PoleVaultPower.com

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-07-1 ... djustments


Track and Field
The Playing Rules Oversight Panel also approved a rules change in pole vault that requires schools to ensure that if a helmet is worn (helmets are permissive equipment), it must be specifically designed for pole vault competition and manufactured to comply with American Society for Testing and Materials standards.

However, the panel referred back to the Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Committee two recommendations the committee had made regarding pole vault. One would require schools to place suitable padding around the base of the pole vault standards and reasonably cover any hard or unyielding surface around the perimeter of the landing pad. The other would allow schools to place suitable padding around the vaulting box and extend into the box as long as it does not affect the bend of the pole.

The Playing Rules Oversight Panel, though, wants the committee to clarify where the pads should be placed.

I don't understand the rationale for this particular helmet rule. If the helmet is optional equipment, how can we require it to meet any standards? I would feel better about this if I knew where the proposal came from. On the surface it looks suspiciously like a marketing ploy to create a multi-million dollar industry.
Anyone have any background on this proposal? And I am not looking for support for wearing helmets. I am looking at the very specific rule in question of making optional equipment standardized.

Probably because there is an ASTM std for PV Helmets -- and there have been helmets marketed as PV helmets that members of the ASTM subcommittee - some of which where medical Doctors found to be designed in such a way they thought could contribute versus minimize risk.

That is good information. I would like to start some dialogue on this.
So the ASTM subcommittee found that using non-ASTM std helmets for pole-vaulting actually increased the risk of injury over no helmet at all? That would be a very interesting study. Do you know where I could get more information on this research? I am actually relieved to hear that might be the reason, because anything else simply wouldn't justify the new rule. If the safety equipment is optional (pole vault helmets), then logic would tell us that one would have to show that wearing non-certified helmets is actually more dangerous than wearing no helmet at all. This is a tough one to swallow, but I also haven't seen the empirical data. I just want to feel better about this rule.
Since there are so few companies that actually make pole-vault specific helmets, those that do, stand to make a great deal of money on this new legislation. I am hopeful that the people who proposed this new rule aren't also the ones who will benefit financially. I find it hard to believe that a quality skate-boarding helmet worn by a pole-vaulter would be more dangerous to them than no helmet at all. But I could be wrong. I am simply asking these questions to gain a better understanding of a major rule change that few people seem to have an opinion about. Also, during a track meet, who will be responsible for determining which helmets are legal and which ones aren't? Will the vaulter be disqualified if it is discovered after the fact they were using an illegal helmet? Will a vaulter actually be required to take off their non-ASTM helmet during a competition and forced to go without a helmet? Will the official be named in a law-suit if a vaulter then gets injured while going without? As an optional piece of equipment, I don't think we can expect college coaches to be on the hook for this.
Thoughts?

I had a boy this last year vault (one time only, I stoped him) in a motercycle helmet. He was doing it to be funny.

There was a discussion on this topic a while back.
http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtop ... lit=helmet

The danger of the wrong type of helmet was that the neck could be overly flexed while landing in a soft pad. Seems unlikely, but also unlikely that the helmet would save you in a fall on the head onto a hard surface from over 2 meters. As far as the new rule, it seems likely that whoever has developed the ASTM-certified helmet stands to gain a lot, and it would be interesting to know if they proposed the rule change. I agree that a skateboard or BMX helmet should work just fine.
The padding rule is a good one, and overdue. Hopefully it doesn't inspire college programs to drop the vault.

Tom

Maybe this will spur more helmet manufacturers to get their products tested to confirm they meet the ASTM standard for PV helmets.

I have the feeling this will be one of those fluff rules that is only enforced at major meets. Since well right now there may be five brands of pole vault helmets out there and almost all of them look just like skate board helmets. Some have a slightly bigger back side but thats is all the variation I have seen, so it will be pretty hard to tell especially on older helmets where logos wear off.

But as far as the rule requiring it to be made for pole vault. It would make since from a legal side to have it as a helmet made for pole vaulting because there is so little knowledge on the subject. At least if it is designed for pole vault it would mean that the company has probably done some kind of research into why it makes a good pole vault helmet. While other brand helmets would have put no research into how their helmet would affect pole vaulters.

The same thing regarding marketing could be said about the "suitable padding around the vaulting box and extend into the box as long as it does not affect the bend of the pole". Since I am pretty sure there is only currently one person out there that makes a box color that extends into the vaulting box.

VaultPurple wrote:The same thing regarding marketing could be said about the "suitable padding around the vaulting box and extend into the box as long as it does not affect the bend of the pole". Since I am pretty sure there is only currently one person out there that makes a box color that extends into the vaulting box.

The rule is simply allowing this, not requiring it.

VaultPurple wrote:I have the feeling this will be one of those fluff rules that is only enforced at major meets.

My guess is they'll just leave it up to each school to enforce. It's a liability issue, not a competition issue, IMO. Plus how on earth would an official be able to enforce that?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics ... p=34sports

Schools will be required to make sure that if a helmet is worn, it must be designed specifically for pole vaulting.

Two other pole vaulting proposals were sent back to the men's and women's track and field committees. One would require schools to put more padding around the base of the pole vault standard and cover hard surfaces around the perimeter of the landing pad. The other would allow schools to place padding around the vaulting box and into the box -- it does not interfere with the bend of the pole.

I'm just glad wearing helmets is still optional. Our local Newspaper in Boise reported that they were now going to be required by the NCAA. It's good that pole vault was in the paper, but this time only i'm glad they got their information wrong.