NCAA taking comments on proposed box collar rule

[rainbowgirl28]

The NCAA Track & Field Rules Committee has passed a rule change regarding the padding in and around the pole vault box. The rule change is now in an evaluation period until February 1, 2013 and the NCAA is welcoming comments until that time. To provide a comment visit http://goo.gl/lhqBZ. The full text of the proposed change is as follows:

Pole Vault Box Padding. A pole vault box collar, which is a device used to offer protection to pole vaulters in and around a pole vault box, shall be in place not later than December 1, 2013. The device must meet the most current ASTM Specification Standard, F2949, and can be incorporated into the design of the pole vault box or a padding addition to an existing pole vault box.

Here is ASTM F2949: http://usatf.org/usatf/files/e0/e0330fe ... 117e0f.pdf

[PV2020]

Are these minimum requirements the specs for Jan Johnson's Safety Max Box Collar? Or do the basic UCS and Gill pads still meet the standard?

The article is misleading because it list specs and then has a picture, the picture which appears to be the Safety Max, however it is hard to tell off the top of my head because I do not have exact specs and they list things like 'if you have a wing'.

[fieldcoachrjl]

I'm a little confused as well. I read the USATF page on it, and yes, it seems like the Max Safety pad is the only legal thing. Then I read the NCAA 2013-2014 rule book and it says "a collar (padding) of 5 to 10 centimeters of uniform thickness, designed for such purpose, shall cover the area behind and to the sides of the vaulting box, including the top edges of the vaulting box that are flush with the runway and not protected by the landing pad. Such padding shall be semipermanent and shall not affect the bend of the pole"
That leads me to believe you do not have to have the "wings" on the side. It only has to lay flush with the top of the box.
Thoughts? Other interpretations?

[PVJunkie]

The NCAA is considering changing their box collar rule to require the use of a one that meets the ASTM box collar standard. The ASTM does not write rules they develop standards. In there lies the important difference to remember. The NCAA, NFHS, USATF, IAAF etc govern sports, they write rules. ASTM, OSHA, ANSI etc develop testing protocol, standards, that apply to things they do not write rules. Each exists separate but sometimes they cross. In this case the NCAA has taken note of the ASTM and think it fits what they would like a box collar to do/be and may change their rule.

The ASTM box collar standard was published a few months ago and it provides some criteria that makes the device function/perform in a particular way. We have all seen the old wrestling mat cut into a box collar or a few pieces of foam duct taped together around the box. Without a standard those devices complied with the rule (if they were thick enough long enough etc) but were they meeting the intent of making the area around the box safer? No they were not, at least in the opinion of the NCAA and so they looked to the newly published ASTM to address the issues they were seeing before something happens.

The basic box collar and the current version of the SafteyMax collar do not meet the ASTM standard.

Current box collars have drastic differences in performance. You could hit one from 2 feet in the air and have the same possibility of sustaining an injury as hitting another from 6 feet and thats leaving out the home made ones I referenced above. Since this device has been deemed important to athlete safety by the NFHS and the NCAA they have decided it would be a good idea to insure they all perform at a minimal acceptable level. That is where the ASTM comes in.

In the real world, as we continue to defend our event from lawyers, administrators, budgets etc, the box collar is a minimal cost. At the Univ of Illinois we have 2 indoor boxs and 4 outdoor. We can use a single box collar in any of those 6 spots. What is the alternative? It has been suggested that the soft box, or various new designs of the soft box could be a solution. The problem is cost. The current SafetyMax box insert retails for 554.00, and I could use that one device in any of my 6 locations. If the soft box is an alternative I would need 6 of them at 2140.00 each plus the cost of tearing out the 6 old ones and installing the new.....a total cost estimated at 18684.00 (1000.00 in labor per box). You could buy 33 of the box collars for that amount with some change left over.

[rainbowgirl28]

I would take a homemade box collar made from wrestling mats (if it was one solid piece, not scrap foam taped together) over most of what is sold in catalogs. But I get the point of making a standard.

So are there any current box collars that _do_ meet the ASTM standard?
And does the ASTM standard _require_ wings that dip into the box in order to meet the standard, or does it just allow for them?

[PVJunkie]

NO currently there is not a box collar that meets the standard. You would be surprised how firm the foam must be in order to properly dissipate forces and achieve the target G-Max and HIC rating.

