NFHS Updates

[gfilosa]

News Release from the MPSSAA (MD) Website
http://www.mpssaa.org/springsports/boys ... ase_id=175

Track and Field Rule Changes

7/2/2008

Beginning next track and field season, pole vaulters once again will be charged with a foul if their feet leave the ground in an attempt to clear the crossbar but are unsuccessful. However, an exception was adopted to permit the vaulter to leave the ground and return when stopping an approach.

Rule 7-5-29 was one of seven rules revised by National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Track and Field and Cross Country Rules Committee at its annual meeting June 8-10 in Indianapolis. The changes were subsequently approved by the NFHS Board of Directors.

In a revision last year, vaulters were allowed to leave the ground and not have a foul charged to them provided they did not break the plane of the crossbar. This rule was revised to clarify the original intent of the committee.

The exception added to the rule provides it is not considered a foul if the competitor aborts the approach and, in stopping, plants the pole and momentum causes his/her feet to leave the ground.

""The change in 7-5-29 last year by the committee was not intended to allow a vaulter to abort a vault but rather to have the opportunity to stop and abort the approach,"" said Becky Oakes, NFHS assistant director and liaison to the Track and Field Rules Committee. ""This change clearly reflects the original intent of the committee to abort only the approach and have the opportunity to restart the approach.""




A note was added to Rule 7-5-3 clarifying that visible etchings appearing on poles shall not meet the requirement of the manufacturer's pole rating appearing on the pole in a contrasting color.

Rules 7-4-11 and 7-5-18 were revised to delete the option for the event judge to place a cloth marker on the crossbar for sighting purposes during the pole vault and high jump.

""The current crossbars are of a bright, contrasting color and no longer present a sighting problem for competitors,"" Oakes said, ""and, therefore, the use of the cloth is no longer needed for competition.""




The committee also identified six points of emphasis for next season: 1) electronic devices, 2) observed violation reporting procedures, 3) starter's pistols, 4) equipment failure, 5) pole vault and 6) visible undergarments.

Track and field is the third-most popular sport among boys and the second-most popular sport among girls at the high school level with 544,180 boys and 444,181 girls participating during the 2006-07 season, according to the High School Athletics Participation Survey conducted by the NFHS. It also ranks second in school sponsorship for both boys and girls.
2009 Track and Field Rules Changes




7-4-11, 7-5-18 Deletes the option for the event judge to place a cloth marker on the crossbar for sighting purposes.

Rationale: The current crossbars are of a bright contrasting color which no longer present a sighting problem for competitors and therefore the use of the cloth is no longer in use for competition.

7-5-3 Note new Visible etchings which appear on poles shall not meet the requirement of the manufacturer's pole rating appearing on the pole in a contrasting color.

Rationale: Most poles have an etching on the pole which is a code to the manufacturer. This code most frequently does not correspond to the proper weight rating for the pole. The rating appearing as the mark in contrasting color is established by the manufacturer is clearly visible and serves only this purpose. The requirement is for purposes of risk minimization and should be adhered to strictly.

7-5-29 Clarifies the original intent to permit a competitor in the pole vault to abort the approach and in stopping plant the pole and momentum causes his/her feet to leave the ground without being considered a foul. It is a foul if a vaulter leaves the ground in an attempt and fails to clear the crossbar.

Rationale: The change in 7-5-29 last year by the committee was not intended to allow a vaulter to abort a vault but rather to have the opportunity to stop and abort the approach. However, the language was not clear and as written allowed a vaulter to abort a vault. This change clearly reflects the original intent of the committee to abort only the approach and have the opportunity to restart the approach. This exception is appropriate for the high school vaulter.

