PoleVaultPower.com

What if the rules were changed so that a vault is successful only if the vaulter clears the central 4 ft portion of the bar?

As a parent/spectator/assistant official for just the last 3 years, the some of the dangerous landings I've observed were:
- one girl landing on exposed concrete near standards (head hit pit, butt/back hit concrete- to the hospital-minor injuries. definitely not a legal setup)
- various vaulters land off the pit to the side (where surface was "yielding" and so legal per rules; usually landing on their feet, but at least two times it was on their butt.
- I also seen several other kids that, although they've always managed to land on the pit, made it a habit to land very close to the edge; even when clearing the bar. (in several cases, they then bounced off the pit)

Only once did a see a vaulters coach intervene: he pulled a kid out of the competition after he landed on the right-most two feet of the pit on two consecutive vaults (clearing the bar both times). On another occasion, I overhead a coach (of a vaulter who landed out of the pit multiple times in that meet) explain to a bystander what his vaulter was doing wrong, but he didn't communicate that (at least using more than 2 words) to the vaulter and continued to let him participate without (as far as I could see) any instruction to correct his defect. (I got the sense that they knew about this problem and its cause, and so landing out of the pit was information enough to the kid that he needed to correct things; he just never did.)

I noticed a discussion in another forum here (can't remember which one, there are *soooo* many) going back more than a year where several coaches/officials expressed the desire for some rule that would allow the officials to remove a kid from the competition when they consistantly land outside the "coaches box": kind of a "3 strikes" missing the coach's box and you're out. The proposal met some resistance (I'm not sure exactly why), and the discussion petered out.

It seems to me that the rules *should* allow an official to do what a responsible coach *would* do, particularly at the HS level where skills can be poor, and where a substantial fraction of the kids don't even have a PV coach (at least one with any more than token knowledge of the event, particularly the safety issues). Maybe the rules should be a little more liberal, but if a responsible coach will pull a kid after two strikes, it should not be an issue for the rules to allow (indeed, they should mandate) that the officials pull a kid after three strikes.

Ideally, I like to reignite the discussion of that proposal. However, I'd also like to toss out an alternative that, while not as good, might have nearly the same benefit: which is to require a vaulter to clear the central 4 feet (or 3 ft, or 5 ft) of the bar with their head, or else its a failure. I think this would work because the kids that are consistently going off to one side seem (in my admittedly limited experience) to be doing this on almost every attempt. The problem is that they also are (with about a 50% success rate) clearing the lower bars, and everytime it goes higher I get more and more concerned. (My fear is that eventually someone's going to get tangled in the bar and land head first instead of feet or butt first). If you look at the angles, if a vaulters head has to pass over the bar within 2 ft (2.5?) of the middle of the bar, then it is almost impossible to clear the bar *and* land off the side of the pit.

It's not as good (IMO) as giving the officials the power to remove unsafe vaulters, but at least it's a rule that would be easy to impliment (the event official on the runway will have a good view of where the head clears the bar as long as the central portion is color coded, so it will be an easy rule to enforce)

So, the advantage would be that it would eliminate kids that are vaulting dangerously early on in the competition. In addition, it may also help kids focus on vaulting safely. If they clear the bar and land without incident on the edge of the pit now, they are rewarding for what they just did. That really not the message you want to be sending to these kids. Instead you want to be giving them a tangible incentive to vault in a way that is safe.

But are there any disadvantages? Are there good vaulters with good skills and safe technique that would be penalized by this rule?

Divalent wrote: What if the rules were changed so that a vault is successful only if the vaulter clears the central 4 ft portion of the bar? ...

... But are there any disadvantages? Are there good vaulters with good skills and safe technique that would be penalized by this rule?

Divalent, I like your outside-the-box thinking!
EDIT: Fixed typo.

All "good, safe" vaulters attempt to clear the center 4 feet of the bar ... there is no "safe" technique that anyone uses where you purposely clear the bar near the standards. The best jumps are when you clear the bar exactly in the middle. ANYTHING to the side indicates a fault ... like a late plant, for example. No one does that on purpose.

But ...

Your proposed rule would be very difficult to enforce, since it's so subjective for the officials to judge. Can you imagine the arguments as to whether the athlete's head was inside or outside of this 4 foot window that you're proposing?

