Does Sport governing body approval mean a product protects the brain?

No. Governing body approval usually decides whether a product may be worn in competition under that sport’s rules. It does not set the legal standard for protective equipment placed on the domestic or European market, and it does not prove that a product meaningfully reduces the rotational forces associated with concussion, sub-concussions, and longer-term brain injury risk [1, 2].

This distinction matters because the phrase “approved headgear” is still given too much authority in sport, especially in rugby union. Approval under a governing body framework is a referee-based match-permission issue. Brain protection is a scientific and societal issue. Legal compliance for protective equipment is a product-safety issue and determined by domestic or EU rules on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). These are related, but they are not the same thing [1, 2].

Modern brain injury protection science has moved well beyond the era in which sports headgear was designed mainly in terms of cuts, abrasions, and superficial injury. Repetitive head impacts, including sub-concussive impacts that produce no concussion symptoms, are increasingly associated with cumulative neurological damage over time. Rotational acceleration damage is central to that discussion [3, 4, 5, 6].

The question therefore needs to change.

Not: Is it governing body approved?

But: What is it actually designed, tested and safety certified to do to protect the brain? [2, 7].

Governing bodies regulate what can be worn in sport. They do not set the domestic or international legal standard for protective equipment.

Sporting governing bodies write rules for participation. They decide what may be worn in a match. They balance fairness, practicality, and player welfare within the game itself [1]. That is not the same as setting the legal safety standard for protective equipment placed on the market. [2]

In rugby, this confusion has become embedded in the phrase “World Rugby approved.” It is often treated as if it means best, safest, or the only legitimate protection. It does not. It means a product fits within World Rugby’s framework for what may be worn in competition. That is a much narrower and limited point [1, 8].

The same principle applies more broadly. Whether the governing body is World Rugby, the RFU, an older IRB framework, or another federation entirely, governing bodies regulate participation. They do not define the legal standard for protective equipment, and they do not decide the science of brain protection and safety testing [1, 2, 7].

World Rugby Regulation 12 is not a brain protection standard

World Rugby’s own wording is clear. Its headgear specification states that compliant headgear is “not intended nor expected to protect against any form of mild traumatic brain injury or skull fractures” [8].

That single point should fundamentally change the conversation.

If World Rugby-compliant headgear is explicitly not intended or expected to protect against mild traumatic brain injury, then World Rugby approval cannot reasonably be treated as the benchmark for brain protection. It is only a benchmark for what World Rugby has historically been willing to permit on the field under its own developed headgear framework [1, 8].

This is why conventional scrum caps and rugby headguards should be understood properly. They were designed to reduce surface injuries such as cuts, abrasions, and cauliflower ear. They were not designed to reduce the rotational forces that damage the brain in concussive and sub-concussive impacts [8, 9].

The public narrative and understanding has drifted too far from this reality. “Approved headgear” has come to sound like a protection standard. It is not. It is a rule about permitted kit in a match [1, 8].

Brain injury in sport is not only driven by impacts that show immediate concussion symptoms

One of the biggest failures in the old narrative is that it focuses too heavily on visible concussion events.

Long-term brain health risk in contact sport is not only driven by dramatic impacts that cause concussion symptoms. It is also shaped by repetitive exposure to smaller impacts that produce no visible symptoms at all. These are sub-concussions [4, 5, 6].

Rotational forces are central to this. During an angled or off-centre head impact, the skull rotates rapidly while the brain lags behind due to inertia. This creates shear strain within brain tissue. Rotational forces cause the brain to rotate inside the skull, which is associated with damage to tiny blood vessels and brain cells and, over time, breakdown of the blood–brain barrier and damaging neuro-inflammation [3, 4, 6].

This is why reducing rotational force transmission matters so much. Protecting the scalp is not the same as protecting the brain. Reducing linear impact alone is not enough when rotational force loading remains high [3, 7, 10].

Sub-concussive impacts are especially important because they happen far more often (hundreds of times more) than diagnosed concussions and contribute to cumulative brain injury burden. That is one of the central reasons why legacy headgear frameworks are no longer enough or relevant [4, 5, 6].

The Law 4 Headgear Trial shows the problem is acknowledged. It does not solve the standard problem.

