. There is of course also the argument that if BE say it is not safe for their cross country then it's not safe for any cross country. If the rim increases leverage in the event of a fall, which is the reason BE have banned it, then that argument would also apply to all cross country.
 
ycbm said:
I personally think that a class action on the grounds that it is not suitable for the only affiliated cross country that it's possible to do in the UK would succeed, myself. It is specifically marketed on their website as a cross country hat. There is of course also the argument that if BE say it is not safe for their cross country then it's not safe for any cross country. If the rim increases leverage in the event of a fall, which is the reason BE have banned it, then that argument would also apply to all cross country.
Click to expand...

Many people ride in hats with some form of peak when riding XC just not when doing BE.
BE are as far as I am aware not a testing organisation they can impose any clothing requirements on people they like .I don't think in law you can just because BE decide something it is so the world doesn't work like that.
 
I think it is a crazy decision.....there is no way that it could have the same effect as a peak

Unfortunately it is the only make of hat that fits my head shape (oval/deep crown), so I will now have to wear a hat that offers me less protection...!

I hope that PROtector succeed in appealing this decision. I wonder what provoked it at this stage of the season, and at such short notice?... an objection from another hat manufacturer or a very pedantic reading of the a poorly worded rule?
 
Goldenstar said:
Many people ride in hats with some form of peak when riding XC just not when doing BE.
BE are as far as I am aware not a testing organisation they can impose any clothing requirements on people they like .I don't think in law you can just because BE decide something it is so the world doesn't work like that.
Click to expand...

BE do all sorts of testing to back up safety requirements . For what its worth either this has come down from the FEI or from another manufacturer complaining.

This is the ruling in the rule book and it is obvious this hat does not conform. Moreover the suppliers are remiss as their website still says approved by BE which they never have been for CC

‘Cross Country Protective Headwear’ is a “Jockey Skull” of an even round or elliptical shape with a smooth or slightly abrasive surface, having no peak, peak type extensions or noticeable protuberances above the eyes or to the front. It must also comply with the ‘Protective Headwear’ criteria and be tagged as set out above. A removable hat cover with a light flexible peak may be used.’
 
Last edited:
I really get fed up when BE gets it in the neck for upholding their rules on safety standards come on people its the Manufacturer who has misled everybody as the hat type ruling has not been changed . BE have merely put out a statement reminding competitors that this hat does not conform.

Please put the blame were it should be . Its the manufacturer and competitor whose responsible. Its certainly not a poorly worded rule ,very clear infact.
 
The website says BE approved. It is worn and endorsed by riders such as France's Whttington and when I was looking, seemed to have the highest standards of hat protection.
 
Luci07 said:
The website says BE approved. It is worn and endorsed by riders such as France's Whttington and when I was looking, seemed to have the highest standards of hat protection.
Click to expand...

If this is correct then you are all absolutely entitled to take the hat back to the retailer who you bought it from for a refund, unless that retailer specifically told you that it was NOT acceptable for BE.

Don't be fobbed off by them saying it's the manufacturer's fault and they, or you, must get a refund from them. It is the retailer's responsibility to refund you. In this case, I feel sorry for them, but they have to sort it out with their supplier after refunding you.

For anyone interested, this law came about after someone bought a bottle of lemonade with a snail in it :D
 
Luci07 said:
The website says BE approved. It is worn and endorsed by riders such as France's Whttington and when I was looking, seemed to have the highest standards of hat protection.
Click to expand...

Take it straight back and tell them you what a different hat .
 
Luci07 said:
The website says BE approved. It is worn and endorsed by riders such as France's Whttington and when I was looking, seemed to have the highest standards of hat protection.
Click to expand...

IT can have the highest standards however there has always been this ruling in BE about fixed peaks and its a question of when a peak is not a peak .

I guess if pushed on the approved BE they will say it is but not for CC as was done by another manufacturer in the past they can be worn for Dressage and SJ

I saw Francis Whittington on Friday and he was in a normal Skull.
 
Yes it can be approved for BE but not the XC as lots of fixed peaks with the correct safety standard would be.

What I do find a bit confusing is why a SNELL rating wouldn't pick up that the 'fixed peak' would be a problem if it truely was? Also at the end of the day if you hit the deck it how much does it matter if it was after a SJ or after a XC obstacle. It is really hard to see that this decision has been made on safety grounds!
 
Last edited:
popsdosh said:
I really get fed up when BE gets it in the neck for upholding their rules on safety standards come on people its the Manufacturer who has misled everybody as the hat type ruling has not been changed . BE have merely put out a statement reminding competitors that this hat does not conform.

Please put the blame were it should be . Its the manufacturer and competitor whose responsible. Its certainly not a poorly worded rule ,very clear infact.
Click to expand...

But if BE approved it then it is also their fault surely they should know their own rules. It is everyone's fault in this case best the consumer can do is return it to the retailer and get a refund. It isn't fit for purpose.
 
rachk89 said:
But if BE approved it then it is also their fault surely they should know their own rules. It is everyone's fault in this case best the consumer can do is return it to the retailer and get a refund. It isn't fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

It is BE approved because SNELL is ok for BE. It is a separate rule about the peaks which mean they deem this only ok for phases 1 and 2.
 
rachk89 said:
But if BE approved it then it is also their fault surely they should know their own rules. It is everyone's fault in this case best the consumer can do is return it to the retailer and get a refund. It isn't fit for purpose.
Click to expand...

