PoleVaultPower.com

I want to revive an earlier discussion concerning rule changes to increase safety. Helmets are obviously the biggest debate, but there are other measures that might help. I propose an area about three feet wide marked on the entire perimeter of the pit. If an athlete lands in that area they are disqualified. This is why.

http://www.polevaultpower.com/forum/vie ... hp?t=12229

I believe that the dramatic increase in pit size over the last several years has not helped the situation as much as it should because these enormous pits give athletes a false sense of security. They feel safe enough to finish attempts like this. Defining a competitive portion of the pit about the size of one of the pits from the eighties that we used to jump over 18’ on, and forcing athletes to land there, would reintroduce the necessity of finding the center of the pit. This has become a lost art. And disasters such as this are the result.

i tend to agree with you Tim, but if the pits were smaller, people would still try to finish vaults like that, and then what would happen? they'd hit the ground. I think the pit sizes are right about where they should be, just the people jumping on them need to know when to bail, for safety reasons...

newPVer wrote:i tend to agree with you Tim, but if the pits were smaller, people would still try to finish vaults like that, and then what would happen? they'd hit the ground. I think the pit sizes are right about where they should be, just the people jumping on them need to know when to bail, for safety reasons...

I'm not at all suggesting the pits should be smaller, just that an area outside of the center of the pit be off limits in terms of an athlete continuing in a competition. If they miss the middle and thus demonstrate that they cannot vault safely, they should not be allowed to continue jumping. A disqualification would drive the point home. Too many times I have had to stand by and watch an unsafe vaulter, carrying the future of our sport down the runway with him, taking jump after jump, any one of which could end in disaster. I hate it and want to do something to stop it.

well maybe not to go as far as to go near the edge, but maybe if they at anytime when they're landing, were to touch the ground at all, anywhere behind the standards, such as in the video you posted a link to.

I could see why that'd be good, and i'd go behind it because a few unsafe vaulters across the nation could end this great sport...

Many newer pits come with a "coaches box" painted on the top cover. I remember Coach Attig saying a few years back that he would support a rule that if a vaulter landed with their center of mass outside of that white zone, then the first one would be a warning. The second time a vaulter landed outside of the coaches box, it would be counted as a miss, and the third violation would result in a DQ. Rick knows his stuff, and I personally think his idea sounds pretty good.

is that what the white box is for? never knew that...

I heartily encourage anyone who is vaulting unsafely to withdraw himself from the competition. I believe the current rules allow him to do so. I see no reason to change that.

that would be a good rule except, are you thinking about the times you might blow though a pole, have a bad plant, etc... that could affect just one vault, and make you land deep, or off to the side, so why DQ somebody that had one bad jump when the others are good jumps? Say you go up and something doesn't feel right and you bail, or you land shallow on the pit after a jump, that would be another DQ, or the weather could also affect a vault, strong face wind you land shallow, strong cross wind you will land closer to the edge, no matter how you see it there are so many ways to mess up and only 1 way to do it correctly and 1 bad jump shouldn't count as a direct DQ, just as a miss, that is how i see it, and if a vaulter is having a bad day and just not doing good they should scratch him/her self out of the event

txpolevaulter_k25 wrote:that would be a good rule except, are you thinking about the times you might blow though a pole, have a bad plant, etc... that could affect just one vault, and make you land deep, or off to the side, so why DQ somebody that had one bad jump when the others are good jumps? Say you go up and something doesn't feel right and you bail, or you land shallow on the pit after a jump, that would be another DQ, or the weather could also affect a vault, strong face wind you land shallow, strong cross wind you will land closer to the edge, no matter how you see it there are so many ways to mess up and only 1 way to do it correctly and 1 bad jump shouldn't count as a direct DQ, just as a miss, that is how i see it, and if a vaulter is having a bad day and just not doing good they should scratch him/her self out of the event

You should be able to vault in wind, rain, or other conditions safely. You have to take that all into account before you pick up a pole, its part of the event. I think it should be a warning and then DQ

MightyMouse wrote:

txpolevaulter_k25 wrote:that would be a good rule except, are you thinking about the times you might blow though a pole, have a bad plant, etc... that could affect just one vault, and make you land deep, or off to the side, so why DQ somebody that had one bad jump when the others are good jumps? Say you go up and something doesn't feel right and you bail, or you land shallow on the pit after a jump, that would be another DQ, or the weather could also affect a vault, strong face wind you land shallow, strong cross wind you will land closer to the edge, no matter how you see it there are so many ways to mess up and only 1 way to do it correctly and 1 bad jump shouldn't count as a direct DQ, just as a miss, that is how i see it, and if a vaulter is having a bad day and just not doing good they should scratch him/her self out of the event

You should be able to vault in wind, rain, or other conditions safely. You have to take that all into account before you pick up a pole, its part of the event. I think it should be a warning and then DQ

i would agree more with a warning and then a dq other than automatic dq, that is much better, and about the wind and stuff most high schools dont have a very large pole supply especially 1A i have 2 poles i can vault on they are still not the right poles for me

That sounds like a good idea, and I wish they would change the minimum of 15 ½" standards to 18". I have seen too many people try to top out big poles and land back on the runway, and then their coaches look at them and say run faster so they do it two more times.

txpolevaulter_k25 wrote:

MightyMouse wrote:

txpolevaulter_k25 wrote:that would be a good rule except, are you thinking about the times you might blow though a pole, have a bad plant, etc... that could affect just one vault, and make you land deep, or off to the side, so why DQ somebody that had one bad jump when the others are good jumps? Say you go up and something doesn't feel right and you bail, or you land shallow on the pit after a jump, that would be another DQ, or the weather could also affect a vault, strong face wind you land shallow, strong cross wind you will land closer to the edge, no matter how you see it there are so many ways to mess up and only 1 way to do it correctly and 1 bad jump shouldn't count as a direct DQ, just as a miss, that is how i see it, and if a vaulter is having a bad day and just not doing good they should scratch him/her self out of the event

You should be able to vault in wind, rain, or other conditions safely. You have to take that all into account before you pick up a pole, its part of the event. I think it should be a warning and then DQ

i would agree more with a warning and then a dq other than automatic dq, that is much better, and about the wind and stuff most high schools dont have a very large pole supply especially 1A i have 2 poles i can vault on they are still not the right poles for me

You obviously didn't read very closely, as the idea was first infraction is a WARNING. Second infraction would count as a SCRATCH. And third infraction would result in DQ. Lets say, in your example, a vaulter blows through their pole and bails out of a jump. Unless the vaulter is on a pole 20 lbs lighter than what they usually jump on, they will probably still land with their center of mass in the coaches box, it will just be at the back of it. If a vaulter flies completely over this portion of the pit, then they obviously had no business being on that particular pole in the first place and are competing recklessly.