Any injury tied to underweight pole?

[Divalent]

The majority of the concern for safety at the meet level appears to be focused on the weight rating of the poles relative to the weight of the vaulter. Coaches have to sign statements attesting that all their athletes are using "proper" poles (sometimes having to provide details of each athlete's weight and pole, sometimes meets will actually weigh the athletes and compare with the poles, other times just a global statement of compliance). (But in smaller meets, sometimes no paperwork, and I strongly suspect a lot of kids were vaulting on underweight poles, even in meets where there was paperwork) There is far less visible (and paper documented) scrutiny of the safety of the pit and surrounding surfaces. AFAIK, no requirement that the event or meet officials have to attest that the *current* condition of the pit and area is in accordance with the rule requirements.

In the last two years I've witness 3 pole breaks (causing no injury) all of "weight-legal" poles, two potentially serious incidents (off to hospital, but fortunately turned out to be just bruises), and several "could have" incidents (vaulter landed, or bounced, off the pit, but landed on feet or landed on something soft). None of these were the result of illegal poles, but one of the potentially serious events was a landing on exposed concrete next to the standards base.

So, what is the evidence that underweight poles are a source of risk in this sport? And is the (IMO, disproportionate) focus on this one aspect of PV safety (and the paper work, etc) preventing meet officials from also attending to other aspects of safety that are just as, or more, important?

[rainbowgirl28]

It's just an effort to try and reduce the number of high schoolers shooting off the back of the pit from using "too small" of a pole. Most people reading this understand that a pole over their weight can still be "too small", but if you look at my post about serious injuries, I don't think there have been any injuries recently of high schoolers going off the back of the pit.

If you look at injuries before this rule was in place, I think you see more of that type, though that probably has more to do with the pits being smaller.

The intent of the rule was to lower grips. Not sure how well we have succeeded at that.

[VaultPurple]

Yeah i kind of agree. Most the time a pole breaks is not because the weight anyway. And in the case of the pole being underweight you are more likely going to hit the pit even if it does break because it is not going to offer that must resistance to keep you out of the pit. How many times have you seen someone come up short of the pit because their pole was too small? I mean there should be guide lines on the poles fore people to know but people come up short of the pit because they can not get the pole to vertical.

[KirkB]

... How many times have you seen someone come up short of the pit because their pole was too small? I mean there should be guide lines on the poles fore people to know but people come up short of the pit because they can not get the pole to vertical.

Divalent seemed to infer that the pole weight rule was in order to prevent vaulters from breaking poles ... which MIGHT be dangerous. In reality, I think we can agree that breaking a pole isn't very dangerous compared to other safety issues.

RG clarified that the purpose of the rule was to reduce the chances of someone flying off the back (or the side) of the pit ... due to too high of a grip on too soft of a pole.

VP, the issue you bring up is a valid safety concern (been there, done that, still have the torn ankle ligaments to prove it), but not one that can be governed by rules ... or guidelines. If you're not making the pit becuz either your grip is too high or your pole is too stiff, then it's very simple ... lower your grip or use a softer pole. And when you bail, keep hanging onto the pole (my downfall ... literally). But the softest pole that you're allowed to use is based on your weight, so in that case, LOWER YOUR GRIP until your speed and/or technique improve to the point where you can raise your grip again.

Kirk

[PV Official]

There is far less visible (and paper documented) scrutiny of the safety of the pit and surrounding surfaces. AFAIK, no requirement that the event or meet officials have to attest that the *current* condition of the pit and area is in accordance with the rule requirements.

As an official, I am responsible for the safety of the event. If someone were to get injured while I was officiating I know that I would probably be sued. Therefore, I always inspect the area around the pit to make sure there are no exposed hard surfaces and no hurdles or other objects that could injure someone. The safety of the pit is a bit trickier. I make sure it is the proper size, all of the pads are properly hooked together, there is a collar around the box (required for high school) and the cover is in place. However, I've had occasions where the pit was old and there are soft spots that were not apparent until the competition started. At one school with a soft pit, we finished the event and then I wrote a letter to the coach and athletic director pointing out the condition of their pit and refusing to work their meets until they replaced the pit. They got a new pit the next season.

[Divalent]

Thanks for the replies. So, as I understand it then, breakage is not a major concern or rationale for the rule (except perhaps to prevent an overwhelming mismatch), but rather it’s to prevent a vaulter of a certain level of skill/technique from so seriously blowing through a pole that they overshoot the pit. (Is there any other risk beside those?).

If that is the only serious risk, it strikes me that weight ratings are an arbitrary and poor proxy of that risk. It seems to me (as an somewhat informed, but not expert, parent) that most vaulters beyond a certain level of skill will be able to blow through some poles rated above their weight, and this rule would not “capture” and limit that risk. (And for less skilled vaulters, the way they would use an “underweight” pole does not put them at risk).

Further, (and I’m just speculating here, based on what others have said above), might this rule also increase the opposite risk of kids using a pole that is too stiff for their abilities? I raise this possibility because many (most?) high schools don’t have an unlimited budget and wide selection of poles, and in some circumstances, kids are forced to vault on a too-stiff (but legal) pole rather than gripping lower on their only other available option: a pole rated below their weight.