World Rugby’s Law 4 Headgear Trial is important because it shows that innovation aimed at player welfare can no longer be ignored. World Rugby says the trial exists to enable assessment of headgear devices which, according to manufacturers, are designed to achieve specific, quantifiable medical purposes [11].

That matters. But it is not the same as setting a new protection standard.

World Rugby also makes clear that it does not claim the devices achieve the manufacturers’ stated outcomes. Its role is to allow assessment and to ensure that nothing worn increases injury risk on the field. In other words, the trial is an access and assessment pathway. It is not, by itself, a brain protection benchmark [11].

Independent literature discussing the trial reinforces that point. A 2022 laboratory study on soft-shell rugby headgear noted that the newer Law 4 trial pathway altered some earlier constraints, but still did not amount to a modern rotational-force-led protection standard [10].

This point was compounded by the release of World Rugby’s legal defence in response to the concussion lawsuit brought by nearly 800 former amateur and professional players in the United Kingdom. The issue is no longer whether the broader problem exists. It has already been acknowledged. The problem is that recognition of repetitive brain injury risk has not yet been matched by a protection framework that properly prioritises function, rotational-force reduction, and meaningful concussive and sub-concussive protection outcomes [12].

That is why governing body approval should not be mistaken for brain protection.

Video: Why World Rugby’s current position still falls short of a modern brain protection standard

YouTube video player 3

Approval in competition is not the same as meaningful protection

The phrase “headgear has to be World Rugby approved” sounds simple and binding. But it confuses three separate questions.

First, can the product be worn in a rugby match under the governing body’s rules? [1].

Second, does the product meet the legal standard required for protective equipment placed on the UK or EU market? [2].

Third, does the product actually reduce the rotational forces associated with concussive and sub-concussive brain injury? [3, 7].

Those elements are not the same question.

This is also why referee discretion should be understood properly. Referees can rule against items they consider dangerous or non-compliant in the circumstances of a match. That principle can apply across many equipment issues, including studs, wired bras, or any other item the referee considers problematic. In practice, referees already exercise discretion across many equipment issues, which means the match-day reality is often more nuanced than the blanket claim that every item “has to be World Rugby approved”. That is a matter of officiating and match control. It is not a scientific statement about whether a product has brain-protection value [1].

Once that distinction is understood, the old approval narrative starts to collapse under its own weight.

The real question for players, parents, coaches, schools, and clubs is not whether a product fits comfortably inside a legacy approval culture.

It is whether the product is actually designed, safety tested and certified to protect the brain [2, 7].

Comparison of rugby head protection options

When products are compared against criteria that matter for modern brain protection, the differences become much clearer.

Brain protection and traditional rugby headgear are not the same category.

Protective capability Rezon Halos® brain protection N-Pro Hedkayse Canterbury Ventilator Gilbert Headguards
Brain protection Yes No No No No
Qualified rotational force reduction Yes (up to 61%) Yes (~34%) No No No
Virginia Tech rating ★★★★★ Not publicly declared Not publicly declared Not publicly declared Not publicly declared
CE / UKCA Category II PPE Yes Yes No No No
Product design Patented Rotection® nine layered technology Thermo moulded foam Load spreading foam Foam padding Foam padding
Weight 70g 190g 220g 130g ~150g
Thickness 9.5mm 13mm 11mm 10mm 10mm

Conventional rugby headgear sits inside a scrum-cap framework shaped by World Rugby governing body limits and foam-padding assumptions. Brain protection starts somewhere else entirely: with the need to reduce the rotational-force transmission in concussive and sub-concussive brain injury [3, 8, 9].

That is why the comparison matters. Once the criteria shift from “Is it approved within a legacy governing body framework?” to “What does it do to protect the brain?”, the separation between conventional headgear and genuine brain protection becomes much clearer [7, 13].

Customer Feedback

What Rezon customers have to say about Halos®:

“As a rugby coach of over 30 years, I’ve seen first-hand the impact of head injury in sport. Now that rotational force damage is being better understood, Rezon Halos® stands out as protection designed specifically to address it. I recommend it to my players because it can be worn comfortably without distraction in training or matches.”