[drcurran]

I think this is a good change. I did not have a problem with the way the rule was set up before. "It is a foul if the vaulter leaves the ground in an attempt, and does not clear the bar" (or something to that effect). The key here is IN AN ATTEMPT. I'm sorry to say it seems some officials could not tell the difference between and attempt to vault and an attempt to abort. OK just my .02

Dan

[powerplant42]

The previous rule was really dangerous... This should really bring in some good (as in bad, of course...) judge's discretion stories, I'm sure. I'm already looking forward to arguing with meet officials this indoor season!

[Vaultref]

Nothing to argue about other then why did they change it?

The original intent of the rule was to bring the NFHS rule in line with all other rule codes. That's how the proposal in 2007 was clearly written. I know that
for a fact.

High school (and younger ages) have been able to utilize this rule when
the jump at meets run under USATF Open or Youth rules for years.

The rule was there to use IF YOU CHOOSE to do so. Nothing said you have to use it. A coach can easily say to is vaulter to NOT go back for a second attempt.

Now the NFHS has taken away a tool that I have seen better vaulters use successfully this year. With 90 seconds or more to jump, there was plenty of time to return to the head of the runway, relax and start another attempt. A much better rule change would have been to lower the time to 60 seconds, then they would almost never be able to return and jump again.

Now we go back to did he/she attempt to jump or attempt to stop! Well, I for one will go with he/she attempted to jump and therefore any little pop-up is a foul, call the next jumper up.

[vaultman18]

Now we go back to did he/she attempt to jump or attempt to stop! Well, I for one will go with he/she attempted to jump and therefore any little pop-up is a foul, call the next jumper up.

Power Trip? If you would really charge a foul to an athlete who did not commit one you should be ashamed. And certainly should never be allowed to officiate. I am not sure why your statement above is bothering me so much. I will most likely never even have to deal with you. But I am really ticked off that you would cheat a high school vaulter. If it were because you are not knowledgeable enough so be it. But I have the feeling from reading your other posts this is not the case. So I will have to assume you just like the power to make your own rules. I am sorry if I have offended you but you should evaluate exactly why you are a "Vaultref".

[Vaultref]

Wow! For someone who does not even know me, you sure must have had a bad time with officials during your career. I'm not even going to address my "credentials/qualifications" on how to run a very fair event, that's not the point. Maybe I need to have you attend a meet I'm at. I'll bring you down to the floor/venue and you can see first hand how I operate.

Making up rules, hardly. That's not in my bag of tricks. Pointing out how subjective the rule that we are now returning to is my concern because it has been so widely miss-interpreted by officials/volunteer officials, etc for the years.
Once you start down the run-way you are making an attempt. There is no definition in the books as to what if means to stop an attempt once you have placed your pole on the box. One could argue that the pole caused me to leave the ground as I was slowing down. I've seen too many attempt to stop only because they couldn't get of the ground in the first place. How far off the ground does one have to see to say it was an attempt to jump or an attempt to stop.

Nah, I see this as a bad decision to change the rule back.
Power trip.. Nope, I don't take those.

[belmore]

I'm sticking with vaultref on this one, he's right. I also know his rep as a damn good official.

[Darth Vaulter]

This rule change is great. I believe that without it pole vault was doomed at the high school level (and if it dies there, it probably dies at the levels above it for lack of participants). All it will take is a spate of deaths or serious injuries and states will start pulling the plug on our event. A lot of high school boy vaulters have more speed/strength/daring than skill. The idea that these guys can take themselves 12+ feet in the air right up to the bar and then bail out by letting go of the the pole and dropping to the front buns or worse yet, the box, or come crashing back to the runway holding on to the pole and not have it count as an attempt is just plain stupid.

It was also stupid that if they tried to abort an attempt before last year by stopping at the box and their feet hopped off the runway a few inches it was a foul. The revised rule is what should've been implemented last year.

I was at an indoor meet this year where the kid that won the event took 5 or 6 nearly full jumps in less than 3 minutes, several of which involved very dangerous landings on the front buns and runway. [We are required to take the first two attempts consecutively in our state]. I don't think that any of them were fouls under this year's rule. He just timed out for one miss. On his final and winning attempt he cleared 12' 6" and landed completely off the pit to the left. He was injured (not seriously) and could not continue. The rules should discourage rather than encourage this sort of thing.

