Do Invitationals have to have Legal Pits?

[Bruce Caldwell]

MAGICALLY Hey I can do that !!! (SMILE)

I suggest you contact the NFHS for an Interpretation to clear this up.

Bruce, Do NOT act like you know everything or need to tell everyone what to do in order to get things done. You do NOT know if I did or did not do all of the above. You do NOT need to tell me what to do. I am, have been and always be very capable of handling the issues on my own in a timely manner.

http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtop ... ht=arcadia

Here is the thread above last year where I magically asked the poster to contact NFHS for interpretation!

For those who do not know me I am an amateur Magician as a Hobby. that is what the tongue and cheek comment was

[rainbowgirl28]

It would appear their concern was that not all HS vaulters have the control necessary to always land in the middle of the pits, as most Olympic vaulters do.

One guy missed the pits at the last Olympics

[CaliTrack]

Let's get the facts straight:

1) Bob McGuire DID SAY the pits are legal as they currently are at Arcadia. This was re-confirmed during and after the meet.

2) The pits are legal once you read the entire article in the rule, not just the partial rendering you gave.

3) Under your rendering/interpretation, then the Mt. SAC pits would be illegal too. Funny, but Jan Johnson stated to you (Tim Werner) that those pits were legal too.

4) Jan Johnson then took the time to fill you in on a few other rules.

Always nice when the real facts come out.

[advath]

Rich Gonzalez, of Dyestatcal.com and Meet Director at Arcadia...according to the moderator at PoleVaultPower. Why were you afraid to put your name?

The fact is that Cynthia Doyle of the National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) said in a phone conversation on 4/11/05 those pits DO NOT comply with the new rules or the "spirit of the rules" when she reviewed the photos from the meet.

That brings us to the Mt. SAC Landing System. The Mt. SAC Landing System had standards that did not slide back and forth. The top parts of the standards slide back and forth without the bases moving. The cutouts in the Mt. SAC landing system were for "standard sized" standard base rails which were about 5 feet long. The cutouts for the standard base rails at Arcadia were about 11 feet.

Why were there so many pads under the base protector pads at Arcadia the next day? That's ALL Bob McGuire and I asked for the first day of competition, one hour before Friday’s competition started.

The other difference in the two meets is…a crew at the Mt. SAC Relays was out fixing the discus cage in the middle of the meet between divisions to make it safer. They didn’t worry about the rules…They just fixed it.

Where is the part of the rule that you are reading that made the Arcadia pit comply with the rules?

I spoke up because I care about the safety of all student athletes.

When it comes to the safety of all student athletes, why not make the situation safer rather than worrying about how to interpret the rules or waiting for someone to get hurt?

I believe, along with many other coaches in the stands, there was too big a gap (about 3 feet) behind the standard base rails where the landing system could have been filled in to make it level with the rest of the pit and patches could have been sewed on the top cover to cover the gaps. This would make the landing system (not the base protector pads) with a common cover at least 19' 8" wide right up the standard base rails at the Arcadia Invitational.

...and Jan Johnson would like to know what other rules he was filling me in on? He didn't recall the day after Mt. SAC.

[CaliTrack]

Yes indeed. Rich Gonzalez, meet director of Arcadia.

Feel free to email me if you wish. I'd be happy to review (once again) the accounts of that day and to reiterate what Bob McGuire said.

Thanks!

[Bruce Caldwell]

TIM,
I know you are a vivid enthusiast in the sport and your website is a wonderful gift to the vault community.
SO this is not anything against you personally!

Lets talk about what you are saying?
ART 8 in part says The landing surface measured beyond the back of the standard bases shall be a minimum of 19'8" in width.

You say that the backs of standard bases are the marker for when the width of the pit must be 19'8" wide? This system by the way is 22’ wide!
SO if the standards are allowed to be 31.5" back and allow say 5.5" for the standard carriage within the rail, the distance to that point would be 36" from zero at the back of the box.
Now if the distance of the pit is to be 16'6" from the back of the box to the back of the pit

One could subtract 3' (36") from 16'6" and that would mean the back base units of any system out there would have to be minimum 13'6" back base units in order to meet this rule.

Being that most all are 12' some are 12'9" and 13' and I think Gill has a 16' back base unit on two of their sizes.
These 16’ base unit back pit would be the only pits I found in the industry that is legal that matches your interpretation of the rule.
WOW those base units would be so heavy to carry in and out every day????
Better buy one of their handy pit carts for that baby

I say the rule as you have interpreted is Difficult to comply with and needs someone to re-write it!!!!
Or it should read beyond the standard base protection pads covering the standard bases.
thanks for listening and I welcome your reply
Bruce Caldwell600

[Bruce Caldwell]

OR it should of read
"The landing surface measured beyond the standard base units, shall be a minimum of 19 feet, 8 inches (6 m) wide.
(I believe this was the original intent of the sentence by the writer in the beginning and it was edited out.)