Vtech Last Chance meet thrown out

[kev44000]

Where is this in writing??? The list remains the same 15 at ncaa.org

The four guys at 5.37 have been added to the NCAA indoor championship meet:

Michael Uhle
Maston Wallace
Chris Roy
Elliot Haynie

[dbwsportz]

I'm not sure when or if the list will be updated. Late additions to the meet happen every year based on a number of circumstances. The only reason that I happen to know is because my son is one of the ones that was a late addition.

[kev44000]

Thanks and good for your son. It should be a tough battle.

[rainbowgirl28]

Anyone have any updates? I am guessing they won't post anything to the NCAA website until the start lists are released.

[SlickVT]

Just further reason why the NCAA is the joke of track and field world wide.

Why is this acceptable when at the last chance meet in washington they lowered the bar to let athletes jump at it due to an officials error there. The 2 athletes that jumped 42 at the VT meet were not the ones who decided the progression, so why should they be punished for it. Absolute garbage.

I agree with VTechVaulter that the circumstances at the UW were probably more questionable than the circumstances at the VTech meet, and Brandon Estrada was only at 5.32m before that meet.

+100000

If we set a bar at 5.38m and everyone missed... We can remeasure and see that it was actually 5.39m and give everyone more jumps at 5.38, that that is acceptable in the eyes of the NCAA? VT's progression was BY THE RULES... and it was thrown out huh? I feel like the wrong meet is getting a bad wrap here.

I am just glad Mike got in. He had a stellar day and is going to be dangerous in Fayetteville.

Go Hokies.

[SlickVT]

PS... I am glad that everyone here is on the same page. Coach Phillips puts his heart and soul into PV and made the progression BY THE RULES (double checking several times beforehand) to give all vaulters every chance at qualifying.

Its a chame the NCAA is so shortsighted on its rulings. Its not even grey area. Its by the rules.

[rainbowgirl28]

Start list now posted and includes the 5.37 guys:

Code: Select all

Event 12  Men Pole Vault
===============================================================================
 Progression: 5.15- 5.25- 5.35- 5.45- 5.50 -5.55 -5.60 then 5cm
 5-Alive jumping format until fewer than nine.
           Name                        Year School            Seed Mark           
===============================================================================
Flight 1  Finals
  1    449 Jeremy Klas                   SO Idaho                 5.38m
  2    351 Nick Frawley                  SR Air Force             5.38m
  3    450 Michael Arnold                SO Idaho State           5.38m
  4    629 Brandon Estrada               SR USC                   5.50m
  5    616 Brian Porter                  SR Texas Tech            5.38m
  6    641 Hunter Hall                   JR Virginia Tec          5.40m
  7    622 Casey DiCesare                JR UCLA                  5.38m
  8    642 Jared Jodon                   JR Virginia Tec          5.40m
  9    353 Michael Uhle                  JR Akron                 5.37m
 10    454 Jeffrey Coover                SR Indiana               5.50m
 11    648 Scott Roth                    JR Washington            5.72m
 12    412 Xavier Tromp                  SR Clemson               5.38m
 13    645 Yavgeniy Olhovsky             JR Virginia Tec          5.38m
 14    567 Elliott Haynie                SR South Caroli          5.37m
 15    557 Jason Colwick                 SR Rice                  5.67m
 16    598 Maston Wallace                JR Texas                 5.37m
 17    463 Jordan Scott                  SR Kansas                5.43m
 18    539 Jack Whitt                    FR Oral Roberts          5.50m
 19    628 Chris Roy                     JR UL-Lafayette          5.37m


[Vaultref]

....
No, there IS NO RULE in the NCAA rule book that says once you move to a smaller increment you have to stay at that increment.

There is ALSO NO RULE that says the last person left can put the bar where ever the want.

....

I agree with your first statement.. However, all heights are determined by Games Committee (or meet management) and they rarely go against the recommendations. It would play havoc in a multi-event vertical jump for sure if the increment was all over the page. Establishing a consistent height progression that is fair for all, not just a few is a hard job but a necessary evil if you will.

You are wrong in your second statement.. the rule is spelled out on page 85 of the NCAA book.
Rule 6-1-4 paragraph #2.

[Borntovault]

Xavier Tromp from Clemson will not be competing this weekend. He suffered an injury to his achilles at Conference and was really trying to get it ready for NCAAs, but he didn't feel that it was healthy enough and could further injury it so he decided not to compete and get ready for outdoor. It was a shame cause although his mark doesn't show it he was starting to jump in the 50's or 60's. Had a huge jump at 5.52 at Clemson and just barely clipped it on the way down.

[rainbowgirl28]

Xavier Tromp from Clemson will not be competing this weekend. He suffered an injury to his achilles at Conference and was really trying to get it ready for NCAAs, but he didn't feel that it was healthy enough and could further injury it so he decided not to compete and get ready for outdoor. It was a shame cause although his mark doesn't show it he was starting to jump in the 50's or 60's. Had a huge jump at 5.52 at Clemson and just barely clipped it on the way down.

Thanks for the update, hope he feels better soon.

[vtcoach]

....
No, there IS NO RULE in the NCAA rule book that says once you move to a smaller increment you have to stay at that increment.

There is ALSO NO RULE that says the last person left can put the bar where ever the want.

....

I agree with your first statement.. However, all heights are determined by Games Committee (or meet management) and they rarely go against the recommendations. It would play havoc in a multi-event vertical jump for sure if the increment was all over the page. Establishing a consistent height progression that is fair for all, not just a few is a hard job but a necessary evil if you will.

You are wrong in your second statement.. the rule is spelled out on page 85 of the NCAA book.
Rule 6-1-4 paragraph #2.

Thanks Vaultref (and PVR). I stand corrected on this.

Thanks also to everyone for your support of Mike. I was relieved on Tuesday when I heard he would be added to the field. The NCAA, on Friday, did say the marks from our meet could be counted for other purposes so at least those legitimate, measured, personal bests can be recongnized. There was still some inconsistency in the application of the rules but I really think the NCAA was trying to do what was best for the kids by responding to one complaint about one section of a meet without having the repercussions result in disqualifications of high jumpers and pole vaulters they felt had earned their place at the meet.

As you all know, the NCAA is saying their initial interpretation sent to us by email last year was wrong and that the 5cm (pole vault) and 3cm (high jump) minimums were intended to be more than just a recommendation. We obviously will comply with that intent going forward but will also be submitting new wording to make the rule less ambiguous. Two questions:

1) Do we also suggest a substantive change in the high jump to change the mimium to 2cm (like the IAAF) or do we keep it at 3cm? Are there any high jumpers or high jump coaches on the board that could weigh in?
2) Do we state (like the IAAF) that once the increment has been decreased that it cannot be increased again?

Thanks again everyone.

[rainbowgirl28]

I can't comment on the HJ, but I agree with adopting the IAAF/USATF language regarding not increasing the height increments once they have been decreased (except for the last vaulter remaining, of course).