Pole Vault Spotting Proposal...

[FlightDeckSteve]

I just watched a meet at the college I coach at in Minnesota where there was some spotting going on. I witheld my opinion until I saw it in action.

During the meet I watched as the coach spotted (caught the vaulter) over and over, when the clear and obvious call was to adjust the geometry(lower grip, adjust step etc). The vaulters grip/step were so far off, she was practically taking off the wrong foot.

The coach spotting has posted on this topic on PVP and make a good case for spotting. The coach considers himself doing the right thing and I want to be clear that I respect his passion and his intent regarding vaulting and his passion and intent with regards to spotting. The coach would certainly consider himself a suitable spotter and I am not here to disagree with his spotting abilities.

Further, I acknowledge that I do not know the details--maybe they did not have a softer pole, maybe they could not lower the grip, maybe running from a shorter approach was not possible--the day was cold and had a huge cross-wind.

Although the spotting was succesfully exicuted as described by the coach on all the other vaults, my opinion on this idea became clear on the 5th or 6th vault that came up very short (by very short, I mean landing on the track or front buns). During this jump, The kid appropriately hung on the pole and got her feet down--spikes toward the spotting coach. To the coach's credit, he did not flinch and grabbed the girl's feet. Impressive--the spikes were very close to his face. Unfortunately, he held the girls feet too long and she landed on the track directly on het butt and back. She quickly got up and indicated that she was fine.

My concern and position on this is simple.

The vaulter was moving toward the ground feet-first, until the spotter disrupted the bail-out and caused, yes caused the vaulter to land on her butt and back. The coach was reacting--to help, but actually negatively affected the jump. Again--the kid was fine.

I have a physics degree and can make a good case for the coach truly slowing down the fall (reducing the energy and thereby the force of the impact). That being said, a faster fall to the feet with bent knees can significantly increase the time of the collision--thereby reducing the force. An actual impact to the butt or back is more abrupt stop (radically increasing the impact force) to an area that is more susceptible to serious injury.

If this qualified spotter can increase the risk of landing on more vulnerable parts of the body, than certainly less-qualified spotters can and probably will too.

After witnessing the proposal in action, I can not support it as even an option.


Steve White
St John's University Pole Vault Coach

[vaultmd]

Steve,

Welcome to the board!

Wilson

[gbob]

With all due respect to Steve, (and thank you for your comments, they are very much appreciated, you pointed out some valid points against spotting & that is what this forum is all about.) I stand by my belief that spotting can, and does help prevent traumatic (including but not limited to, fatal) injuries.

First off, I have never claimed to be a “qualifiedâ€Â

[FlightDeckSteve]

Glen-
You're a pioneer and a thinker. I respect that and I like that. Follow your gut. Revolutions sometimes begin with one person thinking in a new direction. With time your idea may prove to a valuable component of coaching. For now, I hope my concerns help you refine and improve your ideas to help kids and help pole vault.

Few coaches have the courage to put their ideas out for everyone to tear apart--be proud. Keep inventing. The sport needs people like you "inventing the solutions." Unwillingness to question ones beliefs and opinions shows no true faith or confidence in those beliefs and opinions.

You're a class act. Have a great season and keep in touch--with the development of this idea and just in general

Steve

[MightyMouse]

I hope all the "easily upset" board members are reading, because thats how you have a civilized argument. Good points all around!

[jryland]

if the coach has confidence and the athlete has confidence in his/her coach there should be no need for such precaution also a spotter gives the athlete false protection and the chances of getting hurt are probably the same
and if the kid isnt holding very high and not running very fast then there not gonna go very far let them figure things out we learn the most from our mistakes but the term "cowboy up" can only take you so far
we got to have knowledge of the vault and respect the danger within
too much safety can hinder ones reality

[gbob]

When the Spotting suggestion of mine was first put on this site, I had some very rigid reasons for what I was suggesting. With all the discussion that has become of it, some ideas have changed, while others have found new clarity.

Recently while discussing this same spotting propsal with other members of the vaulting community I have come to some new thoughts on the idea... While we may not all agree with the initial proposition, we might agree that some things might help out when necessary.

The last post by jryland mentioned something that really struck a cord with me... it made me recoginze something that I currently practice.

Confidence... confidence in my athletes and their recprocated confidence in me. There are times and situations where I might question the confidence of my vaulters. When that happens, I tend to spend more time preparing to Spot them in case of a "situation" in which they might benefit from a "moving pit" (thats me.).

jryland mentions that confidence in the athlete from the coach and vice versa allows me the freedom to step back. This allows for much more on my part (to be able to really see the vault from a better distance.)

I guess what I am saying is... this is an evolving process. Each of you are helping me... no... US! work this thing out.

Safety will be an issue with sport as long as there is possibilty of injury. Our event will always be under scrutiny to make it safer and to make it less lethal. Our part in this is to help develop ideas and processes to promote safety. If WE don't try to find solutions, someone else will... and if that happens who's to say they won't take it away all together?

I still argue spotting can save lives and prevent serious injury. But, my stance has changed from one that promoted spotting ALL the time, to one of it being allowed in situations where the coach requests or demands it. And by no means is this a finished product!

I believe we see more solutions in the future to make our sport safer, this was just one more option in the promotion of safety.

I am sure you will all let me know what you think... thank you all in advance.

