Safety rule: must clear center 4 Ft of bar?

[Divalent]

Divalent, if you're going to continue to argue for the "4 foot rule", then maybe you should be pointing out that the front and back dangers are already covered ... by the rule stating that the standards must be placed 40-80 cm (15.5"-31.5") from the back of the box. ...

We'll, again, I see nothing wrong with a rule that would disproportionately weed out kids with one type of unsafe technique just because it doesn't help weed out other kids with a different type of unsafe technique. And I *am* for giving the official the authority to weed out those kids that repeatedly manifest other unsafe practices by going with a "land in c-box rule" as well. But as your earlier comment and PvOfficials comments shows, there is going to be resistance to either rule due to concern about close calls (which I will address in response to his post). As it is, an official now has NO authority at all to prevent a kid from continually risking himself, and I think they should. I'm just trying to think of a way to make the event safer by targeting a substantial fraction (but not a majority) of the kids I've personally observed vaulting unsafely, without changing the basic nature of the event for those that are for the most part doing it right. (maybe 4ft is too narrow. 5ft or even 6 ft?)

Personally, I'd rather that particular rule set the [standard] range at 20"-40" (50-99 cm). That might encourage vaulters to land more safely (in the coaches box) without landing short.

I'd be for that as well. The tighter the arc, the more likely a small deviation can lead to the dreaded box-drop. (I've seen a kid land flat on his back in the box, and it was sickening. I don't ever want to see it again.)

[Divalent]

As an official I would not want to have to enforce this rule because of its subjectivity as Kirk pointed out.

I don't lightly try to counter the opinion of an experienced PV official and a 5+ M vaulter (as I certainly am neither of them and bow to your expertise in matter specific to the PV), but I would point out that most sports rely on officials repeatedly making important assessments of the position of balls and body parts relative to some physical object, and as these things go, the position of the head of a vaulter relative to a clearly delinated zone on the crossbar strikes me as one that would be relatively easy in comparison. Soccer balls crossing the side or end line, feet in bounds on after a catch on the sidelines, a volleyball struck above (or below) the top of the net, a baseball/softball pitch above the knees, a fly ball inside or outside the foul pole, a field goal attempt inside or outside the imaginary extension of the post as it sails overhead, etc. The head of a vaulter, if viewed from behind by someone standing on the runway, is going to follow a pretty smooth (and relatively slow) path in terms of left-right motion, and will never (one hopes!) be obscured by any other part of the body. With a successful vault, it will pass behind the bar moving, for the most part, mostly vertical. The speed, the motions, the unobscured view, strike me (as someone who had to make calls as an official in 3 other sports) as ideal for accuracy.

If an official treats the rule as one that he/she won't call a vaulter on unless he is certain beyond all reasonable doubt that it was violated (so you give them the close ones, say a 3-6 inch buffer), then I honestly don't see what the problem will be. (after all, its not really the kid that's crossing the bar 3 ft off center, its the one that crosses 4+ ft off center that are the highest risk).

I also would support a workable "land in the coaches box" rule, but I do think this one it would be more problematic in terms of judging compliance. (and I think the c-box should be redesigned if it's going to be used as zone that determines what an acceptable vault is, which means expensive retro fits of pit covers. 10 cents worth of spray paint will convert existing crossbars to one compliant with a "4 ft" rule).

From Divalent’s description and from my experience, most of the vaults that would fail the “4 foot rule” would be attempts by less experienced vaulters with poor technique.

Based on your experience, do you think this rule (assuming the "call" can be made easily) would distinguish the unsafe vaults without also penalizing some safe ones? (and does 4 ft sound about right, or do you think a different length would be better).

Finally, (if I've not persuaded you on this possible rule), what would you suggest as an alternative way to allow an official to weed out unsafe vaulters besides the two you listed? (I'd support a higher minimum standard, but the value of the second one eludes me due to my lack of knowledge). Again, I'll point out that the issue is that many kids do not have responsible coaches that will yank a kid that is repeatedly putting himself at risk. Given the reality of the situation, it seems like the only other option (unless you just want to let them vault unsafely) is to set some minimal rules that prevent them from being rewarded by clearing bars in an unsafe manner. (because the risk goes up as the bar goes up)

[PV Official]

My initial reluctance with this rule was its subjectivity. I think the PLZ concept the Kirk suggested would be easier to enforce because it would avoid the confusion/controversy of someone clearing a bar but having it disallowed because they didn't go over the 4 foot zone. Plus, the PLZ should be more visible to the coaches/spectators in the stands. But, whether you use a 4 foot rule or a PLZ, I think the system would have to work something like this:
1. First "unsafe" occurrence: Official makes note of event.
2. Second "unsafe" occurrence: Official notes event and warns athlete that this is their second occurrence.
3. Third "unsafe" occurrence: Official notes event and calls for Field Event Referree. (Only a Referree has the authority to disqualify an athlete. An official can only report what they saw.)

The Field Event Referree would then handle any further discussion with the athlete and their coach, if there is one. This would allow the official to keep the event running. One possible variation would be to call the Referee after the second occurrence and have them observe the third occurrence. However, they are very busy and may not be available to stay at the Pole Vault.

[dj]

hye

i don't know that we can "mandate” anything more for safety… jan’s new box “pad” will help.

But it takes coaches (or an athlete) that understands you just cannot grip the top of the pole and go!!! Plus that coach has to have some knowledge and common sense to the speed-to-grip ration.

If these things are understood by the coach, the next thing is an athlete that is willing to listen. I have had athletes that refuse… and I have refused to coach them, even though they were a paying customer, and I told the parent that unless they were willing to change it was a dangerous sport for them.

I know that I am know on PVP for the 6 step chart but I have to tell you here.. if you use the chart, grip to “Mid” ratio, you will vault safer.. for over 30 years vaulters that are “on” by the chart have penetrated into the pit... safely.

I recommended years ago that the chart be used as a safety tool…. It was not accepted and I have seen vaulters get hurt because they were over striding or gripping to high for their speed and “mid”. 30 years.. i don't know how many of the deaths were caused by an incorrect run but i'm pretty sure it is a large majority.. and it tears me up to know that we can and should make the vault safer by using the chart but few are listening.

dj