FEET LEFT THE GROUND--IS IT A MISS?

[drcurran]

I think we are "beating a dead horse" vault3rb0y in one the the first post had it right. National Federation rule book says "if the vaulter leaves the ground in an attempt" As I said before the official has to be able to tell the difference between an attempt to vault and an attempt to stop / abort. If the official can't tell the difference he / she need to find another event to work. (by the way the rules I found did not refer to both feet leaving the ground, it just said if the vaulter leaves the ground).

Dan

[snow26]

in the not so great state of maryland, if you leave the ground it's a foul, wheather or not both feet leave the ground or only one does is up to the offical or the rule interpreter's memory.

also if you touch the mats it's a foul

[spill21]

here in texas it's if you touch the mat

[IndyCoach]

the touching the mat rule is very stupid. I just started at a new HS this year and they have the smallest legal pits possible, which do not extend out beyond the plant box. So we have no pit to run into beyond the box, but at my old school we had the UCS pits so you could hit the pit if you were 4 feet from the box.

[1yeldud1]

Just got the new 2007-08 NFHS rule case book - Here is their case explanation on this subject:

In the pole vault, --- A1 decides near the end of the approach not to go through with the attempt. In stopping (a) A1 places the pole in the planting box, but does not leave the ground (b) the end of the pole breaks the vertical plane of the stop board, but does not touch the landing pit: or (c) the end of the pole does strike or touch the landing pit beyond the the vertical plane of the stopboard. RULING: Providing that A1 does not violate the time limitation, it would not be counted as a trial in either (a) or (b). In (c). it is ruled an unsuccessful trial.


This kind of seems like if a vaulter leaves the ground it is an attempt ??

[Russ]

I'd like to add my 2 cents on this one. I whole-heartedly agree with VaulterBoy and all of those who have emphasized the importance of "in an attempt." I agree with Jan that an official should be able to distinguish between an aborted takeoff and a genuine takeoff. Intent at the instant of takeoff ("leaves the ground in an attempt") I think is the key.

But, remember the 90 second time rule. The vaulter still has to initiate his/her approach within 90 seconds. So you've got to hustle back to the end of the runway and go before 90 seconds (which time limit begins when the standards are set and the official has called your name). That's why under the NCAA and USATF and IAAF rule (breaking the plane and touching beyond the plane) isn't such a big deal, because there the rule is 60 seconds!

[Vaultref]

There are officials that really do have a hard time judging INTENT.

I have to admit, I've failed some when later I felt I shouldn't have and I've let some go where later I felt I should have failed it.


BUT... there is a change proposed for 2008 that addresses this very issue.
I won't say who submitted it (hint hint) but it is on the NFHS questionare and based on how the masses vote for/against it, maybe you'll see a change for next year.

It basically aligns the NF ruling with the other three rule codes.