PoleVaultPower.com

The pole vault event for Virginia Tech's last chance qualifier had all of it's marks thrown out. List is up on NCAA.org Hunter Hall is going with a mark of 5.40m instead of 5.42m Michael Uhle missed it by a cm with 5.37m.

yahooly wrote:The pole vault event for Virginia Tech's last chance qualifier had all of it's marks thrown out. List is up on NCAA.org Hunter Hall is going with a mark of 5.40m instead of 5.42m Michael Uhle missed it by a cm with 5.37m.

Reason why???

kev44000 wrote:Reason why???

Progression went up by 1cm from 5.37m on apparently you can't do that.

The rule reads

"It is recommended that the bar be raised in increments of 15 centimeters, but never less than 5 centimeters"

Because the rule starts "It is recommended..." I had seen this rule interpreted both ways. TO BE SURE of the meaning we asked the NCAA rules committee for an interpretation. We were told in an email that the 5cm min was only a recommendation. It was on the basis of that email that we set a progression less than 5 cm. I will follow up on this tommorrow.

Oh interesting, I thought the 5.37 and 5.38 was an error in the results. I think that there is also a rule that says you can't go from smaller increments to bigger increments, so maybe part of the issue was going 5.37 - 5.38 - 5.42.

Well I will still include all the marks on athletic.net, still working on getting those up.

Oh and yahooly, that tooooottttaaaallllly sucks

rainbowgirl28 wrote:Oh interesting, I thought the 5.37 and 5.38 was an error in the results. I think that there is also a rule that says you can't go from smaller increments to bigger increments, so maybe part of the issue was going 5.37 - 5.38 - 5.42.

Well I will still include all the marks on athletic.net, still working on getting those up.

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.

So for example the NCAA high jump champion last year raised the bar only 2 cm on his last attempt. Is this a violation of the recommended 3cm minimum for the high jump? Should we throw out those results. The last 4 bars of the SEC high jump last week only progressed by 2cm. Are they going to throw out those results and qualifiers and rescore the SEC Championships? I mean come on, the rule "clearly" says:

It is recommended that the bar be raised in increments of 5 cm but never less than 3cm.

vtcoach wrote:

rainbowgirl28 wrote:Oh interesting, I thought the 5.37 and 5.38 was an error in the results. I think that there is also a rule that says you can't go from smaller increments to bigger increments, so maybe part of the issue was going 5.37 - 5.38 - 5.42.

Well I will still include all the marks on athletic.net, still working on getting those up.

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.

Could just be a USATF rule.

I do think the situation is unfortunate and unfair. Our officials association said that the NCAA was dictating the time schedule and height progression in the vertical jumps for all of the last chance meets this past weekend (well at least for ours). I guess that wasn't the case, but maybe it should be!

The international rules, are IMHO clear on this subject:
Unless there is only one athlete remaining and he has won the
competition:
(a) the bar should never be raised by less than 2cm in the High Jump
and 5cm in the Pole Vault after each round of trials; and
(b) the increment of the raising of the bar should never increase.


It would allow for a 1 cm increments if there is only one athlete remaining, and would allow for increasing the raising of the height. Personally, I think it's stupid to have rules that differ from the international set of rules....

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/05/47/81/20091027115916_httppostedfile_CompRules2010_web_26Oct09_17166.pdf

Good morning

I agree with golfdane… and the rule..

How many athletes’ score for their team after qualifying at a “last chance” meet??

Last chance meets have been around, and have had some what of a purpose (where you have an injured athlete, or athletes that don’t get the chance during season to compete in the best meets or in the best conditions.. etc.. ) but in my 12 years in the NCAA I saw a lot of “stretching the rules” and even cheating.

I think it can sometimes/most of the time, “dilute” the sport rather than enhance it.

What if basketball had a “consolation” game to add someone to the final four???


dj

dj wrote:Good morning

I agree with golfdane… and the rule..

How many athletes’ score for their team after qualifying at a “last chance” meet??

Last chance meets have been around, and have had some what of a purpose (where you have an injured athlete, or athletes that don’t get the chance during season to compete in the best meets or in the best conditions.. etc.. ) but in my 12 years in the NCAA I saw a lot of “stretching the rules” and even cheating.

I think it can sometimes/most of the time, “dilute” the sport rather than enhance it.

What if basketball had a “consolation” game to add someone to the final four???

dj

Hey DJ,

I think the IAAF rule is well stated and I would have no problem with the NCAA adopting that rule, in general I would like to see more movement toward the IAAF rule set. I am also in the camp of seeing the last chance weekend removed like it has been in division II. In addition to everything else it would provide more time to make travel plans and to prepare your qualifying athletes for the NCAA. So DJ when you say you agree with "the rule" I know you mean the IAAF rule but unfortunately that is not what is at issue here.

Bob

p.s. I'd pick another analogy besides the NCAA basketball tournament. When you are 7th in your conference and still make the post season I don't see that as being very motivational and as far as a "consolation" game it is called the NIT.

I downloaded the NCAA rule book, and I gotta agree that it's not clear they broke any rules. T&F is confusing, the rules for NFHS/NCAA/USATF/IAAF are similar... but each are a little different. Each organization has to go by the rules they set forth, they can't just arbitrarily apply rules from other organizations.

I am a certified USATF official, and I know that it is important how a rule is worded. If something says that it is "recommended" or that they "may" do something, that means it is not mandatory. I could not find anything in the NCAA rule book that prohibited the bar from being raised 1cm at a time, or from going smaller then bigger increments.

I think if the NCAA had a problem with how this competition was run, they need to rewrite their rule book. But DQing the marks from this event is bull****, and as usual, it is the athletes who suffer.