Vtech Last Chance meet thrown out

[ADTF Academy]

No one has answered the question yet... why jump at 5.37


Was it a national recored for Brian and he didn't want to jump alone so VT guy jumped it as well?

Or did they know it needed to go from 5.37 to 5.42 (5cm increase) and other coaches complained and wanted 5.38 cause they knew that bar would make it into NCAA meet so they jumped that bar too?

With all the who was right and who was wrong now settled and the NCAA past us. Can we get a response as to why even jump at 5.37?

Did you go into the meet with 5.37 and 5.38 on the charts... Once every other school past 5.37 why did those two even chose to jump at that height?

[vtcoach]

No one has answered the question yet... why jump at 5.37


Was it a national recored for Brian and he didn't want to jump alone so VT guy jumped it as well?

Or did they know it needed to go from 5.37 to 5.42 (5cm increase) and other coaches complained and wanted 5.38 cause they knew that bar would make it into NCAA meet so they jumped that bar too?

With all the who was right and who was wrong now settled and the NCAA past us. Can we get a response as to why even jump at 5.37?

Did you go into the meet with 5.37 and 5.38 on the charts... Once every other school past 5.37 why did those two even chose to jump at that height?

Hi,

Yes. We started the meet with both 5.37 and 5.38 on the chart. I thought 5.37 would be safe. I didn't think as many guys would jump 5.38 or higher as did and I didn't think the Clemson vaulter would even declare so I thought there was another spot there as well. In addition to Hunter, Jared, and Jenia I had a vaulter that I thought could qualify (he has been 5.18 from his six left and was coming from seven) and I knew there were a couple of other vaulters in the meet that still needed a mark as well. I wanted a bar at the lowest height that I thought would be safe which in my mind was 5.37. BUT I also felt like we were cheating the two guys coming to the meet that already had 5.37 marks in the books if we didn't give them an opportunity until 5.42. So given my belief that the 5cm rule was only a recommendation we ended up developing a progression that put a bar at both 5.37 and 5.38. We let everyone decide for themselves which of the two bars they wanted to jump at so I really didn't care which bar Brian or Jenia or anyone else picked. My one guy and one other high level vaulter exited early and never got to the 5.37 bar. The Tennessee coach decided to jump his kids at 5.38. As far as why Brian and Jenia jumped at 5.37 the question is not so much why but why not? It was in the progression, they decided to jump at it and leave the 5.38 bar to the jumpers that needed that bar. No one was trying to hide anything because we thought the progression was allowed. The progression is admittedly odd and not one that we would have normally used but we thought it was within the rules and that it served the purpose of that particular meet. It turned out to be a great competition with Hunter, Mike, and Brad all setting lifetime bests.

Bob

[vtcoach]

BTW, The Israeli indoor record is 5.86m and the outdoor record is 5.93m both by Alex Averbukh.

[KirkB]

... the rule "clearly" says:

It is recommended that the bar be raised in increments of 5 cm but never less than 3cm.

The intent of this statement might be that "it's RECOMMENDED that the bar be raised in increments of 5 cm" ... but ... "it's MANDATORY that the bar be raised at least 3 cm at a time".

However, an ambiguous statement should be in favor of the READER of the rule ... not the WRITER of the rule. At least that's the way legal documents are ruled in courts of law!

The proper solution is to tighten up the ambiguity so that it's less ambiguous in the future ... but in the meantime, allow any interpretation that favors the READER.

In reading this thread again, I find that this quote ... straight out of the NCAA rule book ...

The starting height of the bar and each successive height shall be
determined by the games committee and/or jury. It is recommended that the
bar be raised in increments of 15 centimeters, but never less than 5 centimeters
or as provided in Rule 7-1.6.

... is not quite the same as the "rule" that vtcoach "quoted". One refers to 15 cm and 5 cm, the other refers to 5 cm and 3 cm. I'm curious where the 5 and 3 came from ... if not directly out of the NCAA rule book?

Kirk

[rainbowgirl28]

KB you are confusing HJ and PV

[KirkB]

KB you are confusing HJ and PV

Yes, I was. In re-reading vtcoach's quote, I now see that he was referring to HJ. My bad ... thanks!

Kirk

[ADTF Academy]

Thanks Bob!


You have done a great job down there. I'll see you some time this summer I'm sure.

[Vaultref]

.....
As you all know, the NCAA is saying their initial interpretation sent to us by email last year was wrong and that the 5cm (pole vault) and 3cm (high jump) minimums were intended to be more than just a recommendation. We obviously will comply with that intent going forward but will also be submitting new wording to make the rule less ambiguous. Two questions:

1) Do we also suggest a substantive change in the high jump to change the mimium to 2cm (like the IAAF) or do we keep it at 3cm? Are there any high jumpers or high jump coaches on the board that could weigh in?
2) Do we state (like the IAAF) that once the increment has been decreased that it cannot be increased again?

Thanks again everyone.

While as an official, this does not matter but if I were a games committee or meet management guy who needed to set up a reasonable progressions.. I'd favor a common set rules between all three codes with regards to the minimum progression and what is stated in #2. Go for it Bob.