PoleVaultPower.com

I have a girls who cleared 10'7 inches in the section meet who was called for volzing. The judge said that my vaulters hand touched the bar and steadied it. From what I have read volzing is a technique that requires considerable skill and technique. My girl is 110 pounds who curled around the bar and pushed the pole away and inadvertant had contact was made with hands back. I looked at a powerpoint presentation to teach officials which states:If the vaulter touches the bar with a hand or arm in an attempt to steady it, it should be a failed attempt. The key words being "in an attempt to steady it" My little gal had everything into the vault. There was no attempt to steady and the judge ruled that the touching of the bar steadied and that the intent is not relevant. I am the head coach and know quite a bit about vault but did not know about this therefore I did not protest because the head field judge and the vault judge were backing each other. After research I found the powerpoint for the officials with what I feel is the key to the whole thing. In an attempt to steady. From what I have read this is hard to do and very hard for a high school female vaulter. Experts help me understand this. It feels wrong. My gal has gone 10' 9' inches earlier in the season so it wasn't a fluke.

Sorry to hear that. All you can do is file a protest when it happens, can't really do much after the fact. It can be very difficult for the official to know what the intent was of the vaulter. If he saw her hand push away from her body and steady the bar, then that may have been the right call to make.

Yeah I figured once I failed to protest after the 30min from the conclusion of the event it was moot but for future rule changes or clarifications it shouldn't be so vague. My girl pushed the bar away and then pulled the hands back above the bar he said the bar flexed and then touched her hand. I am positive of the intent because there was no extension of the arms toward the bar. My girls was jumping around and celebrating and then the judge (college vaulter) comes over and makes it about him. Her adrenaline was gone and proceeded to miss the next two attempts. I need to let this go but my blood is boiling. I need to go for a run

Be wary of any cheatsheets or training materials when trying to interpret a rule in this much detail. It is just about impossible to capture all the nuances/context of a rule (much less 3 different rulebook versions of it!!) with anything but a direct quote.

For the most part, the training material did its job in teaching that there is such a thing as a steadying foul, but...
...here is how the rules actually define this foul :

NFHS g. Steadies the crossbar with a hand(s) or arm(s).

USATF (d) during the vault, the vaulter steadies or replaces the bar with his/her hand(s).

No mention of intent.

If "the bar flexed and then touched her hand" ---and the official judged it had a steadying effect--- it would be a miss. At that point, you can't protest a judgement call.
On the other hand, if he ruled it a "clear" and said "she steadied it, but it wasn't intentional" then the opposing coach would have grounds for protest due to misapplication of a rule.



BTW I think you meant "pushed the pole away" ---not "pushed the bar away". If she pushed the bar, then it is a definite foul.

I have never understood why US should have three or four set of rules for the same sport. Especially when it is an international sport with well established international rules. Most other countries follow IAAF with some minor adjustment for youths.

The IAAF-rule concerning volzing is similar to USATF: "during the vault an athlete steadies or replaces the bar with his hand(s)." As an official I have never seen this rule as especially difficult to judge. And as PScoach write: a girl vaulting that hight will nearly never be able to "steady or replace" the bar.

So bottom line is a judge can call a foul on a hand just touching the bar. Period The intent to steady or replace is not considered in any way. If the result is perceived as steadying that's it. It seems to me that the original intent of the rule was to stop cheaters like Volz and ? from perfecting the practice and using it in competition. Now any contact with the hand is foul, not pushing the bar back on or intentionally stabilizing the flex. If this is a judgment call then why not word the rule with enough flexibility to make the call you think to be correct. I bet most high schoolers are incapable of purposely stabilizing or placing the bar back on.

I think you are correct. What is need to change the wording of the rule?

Dan

"Now any contact with the hand is foul,..." NO--no one has said that. Only steadying (or replacing) with a hand.

This is a scenario that could have saved you:

OFFICIAL "I'm calling a foul because she touched it with her hand"
COACH "Did she steady it?"
OFFICIAL "No, but she touched it"
COACH "PROTEST"

This is such a tough call at any level, especially high school. Had to call it on a vaulter who actually tossed the crossbar back on to the peg with a 15 mph tail wind and it stayed! I hated to call it, I believe the bar was at 5.60, Devereaux would remember. The kids have to be coached to know not to react that way. I feel it's like trying to stop a glass of milk from spilling, it's just a natural reaction. I think "intent" should be remove with "an effort".