Steven Colwell
Rezon Halos® Black

Purchased:
Halos Hexo Black L

“I bought Halos® for my two sons who play football and rugby. I was looking for protection for their developing brains as awareness grows around the long-term effects of repeated head impacts. They find them comfortable, they stay in place, and they are proud to wear them. Knowing I’m helping to reduce the impact on their brains gives me huge reassurance.”

Melissa Emson

Purchased:
Halos Hexo Blue M

This is not just a rugby problem

Rugby union is simply the clearest case study.

The wider issue is that, across sport and beyond, products are often discussed using the language of protection even when the key questions of legal compliance, CE/UKCA safety certification, and meaningful protective biomechanical performance remain unclear.

That same problem appears in football, in rugby league, in curling, in combat sports, and even in medical use [2, 7, 14].

In these settings, products can often be sold or described as “protective” without necessarily meeting the legal standard required for genuine and legal protective equipment. That is not just a wording issue. It is a category placement, trading standards and advertising issue [14].

It is time to consider a broader and more important category: brain protection designed to address the actual mechanisms of brain injury, evaluated against meaningful performance criteria, and aligned with the legal standards that govern protective products under domestic and European law [2, 7, 14].

What players, parents, schools and clubs should ask instead

The better question is no longer: Is it governing body approved?

The better questions are these. What is it designed to protect? The scalp, the skull, or the brain?

Does it reduce rotational-force transmission?

Because rotational forces are the primary driver of brain injury in concussive and sub-concussive impacts [3, 6].

Does it meet the legal standard for protective equipment?

Because a governing body’s rules for participation are not the same as the legal safety requirements for protection equipment [1, 2].

Are we confusing permission to wear something in a match with proof that it protects the brain?

Yes. That conflation with players and parents is one of the biggest reasons sport has fallen behind on brain protection [1, 2, 7].

Is there qualified evidence of performance?

Because a product should be judged by what it has been designed and shown to do in biomechanical testing and real-life validation, not just by whether it fits inside an outdated category [7, 8].

These questions matter most for children and younger players, where a precautionary, science-led approach should be strongest and where cumulative exposure matters over many years of play [5, 6].

The narrative now needs to change

The old narrative says:
If headgear matters, it must be World Rugby approved.

The better and modern narrative says:
If brain protection matters, governing body approval is only one limited part of the decision and conversation.

World Rugby Regulation 12, the Law 4 trial, modern rotational-force science, and the wider legal framework for protective equipment all point in the same direction. Governing body approval was never designed to be the final word on brain protection. It was designed to regulate what may be worn in matches [1, 2, 8, 11].

That is why the category itself has to be named properly.

Traditional sports headgear and brain protection are not the same thing.

One was developed to reduce surface injuries within the limits of sport-specific equipment culture. The other exists to reduce the rotational-force transmission in concussive and sub-concussive brain injury [3, 8, 9].

The future of player welfare will not be decided by whether a product fits neatly inside a legacy approval narrative.

It will be decided by whether sport is willing to align what it permits, what the law requires, and what the science now shows about protecting the brain [2, 3, 6, 11].

Frequently Asked Questions

No. Rezon Halos® is not World Rugby-approved headgear because it does not sit within World Rugby’s current headgear specification. World Rugby’s current approval framework is not designed to approve brain protection [8].

World Rugby-approved headgear is padded head and ear covering designed for superficial injuries such as cuts and abrasions. World Rugby states that their approved headgear has limited impact attenuation properties and is not intended or expected to protect against mild traumatic brain injury or skull fracture.

Rezon Halos® is different. Rezon Halos® is legally certified CE / UKCA Category II Personal Protective Equipment designed for brain protection to reduce concussion and sub-concussion risk, rather than cuts and abrasions. No World Rugby-approved headguard holds both a Virginia Tech 5-star safety rating and CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification as Rezon Halos® does.

World Rugby approval also excludes Halos® because it falls outside the requirement to cover the crown of the head.

Yes. Rezon Halos® can be worn in Rugby Union and is already worn by players in schools, clubs and teams across multiple countries.

Halos® is soft, thin, flexible and non-rigid. It does not contain hard parts and is legally certified CE / UKCA Category II Personal Protective Equipment designed for brain protection rather than cuts and abrasions.