[powerplant42]

All of those jumps that ended up on the runway were just that... jumps... Not being safe is not okay, but if somebody is clearly trying to stop their attempt and happen to come off the ground a little bit, then there's hardly any reason to count it as an attempt. Under this mindset, any athlete who's in the air for any point in time during their run is committing a foul. I guess I should get 16 misses each time down the runway then... no, the pole is not in the box, but what if I use a pre-jump? The pole isn't in the box then either, and I know of no rule about the pole being in the box modifying other rules. (I may be wrong, but I doubt it...)

If someone's steps are off and you take them off the runway you are possibly making a big mistake: if they were allowed to immediately fix their starting mark, they will have a safer jump. But if they have to leave the runway they may not be able to adjust it as well. If this is an argument about safety, I'm not even sure what we're doing here, because that's just ridiculous.

..........This is what I'm talking about when I say 'good stories'.........

[vaultman18]

Wow! For someone who does not even know me, you sure must have had a bad time with officials during your career. I'm not even going to address my "credentials/qualifications" on how to run a very fair event, that's not the point. Maybe I need to have you attend a meet I'm at. I'll bring you down to the floor/venue and you can see first hand how I operate.

Making up rules, hardly. That's not in my bag of tricks. Pointing out how subjective the rule that we are now returning to is my concern because it has been so widely miss-interpreted by officials/volunteer officials, etc for the years.
Once you start down the run-way you are making an attempt. There is no definition in the books as to what if means to stop an attempt once you have placed your pole on the box. One could argue that the pole caused me to leave the ground as I was slowing down. I've seen too many attempt to stop only because they couldn't get of the ground in the first place. How far off the ground does one have to see to say it was an attempt to jump or an attempt to stop.

Nah, I see this as a bad decision to change the rule back.
Power trip.. Nope, I don't take those.

Look I am not trying to degrade or diminish your ability as an official. If I have offended you I am sorry. And I actually believe we have met before I am just not sure where. And I think you are a good official but I also believe you have this one wrong. I am truly sorry especially for the power trip comment totally uncalled for.

I actually don't care about this rule to be honest. The more I think about it I don't believe I have ever had it come up with any of my vaulters. The closest thing I have had was a couple of years ago at NON I had a girl get stood up and spit out on the front bun and it was called a foul. Oh well!

[rainbowgirl28]

A note was added to Rule 7-5-3 clarifying that visible etchings appearing on poles shall not meet the requirement of the manufacturer's pole rating appearing on the pole in a contrasting color.

7-5-3 Note new Visible etchings which appear on poles shall not meet the requirement of the manufacturer's pole rating appearing on the pole in a contrasting color.

Rationale: Most poles have an etching on the pole which is a code to the manufacturer. This code most frequently does not correspond to the proper weight rating for the pole. The rating appearing as the mark in contrasting color is established by the manufacturer is clearly visible and serves only this purpose. The requirement is for purposes of risk minimization and should be adhered to strictly.

This is a BS rule change intended to make most Altius poles illegal, and to make it easier for coaches to swap labels, no longer giving officials the authority to ban a pole if the etchings don't match the sticker.

[gfilosa]

This is a BS rule change intended to make most Altius poles illegal, and to make it easier for coaches to swap labels, no longer giving officials the authority to ban a pole if the etchings don't match the sticker.

Just to back up what you are saying, there was a situation at my state meet in which a girl did not have a label on her pole, so she was not allowed to use it. The thing that got me was that another coach saw this and commnented to me (I guess she thought I was the girls coach becasue I was trying to find the etching to see what it was) on how to make labels on a computer to replace the existing ones. It seems like this rule will further facilitate this.

On a side note, I was looking into purchasing Altius poles, how does this affect them?