BE do not approve or endorse any hats .they have a set of rules to which they have to conform . What the sales people say on websites make it misleading!
 
I would think you have a good case to return. Screen shot this website and the BE reminder as a starting point for proof!

http://www.parkgateequestrian.co.uk/product_details_19.htm

They've helpfully provided their phone number as well.

PROtector Cool XCountry Helmet

This hat is sold in grey only. PLEASE CALL US ON 020 7732 7123 if you have any questions. Enjoy your PROtector Experience – CALL US

A totally new jockey skull with vents both back and front to keep a cool head. Sold with a cover specially designed for this helmet with mesh running back to front for best possible air circulation. It has the full SNELL E2001 Safety standard, the highest manufactured equestrian standard in the World. Approved by BE, BS, BD, British Riding Clubs and the Pony Club. As worn by Francis Whittington and Gemma Tattersall.

THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY PRODUCT
 
ycbm said:
For anyone interested, this law came about after someone bought a bottle of lemonade with a snail in it :D
Click to expand...

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - it was actually a bottle of ginger beer - this case featured heavily in my student days many moons ago!

I feel very sorry for those who have bought expensive hats advertised as being suitable for xc and now find they can't use it, but feel the case has to be taken up with the manufacturers and not BE.
 
ester said:
Yes it can be approved for BE but not the XC as lots of fixed peaks with the correct safety standard would be.

What I do find a bit confusing is why a SNELL rating wouldn't pick up that the 'fixed peak' would be a problem if it truely was? Also at the end of the day if you hit the deck it how much does it matter if it was after a SJ or after a XC obstacle. It is really hard to see that this decision has been made on safety grounds!
Click to expand...

As they call it a XC hat and claim it is approved by the BE on the manufacturers website that is surely false advertising on 2 points.
 
popsdosh said:
I really get fed up when BE gets it in the neck for upholding their rules on safety standards come on people its the Manufacturer who has misled everybody as the hat type ruling has not been changed . BE have merely put out a statement reminding competitors that this hat does not conform.

Please put the blame were it should be . Its the manufacturer and competitor whose responsible. Its certainly not a poorly worded rule ,very clear infact.
Click to expand...

i completely agree that this is not an issue with BE, however it does seem that it has only just been picked up by BE officials if you google Francis Whittington XC, there are tonnes of photos of him going XC in this exact hat showing the BE hat tag.

Luci07 said:
The website says BE approved. It is worn and endorsed by riders such as France's Whttington and when I was looking, seemed to have the highest standards of hat protection.
Click to expand...

FW is on the case, check out his twitter; https://twitter.com/fweventing

ester said:
Yes it can be approved for BE but not the XC as lots of fixed peaks with the correct safety standard would be.

What I do find a bit confusing is why a SNELL rating wouldn't pick up that the 'fixed peak' would be a problem if it truely was? Also at the end of the day if you hit the deck it how much does it matter if it was after a SJ or after a XC obstacle. It is really hard to see that this decision has been made on safety grounds!
Click to expand...

I agree about the why the location of the fall has any impact, regardless of where you are riding your horse is still capable of burrowing your face into the ground . . .
 
popsdosh said:
I really get fed up when BE gets it in the neck for upholding their rules on safety standards come on people its the Manufacturer who has misled everybody as the hat type ruling has not been changed . BE have merely put out a statement reminding competitors that this hat does not conform.

Please put the blame were it should be . Its the manufacturer and competitor whose responsible. Its certainly not a poorly worded rule ,very clear infact.
Click to expand...

Dang it I really must get my beverages right :D

I do hope all of you who have paid a fortune for these hats get the result you want. For the oval had, I find Champion skull caps fit me well and have PAS015
 
EventingMum said:
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - it was actually a bottle of ginger beer - this case featured heavily in my student days many moons ago!

I feel very sorry for those who have bought expensive hats advertised as being suitable for xc and now find they can't use it, but feel the case has to be taken up with the manufacturers and not BE.
Click to expand...

I immediately thought "hmmm wasn't it ginger beer" ;). Also going back a looong time.

Re the quote on the website. It's not that cut and dried is it? It is legal for BE, you could show jump in it, but not for the cross country part. The product name does refer to Xcountry (maybe even that is clever legal shenanigans) but I would say that it's not a complete shoo-in that you are entitled to a refund.

(Edit - sorry see that point has already been made)
 
Last edited:
EventingMum said:
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) - it was actually a bottle of ginger beer - this case featured heavily in my student days many moons ago!

I feel very sorry for those who have bought expensive hats advertised as being suitable for xc and now find they can't use it, but feel the case has to be taken up with the manufacturers and not BE.
Click to expand...

:D :D another who has fond memories of student case studies, and it is also the reason I decant my Crabbies before drinking :D

Parkgate have this on their welcome page, I cant open OP's link to e venting any more?

http://parkgateequestrian.co.uk/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top