-glen

[altius]

Sorry - I understand the concern for safety but spotting should definitely not be allowed as it will most probably be counterproductive! Like the use of the tap it will only encourage more risk taking - athletes will be encouraged to grip too high and try to get away with poor technique if they think they are safe. Note that the increase in safety items in cars seems to have had the effect of greater risk taking with young people.

Safety comes fom good facilities- but especially correct technique - and the right grip height on the right pole. Coaches and athletes must be patient when it comes to progression -improvement takes time. Do not try to find a way to get heights you have not really worked for.

Thought for the week 'wisdom can come from any place.any time and in any language'

[gbob]

I would have to respectfully disagree with the idea that spotting would encourage more risk taking. The idea that the spotter is there is one of a "last resort" to what could possibly amount to saving a life. Similarly, does the concept of a larger landing zone inspire more risk? Does the addition of helmets allow a vaulter the idea of thinking it will be ok to but heads with the ground? Would good technique, in which we all try to preach, tell the athlete that since the landing area is bigger (even though we want good technique) we can take a greater risk to ourselves?

The most effecient way to clear the bar is to go straight up and over the bar, landing on the mats. (probably very near to the PLZ that has been discused.) yet by adding more mat to the equation we are not putting it in to our vaulters heads that we need to take more risk.

As I have previously stated I dont consider this subject to be a "finished process" thats why I think its so important to work this out... but the idea of spotting is to be a situational thing (situational meaning: if there is someone in position to get in front of a skull heading towards the box or a body plunging head first to the ground.) you miss the mat the possibility of hurting yourself is still a HUGE threat. Twisting an ankle, tearing an ACL, MCL, Breaking a leg... its going to be there... even with the spotter present. My thought is though that we protect and try to prevent (as best we can) the vitals... the head, the heart (in the case of the chest and back hitting the ground at an impact that could possibly do damage). I still want to TRY and proctect, slow the descent of the vaulter who is going to miss the mats but I dont think that anyone would think a spotter could prevent injury and therefore expect a spotter to keep them from injury. But to help prevent fatal injury and catasrophic injury... these are my goals.

As a vaulter, I dont want to miss the mats. Looking at my vaulters, they dont want to miss the mats. I know my vaulters do not even expect me to be present if they are in trouble... but in my opinion I would like to be in a position relative to the area that I could possibly throw my body in the way of a situation where I might let them live to see another day.

Altius, Everyone... I whole heartedly agree that Good Technique is the best medicine. I think that is one thing EVERYONE here agrees on. What I think we do not agree on is how everyone is going to be without fault at all times. I cannot say it enough, accidents happen. Yes, I agree, we cannot prevent them all but once again, maybe we can prevent a few more from becoming fatal or catastrophic.

The helmet idea isnt to prevent all injuries from happening... its to prevent a serious injury from happening after rolling off a mat and hitting some unforgiving surface, (which would be a facilities issue) and possibly helping protect the skull in the incidence of contact with the box. (though the injury in a lot of cases in this situation is more often than not a catastrophic and fatal injury because of the force of impact on the skull into the box.)

This is a similar idea... this isnt to stop all injury. This isnt to help athletes take more risks. This is only to assist in preventing serious injury when we are capable of doing so by positioning our selves in places where we might be able to do the most good.

[USMC Vaulter]

Heres something I dont get. Everyone says we shouldnt have spotting because it will cause vaulters to take more risks - BUT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING THAT. Every vault is a risk - anything involving high heights and speed is a risk - and the accidents are still there, with or without the spotter - the stalls are still there, with or without a spotter - the accidents are happening whether you want to open your eyes and see them or not.

I'm staying out of the argument over whether spotting is such a good idea or not - but everyone who says 'a good coach' and a 'smart well trained vaulter' can stop ALL accidents - is just plain old naive. Accidents happen, people ARE FALLIBLE, coaches ARE FALLIBLE. While we have to do everything that we can to educate and reduce/prevent these accidents - there is no way to completely eradicate them.

[pistolpete6994]

As a coach and an athlete I feel that the concept of "spoting" is more dangerous to an athlete. Let me explain this one...
I do agree that when an athlete is just begining standing next to the pits to essentially catch them or knock them into the pit is a good idea, but as athletes move to higher heights standing by the pits then becomes the risk. As an athlete I would much rather have the area clear of the pits if I manage to get rejected... this allows me the most room to get me feet underneath me and come back to the ground under some type of control. If someone were there trying to catch or puch me on to the pits I feel the risk of injury is INCREASED.
ALSO, I believe "taps" are not included in this spotting discussion. Taps are VITAL to athletes and coaches. They allow coaches to work with athletes and help them progress while keeping them safe. A good coach can and should recognize when an athlete is not going to make the pits and have then instinct to give them that push, or "tap", at takeoff. (granted not during competetion)
Simply I feel as the rules they are creating are intended to help athletes, but some must be reconsidered in order to protect athletes from over extending themselves and getting hurt.

[agapit]

The biggest danger comes when landing into the box. I cannot see how you can spot from that.

I think for high school and college there should be strict rules that athletes must meet to participate in the meet.

1. If you cannot penetrate into the pit (even once) in the warm ups or competition you are disqualified. I know it is draconian, but will encourage people to use appropriate grips and poles (the majority of injuries)

2. I am in favor of the landing zone (high school and college only). Miss once - warning, missed twice - disqualification from competition.

3. Ban "run backs". Measuring run up by running from the takeoff point to the beginning of the run up. If an athlete does not have an established approach length he is putting himself/herself in a grave danger.