New NFHS Rule

[vault3rb0y]

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, but i also think that when injuries go up this year because of this rule, they will change it back.

[catdog1251]

OK so I accidentally started a new thread about this rule. Reading the responses answered my first question which was "is touching the mat not past the plane a foul?" with the answer being no. I can understand why some vaulters like the ones who responded would like this rule, because it gives you an extra chance if you screw up. That makes no sense though, a miss is a miss. This rule basically says if you screw up real bad you get another chance, but If you come close(break the plane, touch the bar) its a miss. The real problem with the rule is that it does not account for the difference between aborting mid vault, and just failing to penetrate. If they are expecting high school officials to make that determination, they are out of their minds. I recently started coaching high school vaulters in Colorado, and have yet to meet an official in colorado who seems to have any clue about pole vault technique or rules.
The press release from the NFHS provides extremely faulty reasoning for the rule change. "This will be advantageous for the vaulter to abort and still have a chance to come back and try again within the prescribed time limit if he or she has a bad approach," said Becky Oakes, NFHS assistant director Vaulters could already do that, now it seems its giving dangerous vaulter extra tries(just stupid). It also says this: "This change will now allow all vertical jumps to be judged the same in regard to aborted attempts and trials." This makes no sense pole vault and high jump are completely different events with no real similarities, why should they be judged the same way. In reality pole vault is similiar to long or triple in terms of the approach. It would be like if they changed triple jump rules so that if you are not going reach the pit, you could stop on your step or jump phase, and go back up the runway and start again. The thing that I find funny is that some morons at the NFHS think this rule makes pole vaulting safer. It really seems safe to encourage vaulter to go into the air and then attempt to land on the front buns of the mat.
I absolutley think this rule makes no sense and will increase injuries, but that being said. I am going to completely abuse this rule for the benefit of my vaulters. Not the beginers, I would never encourage beginers to attempt to jump and not penetrate, but whenever I have a safe experienced vaulter trying to get on a bigger pole, I'll make sure they do it by taking their first attempt immediatly when they are called at a height they can make with their smaller pole. That way if they get rejected I can give them their small pole, they can take 40 seconds to recover, and then clear the height with the small pole(on their first attempt ha ha). To me this is the real problem with this ruleI assume switching poles mid vault in not against the rules? Also this year Colorado put out a safety bulletin regarding pole vault, and it did not even mention this rule change. They have a bunch of real idiots at CHSAA so I can't say that I am surprised that they failed to notice a major change in how an event is supposed to be run.

[catdog1251]

If they really wanted to make vaulting safer they would encourage vaulters to do what I was coached to do in college. When I started vaulting in high school I was self coached, and if my run felt off I did what most beginers do, and tried to stop at the last second, often almost pulling my arm out of my shoulder, or occasionally especially if it wet falling flat on my back. My sophmore year in college we got a great vault coach. He absolutely forbade doing this, he told me that if my run felt off, keep running like normal and when my pole hits the back of the box to release my grip and run onto the mat. That way he could still get an accurate step and we could actually adjust and correct my step. This improved my vaulting greatly. His reasoning behind this was simple, it avoids injuries especially horrible shin splints that result from trying to stop running quickly in spikes, and like someone else posted on this thread 9 times out of 10 if you have to stop because your run is off, you are not going to make it after stopping at full speed going back up the runway and trying again.

[Vaultref]

This rule change is not going to cause any increase in injuries. Whoever said that has underestimated the physical endurance of even the most inexperienced vaulter.

Most high school aged jumpers already know how to deal with this change.
Even if they don't, they will learn how to in no time. It's called practice time.
Many, many young vaulters already compete in USATF level meets both in open and youth level competition where the same rule has been in affect for years. I know of know increase in injuries. In fact I know of none.

Any official certified or volunteer better have a visible stop watch (not your mickey mouse wrist watch) and be timing every single jump from start to finish. By not doing so you cause us "real" officials problems at meets where the jumpers have no clue of how much time they have used up because no one ever told them they are taking too much time. High jump especially where they only have 60 seconds to start a jump. The playing field has to be the same for all whether novice or well seasoned.

This rule change took affect in January, 2008. I've already had two vaulters take advantage of the rule. They were not successful, but never the less, they had the time to get back to their mark, rest and make another attempt. I don't see any big issue with this change and expect it to stay around without a doubt. Don't abuse this.

As far as a pole bend touching beyond the place of zero, this is not addressed by NF or NCAA rule codes but is addressed by USATF and IAAF rule codes. An editorial change is needed to clear this up. No way should that be considered a foul even though some say they will call it as such. That's wrong in my opinion because if you did, then as soon as any pole bend touches beyond, you should call that a foul too and I can't think of anyone that would back you up if the jumper continues on and completes a successful jump. But hey, all they see is that the pole touched the mat past the zero point.

I will push for such a wording change for next year to clear the matter up as I know who to contact about this. In the mean time, I'll not call any such pole bend touch a foul as I consider that an attempt regardless if he makes it or comes back down to try again. That's what I believe is the intent and spirit of the rules. Since it's not addressed in those two codes, I'm not making up my own rule nor violating one.

[newPVer]

I think its a good rule, so you can bail out safely, or at least I know I only bail if I really need, but then you can make the decision to jump right away, or take a miss. I personally would never go back and jump right then, I need a minute to get my mind right before jumping again. The timing might come into play and cause a problem though. The only meet that was timed at my school was league finals qualifying for CIF, or "State Prelims" for people who dont know what CIF is. In a league meet, we take our time, mostly because of the wind, and until state comes around, were all there to jump high while having fun.

