Skyin' Brian wrote:yes, im just saying that it creates a whole new judgement call................
that is whether the bar would have been displaced by the body had the pole not hit it in the instance where a vaulter hits the bar on the way over and then the pole comes through and finishes the job before the bar had a chance to fall off on its own.
most of us prefer rules that make vaulters go higher, but the pole release is not like volzing. it is rather simple, takes minimal effort, and encourages proper technique(begining athletes that have problems turning often find throwing back the pole difficult)
i have 2 additional rules questions that im not sure about:
what is the ruling when a pole contacts a standard causing the bar to fall off. i know that in the high jump, an athlete is not given a miss if when exiting they bump into the standard
also, i once saw a crossbar roll over onto the rounded end and it was called make in this instance and noone thought twice about it. was this the correct call or is this another case of a bar staying up and and it actually being a miss
### As currently interpreted, the judgement of the vault judge is relatively easy. Release the pole properly , your vault will be called good no matter what the pole does after that. Release it such the the movement is still towards the bar OR standards, then your vault could be a fail if the cross bar is displaced. There are no other what ifs to consider and it matter not what the sex of the vaulter is either. Any change as suggested by the original poster will complicate the issue as Skyin Brian points out. I'm with him. Leave it alone. A change like this would be difficult to officiate and probably cause more inconsistent rulings across the country at all levels of meets.
Regarding your two questions: (1) it would take quite a bit of force for the pole to have displaced the bar by hitting the standards if the vaulter had cleared the bar without touching it. Technically, this is a fail. The only time I've ruled otherwise was when a pole hits the "extenders" since they were in use for lower heights. These extenders are just not ridged enought or to put it bluntly, the are very flimsy and can be bent several inches past vertical before they snap back to vertical. That action alone propels the bar off the pegs. No way will I fail a jumper for that unless the pole directly takes the crossbar off.
Your comment about the high jump is part right, part wrong. Under NF rules if you exit the pit and displace the bar while exiting, this is a failed attempt. Its written in the rules.
Now, under NCAA rules it is NOT a fail and written in the rules just to say that. USATF does not address this, therefore assume the jump is good.
2) the cross bar can flip over on and as long as it stays on the same pins it originally was set on, the jump is good. Don't let anyone try to tell you differently.
Mowad1 said I know of a vaulter hitting the bar which came to rest on the rounded end. It was called a miss though it stayed up.
It should be obvious to all that this is totally incorrect. It would have to land and come to rest on different pegs to be a failed jump. The person running the event needs a refresher course in pole vault.
I think that it is the most sexist rules in all of sports. Forgetting about male and female developmental vaulters for a moment and strictly discussing elite high school, collegiate female and possibly elite female vaulters: the rule is taking away from fair competition. How can one person consider themself a winner when, in fact they may have tied or even lost to another competitor based on the pole's direction after a vault? How many times does a pole fall in the same direction for men, in most cases, who go without penalty for making the bar?