In officiated matches, the referee has the final decision under World Rugby Law 4 if they consider an item dangerous or illegal. Halos® is not dangerous, does not contain hard or rigid parts, is legally certified PPE, and is designed to reduce rotational force transmission to the brain during concussive and sub-concussive impacts.

You can read more about the specific risks of concussive and sub-concussive head impacts in triggering later life neurodegenerative consequences in rugby in our guide to brain injury in rugby.

World Rugby Regulation 12 sets the specification for rugby headgear that may be approved under World Rugby rules.

It is not a brain protection standard. World Rugby states that approved headgear is only designed for superficial injuries such as cuts and abrasions, and is not intended or expected to protect against mild traumatic brain injury or skull fracture.

Rezon Halos® falls outside this headgear category given its protective capability. That means Halos® cannot qualify for approval as World Rugby headgear under the current specification. It does not mean Halos® lacks independent testing, PPE certification or brain-protection value. Rezon Halos® is CE/UKCA Category II PPE safety certified and 5-star rated by Virginia Tech Helmet Lab.

No. World Rugby approval and CE / UKCA PPE certification are different frameworks.

World Rugby approval relates to what fits within Rugby Union’s current participation and equipment rules. CE / UKCA PPE certification relates to the legal requirements for protective equipment placed on the UK and EU market, including conformity assessment, product marking and information supplied with the product.

Rezon Halos® is not World Rugby approved headgear because it offers a level of protection beyond the World Rugby standard. Rezon Halos® is CE / UKCA Category II certified Personal Protective Equipment designed for brain protection. No World Rugby-approved headguard holds both a Virginia Tech 5-star rating and CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification as Rezon Halos® does.

Most World Rugby-approved rugby headguards do not hold CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification. CE / UKCA PPE certification is the legal certification framework for protective equipment in the UK and Europe. Separately, although many rugby headguards have been tested using Virginia Tech methodology, no World Rugby-approved rugby headguard has publicly declared a Virginia Tech 4- or 5-star safety rating, the level Virginia Tech recommends for use and reducing concussion risk. Rezon Halos® holds both CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification and a Virginia Tech 5-star rating.

Rezon Halos® is not World Rugby-approved because it does not fit World Rugby’s current headgear specification. World Rugby’s current approval framework is not designed to approve brain protection. Rezon Halos® is legally certified CE / UKCA Category II Personal Protective Equipment designed for brain protection rather than cuts and abrasions.

Also World Rugby-approved headgear must cover the crown of the head. Rezon Halos® does not cover the crown, so it falls outside the headgear category.

Halos® is not excluded because it contains hard or dangerous parts. It is soft, thin, flexible and non-rigid.

No. World Rugby approval does not prove concussion or sub-concussion protection.

World Rugby’s headgear specification states that approved headgear has limited impact attenuation properties and is not intended or expected to protect against mild traumatic brain injury or skull fracture.

Rezon Halos® is designed for a different protective purpose: reducing rotational force transmission to the brain during concussive and sub-concussive impacts. It is the only non-helmeted headgear to hold both a Virginia Tech 5-star rating and CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification.

Most World Rugby-approved rugby headguards do not hold CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification. CE / UKCA PPE certification is the legal certification framework for protective equipment in the UK and Europe. Separately, although many rugby headguards have been tested using Virginia Tech methodology, no World Rugby-approved rugby headguard has publicly declared a Virginia Tech 4- or 5-star safety rating, the level Virginia Tech recommends for use and reducing concussion risk. Rezon Halos® holds both CE / UKCA Category II PPE certification and a Virginia Tech 5-star rating.

To understand why rotational force matters in brain injury, read our brain injury science guide.

In an officiated Rugby Union match, the referee has the final decision under World Rugby Law 4 if they consider an item of clothing dangerous or illegal.

That discretion applies to many forms of equipment, including studs, wired bras, clothing, head coverings and protective items. Rezon Halos® is soft, thin, flexible and non-rigid. It does not contain hard parts and is legally certified CE / UKCA Category II Personal Protective Equipment designed for brain protection rather than cuts and abrasions.

The referee’s match-day decision remains final. To understand why Halos® is different from traditional rugby headgear, read our explanation of Rezon Halos® brain protection technology.