This part of the ASTM standard answers the second part of your question.
5. Dimensions
5.1 Minimum Dimensions—A pole vault box collar shall be at least 122 cm (48 in.) wide and 146 cm (571⁄2 in.) long. The distance from the rear edge of the box collar at its base to the rear edge of the box collar cutout shall be at least 38 cm (15 in.). At its uppermost surface, the box collar shall cover the upper edges of each sidewall of the box from the front of the box where the pole slide meets the runway to a point on the top edge of the sidewall no less than 20 cm (8 in.) forward of the top of the strike plate. The box collar arms shall extend forward at least 108 cm (421⁄2 in.) from the base of the rear edge of the box collar cutout. (See Figs. 1 and 2.)
5.2 Maximum Thickness—A pole vault box collar shall be no more than 10 cm (4 in.) thick.

If the NCAA changes their rule to require that the box collar meet the ASTM standard, everything you want to know is contained in the ASTM. It was about a year ago they changed the wording of their helmet rule to say if you chose to wear a helmet it must meet the ASTM standard for helmets.

[rainbowgirl28]

If the NCAA changes their rule to require that the box collar meet the ASTM standard, everything you want to know is contained in the ASTM. It was about a year ago they changed the wording of their helmet rule to say if you chose to wear a helmet it must meet the ASTM standard for helmets.

That was a little easier though, as helmets weren't mandatory, the rule just said IF you wear a helmet, it has to meet this standard.

I imagine that requiring something by next season that is not yet available for purchase, so no one has a chance to test it out or even know cost, is not going to go over well with the coaches.

[PVJunkie]

Things have to happen in the correct order. Without a standard there is nothing new for the rules committees to consider. Without the rule change there is no need for a product to meet the standard.

The NCAA committee on this topic is smart and has looked into all of these things.

If the rule changes then the product will eventually become available. If the rule change makes it mandatory by a certain date, not only does the it need to be ready, it needs to meet demand.

The testing will fall on the manufacturers who choose to provide a compliant product.

As if right now:
The ASTM has been published, thats it.....the NCAA is up next. They are past the committee discussion phase and are now gathering information. We will see what happens next.

[Decamouse]

"You would be surprised how firm the foam must be in order to properly dissipate forces and achieve the target G-Max and HIC rating." Now why do you thing the standard did not pass until the "minimum" thickness was removed? -- becuase you need to stop thinking about how firm the "foam" needs to be and think about what the standard requires -- there are alternate energy absorbing materials and most have patents on them as well -- Impact Gel and Impact Gel injected in foam beat the snot out of foam -- Skydex (patented as well) combinations of these materials - does it cost more - yes -

[grandevaulter]

Things have to happen in the correct order. Without a standard there is nothing new for the rules committees to consider. Without the rule change there is no need for a product to meet the standard.

Seems they had to have developed product to test in order to write specifications.

NO currently there is not a box collar that meets the standard. You would be surprised how firm the foam must be in order to properly dissipate forces and achieve the target G-Max and HIC rating.

The race begins for the manufacturers to produce a prototype, pay for the testing. The first one to get it into production and on the market is going to make a good dollar.

NFHS will probably be next.

[rainbowgirl28]

PVJunkie just to clarify, the SafetyMax box collar won't meet the standard even if tested, or it just hasn't been tested yet to confirm whether or not it meets the standard?

[rainbowgirl28]

MEMORANDUM


January 14, 2013


TO: Men’s and Women’s Head Track and Field Coaches and Conference Commissioners.

FROM: John McNichols, chair
NCAA Men’s and Women’s Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee

Bob Podkaminer, secretary-rules editor
NCAA Men’s and Women’s Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee.

SUBJECT: Rules change comment period.


The NCAA Men’s and Women’s Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee approved a rules change during its teleconference on January 8, 2013. As you know, this is not a year in which any other rules will change, but the committee is asking institutions to implement this change by December 1, 2013. The rule change is as follows:

Pole Vault Box Padding. A pole vault box collar, which is a device used to offer protection to pole vaulters in and around a pole vault box, shall be in place not later than December 1, 2013. The device must meet the most current ASTM Specification Standard, F2949, and can be incorporated into the design of the pole vault box or a padding addition to an existing pole vault box.

Rationale: To provide as much padding around fixed and solid objects as possible to absorb a possible impact.

Before this rule is implemented, it must be approved by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP). PROP will review this rules proposal during a teleconference in February. PROP evaluates new rules in terms of negative impact on the image and integrity of the game, safety concerns or financial impact on institutions.
You have the opportunity to give your feedback to PROP about this rule before final approval is granted. To share your opinion with the NCAA, please go to the following link:

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/ui/forms/playin ... ox_Padding

Please register your comments by Friday, February 1st. Thank you for your time and attention to this request.


JM/BP:rs