Divalent wrote: I noticed a discussion in another forum here (can't remember which one, there are *soooo* many) going back more than a year where several coaches/officials expressed the desire for some rule that would allow the officials to remove a kid from the competition when they consistantly land outside the "coaches box": kind of a "3 strikes" missing the coach's box and you're out. The proposal met some resistance (I'm not sure exactly why), and the discussion petered out.

... [I'd] like to reignite the discussion of that proposal.

Yes, a better alternative is to look at where the athlete is LANDING. It's easier for an official to spot this, since he's going to be on his butt for more than a split second ... so the ruling should be more obvious (albeit still subjective).

Proposal (for discussion purposes only): If the vaulter lands in the PLZ (Preferred Landing Zone, aka "coaches box"), he's safe; else his attempt is considered a miss ... even if he clears the bar.

The vaulters will soon learn that they MUST land in the PLZ. The exact rule would have to be defined, but perhaps the TORSO (not just an arm or a leg) must land at least PARTIALLY in the PLZ.

In my career, I had ONE jump where I had a late plant ... cleared the bar ... and missed the pit to the side. I had serious injuries from this jump, but thankfully I'm still alive today (obviously). If the proposed rule was in effect at the time, I would have bailed, knowing that even if I cleared the bar, it would still be a MISS. In hindsight, I would much rather have taken a miss than sustaining the injuries. Why didn't I bail WITHOUT the proposed PLZ rule? I was young, stupid, reckless, and by clearing that bar, I won the meet! But it wasn't worth it.

Kirk

Major problme...

No one intentionally tries to clear the side of the cross bar. So if they do and get hurt, yes the jump is counted as a miss, but yes they are still hurt.

KirkB wrote: Your proposed rule would be very difficult to enforce, since it's so subjective for the officials to judge. Can you imagine the arguments as to whether the athlete's head was inside or outside of this 4 foot window that you're proposing?

I do like your proposal (and am leaning to the position that *both* rules should be added) but I'd like to address the above quoted concern. IMO, a rule that the vaulters head must clear the center 4 ft (or 5 ft, or whatever) would be *far* easier to call accurately and cleanly than the "land in the coach's box" rule. (and I would use the soccer rule, head must be completely outside to be judged a miss). The head crosses the bar within a foot or so on close jumps, but in any event will also immediately pass the bar on the way down. An official standing on or near the runway ~ 20 ft out will have excellent sight lines to see where the vaulters head is with respect to the bar as it goes up, over, and down. Assuming this zone of the bar is well marked in contrasting colors, it would not be that hard a call to make. The difficulty would come, as you say, when the vaulter is near the end of the zone, but since the rule refers to a relatively small, compact, and easily distinguished portion of their body (the head) relative to a clearly defined boundry on the bar, any uncertainty would only come in ascertaining whether the vaulter was in or out. Yes, there will be close calls, but I think far fewer (and less ambiguity) than for the "c-box" rule. (And if officials took a liberal allowance and gave them an extra 3 inches, there would be few actual disputes.)

OTOH, a call on hitting the "c-box" would be more difficult, with more shades of grey (as least based on my observations on how some kids hit the pit), and, given the sight lines, more difficult to see. Land on feet standing just in front of c-box? (would pointlessly sitting down afterwards save them?) Feet hit first OUT (or IN) but rest of body lands IN (or OUT)? Butt hits out but torso in? Butt hits in but torso out? I can think of lots of real examples where it would be tricky (and lots more arguments, particularly from coaches trying to negate a competitors vault). The big challenge is to come up with a rule that is clear and easy to interpret and enforce, and best operates to make it both safe, and reasonable.

Another potential disadvantage to a c-box rule if not proper worded is that it might make the vaulters focus on how they actually splat on the mat once they've cleared the bar. I don't think it would be a good thing for vaulters who have just cleared the bar to now start thinking about where their different body parts will be impacting the pit, because at that point of the attempt, the safest thing for them to do is to fall naturally based on what just happened. (E.g., it probably would not be a good thing for them to try to contort their body in some way to get just enough of their torso in to make it count, but you know they will try to do this if they think they wont' be hitting the target). (example: they think they might land just outside the box, do you want them to try to position their legs down and to the side so their body gets forced onto the c-box?)

Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm arguing against the c-box rule, just trying to point out some issues so as to help in constructing a working rule that would improve the situation.

BTW, the description of your incident (and your thought process) confirms my observational experience. On several occasions the vaulter was still focused on not touching the bar even though he was crossing it about 2 ft away from the standards (and clearly heading off the pit), because the rules would have rewarded him had be made it. Had he realized he had fouled sooner, he would have been better prepared for his landing.

VaultPurple wrote:Major problem... No one intentionally tries to clear the side of the cross bar. So if they do and get hurt, yes the jump is counted as a miss, but yes they are still hurt.

Yes, but I think one aim of the rule is that if a vaulter is going right, they would now know that, even if they cleared the bar it will still be a foul. Hopefully they will then immediately start focusing on a safe(r) landing. As I said above, I've seen this happen where a kid remains focused on clearing the bar despite the dire situation.

Admittedly, maybe there won't be enough time, or vaulter awareness, to actually do anything in a meet. But at least those unsafe vaulters won't advance to higher bars until they start vaulting safely. Right now, the goal is "just get over the damn bar", regardless of how recklessly they do it. They might start fixing that tendency to "go right" if they know that nothing good will ever come from a "go right" vault. We want the goal to be "just get over the central 4 ft of the damn bar". IOW, the major benefit of the rule may be that it will force kids with bad technique to address it sooner (when it is just a minor tendency) in practice, rather than later, when they are risking serious injury.

Divalent, your proposed rule only covers misses to the SIDES of the pit ... left or right.

The proposed PLZ rule covers misses in all 4 directions, to each side, and too far to the front or back of the pit.

I don't know the exact stats, but I believe there's been many deaths (and near-miss incidents) where the vaulter has catapulted himself too far ... over the entire pit. This is caused by gripping too high on too soft of a pole ... with improper technique and probably improper supervision or lack of coaching. (I've never personally experienced this problem.)

There have also been COUNTLESS injuries ... and several deaths ... due to hitting the planting box (not the coaches box), or the hard surfaces between the pit and the box. I would even venture to guess that almost EVERY elite athlete has ... at some point or another in his career ... stalled out and landed in or near the box. I challenge any vaulter to honestly say that he HAS NOT ever landed dangerously near the box. (I've personally experienced this problem UMPTEEN times in my short career ... 3 of which resulted in season-ending injuries ... with casts on my ankles.)

So if you're going to propose a rule to reduce the danger of missing the pit, I think it should cover the danger of missing ANY of the 4 sides of the pit.

Kirk

Divalent wrote: ... Admittedly, maybe there won't be enough time, or vaulter awareness, to actually do anything in a meet. But at least those unsafe vaulters won't advance to higher bars until they start vaulting safely. ...

Just to clear up a misconception you have, Divalent ...

Unless he's a complete rookie (or idiot), once the vaulter leaves the ground, he usually knows INSTANTLY whether his plant/takeoff is "on" or "off" ... sufficiently enough to realize that he's going to land off to the side of the PLZ. Furthermore, the DIRECTION of his travel thru the air is pre-determined. He cannot change direction after that.

Only the DISTANCE of his travel thru the air can be controlled ... by bailing out, or by continuing to swing/extend. Bailing out is a cognizant decision that the vaulter can do ... at ANY TIME after he takes off.

Kirk

KirkB wrote:Divalent, your proposed rule only covers misses to the SIDES of the pit ... left or right. The proposed PLZ rule covers misses in all 4 directions, to each side, and too far to the front or back of the pit.

Yes, I know. But just because one rule does not cover all unsafe techniques, doesn't make it non-valuable, if it nontheless improves safety. It does address a different class of unsafe technique than the over/under problems. (The rule to extend the width of the pit didn't address the "too far" problem, and the rule to extend the depth of the pit didn't address the side problem). One area this rule would be beneficial beyond a c-box rule is a vaulter can potentially assess the situation at a time when decisions could be made to alter the outcome. (And, as I point out above, I think this rule would be much easier to assess and enforce than a c-box rule).