Overall, I say keep the rule, ditch the rule, it doesnt matter. If you cant complete the jump the first time, you wont be able to finish it just 30 seconds later.

[Oldcoach]

Since I sometimes officiate, I am curious how others handle the problem of being close enough to the pit to determine if the plane is broken on a bail and being far enough up the runway to see the box to make sure the pole is not planted beyond the plane. I'm usually about 40 feet from the box so I can see down the tunnel created by the huge front buns. The obvious answer is have more officials however I doubt that will happen in my case. Any thoughts?

[rainbowgirl28]

Since I sometimes officiate, I am curious how others handle the problem of being close enough to the pit to determine if the plane is broken on a bail and being far enough up the runway to see the box to make sure the pole is not planted beyond the plane. I'm usually about 40 feet from the box so I can see down the tunnel created by the huge front buns. The obvious answer is have more officials however I doubt that will happen in my case. Any thoughts?

For the most part, if they bail, it should be pretty obvious. It's actually pretty tough to land close to the invisible line that marks the plane of the box unless you are holding super low or if you let go of the pole too soon.

I don't know how you would plant the pole beyond the plane unless you are talking about when a kid misses the box and stabs the pit when they are trying to stop. Usually you can pick that one up audibly. If it goes in the box you hear the clank, if it hits the pit, not so much.

[Vaultref]

Since I sometimes officiate, I am curious how others handle the problem of being close enough to the pit to determine if the plane is broken on a bail and being far enough up the runway to see the box to make sure the pole is not planted beyond the plane. I'm usually about 40 feet from the box so I can see down the tunnel created by the huge front buns. The obvious answer is have more officials however I doubt that will happen in my case. Any thoughts?

Fourty feet is too far away if you are the only person running the event. If you have "helpers" that are capable in assisting you, let them know what you expect from and trust their decision on this. Other wise you have to stand as close to the pit as possible to see all the things you need to judge (yet keep yourself out of danger from flying poles/bars).

Before you start the event, eyeball front pads and see if there is some identifiable spot that is at or just beyond the zero point of the box. if need be you can put a small piece of tape down on the pad. It may stay put. If you really can't tell they landed clearly beyond the zero point, then give them the benefit of doubt and let them continue should they want too.

[lonestar]

i like it, becuase if i get stood up it is usually due to me not being warmed up enough, if i do miss i always take my second attempt anyway and usually clear the bar, plus now that the rule is changed it isn't as much pressure to do perfect the first time, that is just me though.

That is one of my biggest pet peeves. People at the school/district level in Texas seem to be largely under the assumption that you can elect to take your attempts consecutively if you wish, meaning, if you take your first and miss, they'll ask you if you want to take your second attempt now, or wait until they come back to you in the order. Same thing from 2nd to 3rd attempt. I've heard coaches rationalize this by saying "my kid wasn't warmed up on their first attempt, so I want them to take their second now that they are warm." I was officiating a meet, pulled out the NFHS rulebook and pointed out where it reads something like "Competitors will make attempts in the order drawn by the games committee" and showed the coaches, only to have them rally against me and badmouth me. Had one punk kid get so obnoxious about it that I almost dq'ed him for conduct.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?

I don't think it's fair to the vaulters who take their attempts in the proper order, because they have to wait longer and get colder while these jackasses take 2-3 attempts in a row. I think it makes the event more dangerous, because most vaulters I know don't recover quickly enough to not get rejected or come up short over the box jumping back to back 2-3 attempts, and allows the others to get colder and tighter between attempts.

[rainbowgirl28]

i like it, becuase if i get stood up it is usually due to me not being warmed up enough, if i do miss i always take my second attempt anyway and usually clear the bar, plus now that the rule is changed it isn't as much pressure to do perfect the first time, that is just me though.

That is one of my biggest pet peeves. People at the school/district level in Texas seem to be largely under the assumption that you can elect to take your attempts consecutively if you wish, meaning, if you take your first and miss, they'll ask you if you want to take your second attempt now, or wait until they come back to you in the order. Same thing from 2nd to 3rd attempt. I've heard coaches rationalize this by saying "my kid wasn't warmed up on their first attempt, so I want them to take their second now that they are warm." I was officiating a meet, pulled out the NFHS rulebook and pointed out where it reads something like "Competitors will make attempts in the order drawn by the games committee" and showed the coaches, only to have them rally against me and badmouth me. Had one punk kid get so obnoxious about it that I almost dq'ed him for conduct.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?

I don't think it's fair to the vaulters who take their attempts in the proper order, because they have to wait longer and get colder while these jackasses take 2-3 attempts in a row. I think it makes the event more dangerous, because most vaulters I know don't recover quickly enough to not get rejected or come up short over the box jumping back to back 2-3 attempts, and allows the others to get colder and tighter between attempts.

I would only ever allow this if a kid was about to leave to go run another event. I hate waiting for a kid to get back from another event even more.

[lonestar]

I would only ever allow this if a kid was about to leave to go run another event. I hate waiting for a kid to get back from another event even more.

Yeah, I forgot to mention the only exclusion to the rule, adjusting the order for someone doing another event at the same time.

I still haven't seen a clear policy as to how long to wait when there's one person left at a height that is doing another event before moving the bar up.

[vcpvcoach]

Hey lonestar, don't move to Illinois. Most meets, Invites included, our vaulters are required to get back on the runway and vault right after they miss their first. It drives me nuts.

Ironically, the state meet is run "five alive". Go figure.

Not bashing IL but it drive me crazy.