BTW, the actual dimensions and position of the coaches box strike me as a bit arbitrary, and not well considered from a safety standpoint. I would think a more thoughtful safe landing zone area would be arc shaped (i.e., narrower at the front, with angled sides going back). In fact, a vaulter landing just barely within the front corner of the c-box probably had poor technique, and if the next vault took them on the same trajectory but with more distance, would be sending them dangerously close to the side to pit.

Right now the rules do not allow an official to penalize unsafe vaulting (as actually observed by the outcome), and the sport is reliant on the good sense and responsibility of a vaulter's coach to prevent kids from endangering themselves. In an ideal world, this should be sufficient to keep the event as safe as it can be. Unfortunately, in my experience, most coaches in my area have so little understanding of the event that they permit kids to vault after *repeatedly* demonstrating that they are putting themselves at risk. We should recognize the practical reality of the state of the event and give officials the ability to enforce safe practices.

I have been a basketball and soccer official, and so I know the value of a rule that is simple and easy to enforce. There will always be judgment issues in applying any rule to a given situation, but I think both the 4ft rule *and* the box rule could be crafted to greatly improve the safety of the sport without changing the nature of the contest. I see them as complementary, and the "4 ft" rule as one that would be easier to enforce, and less subject to uncertainty and ambiguity in the judgment. I see no reason it would be bad to have more than one rule addressing a particular safety concern. When safety is an issue, redundancy should be welcome.

OTOH, I admit by lack of experience in the sport, and so appreciate the insights of those of your with more of it. So please keep the discussion going.

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.

Going SLIGHTLY off topic ...

Personally, I'd rather that particular rule set the range at 20"-40" (50-99 cm). That might encourage vaulters to land more safely (in the coaches box) without landing short. To me, the range from 80-99 cm is still SAFE ... even SAFER than the range from 40-50 cm ... and should be encouraged. You can still land your HEAD in the coaches box, but have your feet whip down and strike the box ... if you're not careful. It also just happens to be (IMHO, give or take a few inches) the range in which the Petrov Model can be executed most successfully.

I'd be interested in what active HS vaulters think is the SAFE range. Is it as per NFHS rules, or what would suit YOUR vaulting technique?

Kirk

As an official I would not want to have to enforce this rule because of its subjectivity as Kirk pointed out. 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. Some things that could be done:
1) Change the HS minimum standards setting from 40 to 50 or even 60 cm;
(I get nervous when a vaulter requests standards set at 50 cm or less.)

2) Lower the HS maximum hand hold position. (Forces a lower grip.)

Item 1 is probably preferable because it would force the less experienced vaulter to have deeper standards. Most of the best vaulters I have officiated tend to set their standards in the 60 – 80 range. Item 2 could be done but would penalize better vaulters who can safely hold higher.

Here's an idea ...

Set up an additional pair of standards on each side of the pit ... 4 feet deeper than the existing standards. To save time when setting the depth of the standards, clamp them together so that they move in unison with the existing standards.

Place an additional crossbar between the additional standards ... at the same height. Now place 2 MORE crossbars so that they hang on the existing 2 crossbars ... at right angles to the first 2 crossbars. These 2 crossbars should be 4 feet apart ... more or less directly above the coaches box.

You now have a 4 foot square of crossbars in the air ... at the height each vaulter is attempting.

Proposed rule (jk): The vaulter must land BETWEEN these 4 crossbars. If he does so, he'll land safely ... in the coaches box. This will eliminate the subjectivity of whether or not the vaulter cleared the MAIN crossbar within 4 feet.

Kirk

2) Lower the HS maximum hand hold position. (Forces a lower grip.)

It would make pole vaulting not fair for taller vaulters (being 5'5 i have always dreamed of this rule, but know why it is not possible).

Even that would not really make a difference is because say they made max grip 15'. Anyone gripping over 15' is a pretty experience vaulter and is not the person you need to be worried about. And any lower than that, tall people would just not be able to jump as high. A short guy could jump 16' gripping 13' if he had the right technique and speed, but some 6'3 guys could barely jump 12'6 holding that high just because the take off angle is so great and they would push the pole to vertical so fast.

Proposed rule (jk): The vaulter must land BETWEEN these 4 crossbars. If he does so, he'll land safely ... in the coaches box. This will eliminate the subjectivity of whether or not the vaulter cleared the MAIN crossbar within 4 feet.

'
Kirk, im gonna take this as you have a since of humor...