Let's talk about box collars!

[Decamouse]

Enough BS about what is a fact -- look in the meeting minutes from ASTM F08.67 from November 15, 2012 - there were negative votes because these members thought it "mandated the use of winged design" until it was clarified that "If the box collar has box collar wings" - this wording is in the minutes and this wording is still in the standard as published. How you can say they are required when this was specifically addressed and documented in the meeting minutes. It would not have passed until these negatives has been either shown to be non-persuasive or is withdrawn. F08 votes on this not just F08.67 (again look at the minutes).

For this wording to be removed it has to go back before F08 not just F08.67 --- go look on the ASTM website and read the meeting minutes

Now the NCAA can choose to say they want to have Box collars that meet the standard and must have the wings -- the standard is a minimum and allowed the use of wings - look at where this standard came from - the box collar was shown in F1162 and was included in that standard but it was felt it needed to be addressed because the secondary (supplementary) padding did not have any performance requirement. At this point wings woud not have been allowed. So if your reply is the minutes are wrong or we just said that so the negative votes would be withdrawn -- does not work that way -- "IF" was a delibrate word put in the standard - it does not say "must" - read the minutes

[Decamouse]

About sliding down the intersection of the wall and the pole slide -- The reason I question this is the video on the Gill website clearly shows the first couple inches of this intersection covered -- yes clearly after 4-6 inches down the pole slide plane you can clearly get to the sidewall -- but what about the first inch or two? Even the 3D rendering and the photo show that a pole tip can not freely touch that point. That is why I ask -- old design?

[PVJunkie]

About sliding down the intersection of the wall and the pole slide -- The reason I question this is the video on the Gill website clearly shows the first couple inches of this intersection covered -- yes clearly after 4-6 inches down the pole slide plane you can clearly get to the sidewall -- but what about the first inch or two? Even the 3D rendering and the photo show that a pole tip can not freely touch that point. That is why I ask -- old design?

The front edges of the arms are angled down and away from the center of the box so that the collar contacts the ground at the same point as the top edge of the box. That angle allows the tip access to the full entrance of the box. Take a look at the drawing in the ASTM and it is pretty clear in the rendering. I agree in the video it is difficult to see.

[PVJunkie]

Enough BS about what is a fact -- look in the meeting minutes from ASTM F08.67 from November 15, 2012 - there were negative votes because these members thought it "mandated the use of winged design" until it was clarified that "If the box collar has box collar wings" - this wording is in the minutes and this wording is still in the standard as published. How you can say they are required when this was specifically addressed and documented in the meeting minutes. It would not have passed until these negatives has been either shown to be non-persuasive or is withdrawn. F08 votes on this not just F08.67 (again look at the minutes).

For this wording to be removed it has to go back before F08 not just F08.67 --- go look on the ASTM website and read the meeting minutes

Now the NCAA can choose to say they want to have Box collars that meet the standard and must have the wings -- the standard is a minimum and allowed the use of wings - look at where this standard came from - the box collar was shown in F1162 and was included in that standard but it was felt it needed to be addressed because the secondary (supplementary) padding did not have any performance requirement. At this point wings woud not have been allowed. So if your reply is the minutes are wrong or we just said that so the negative votes would be withdrawn -- does not work that way -- "IF" was a delibrate word put in the standard - it does not say "must" - read the minutes

Members of the ASTM and the ASTM itself do/does not provide interpretations/clarifications of standards. It was the opinion of two of the members that that the wording "seemed to indicate" an option so they withdrew their negative vote. Other members, to this day, disagree with that opinion.

I refer you to the wording of the NCAA rule agian:
Pole Vault Box Padding. A pole vault box collar, which is a device used to offer protection to pole vaulters in and around a pole vault box, shall be in place not later than December 1, 2013. The device must meet the most current ASTM Specification Standard and can be incorporated into the design of the pole vault box or a padding addition to an existing pole vault box.

The word "in" is used when identifying where the protection is to be provided. It seems clear that their expectation is that there be wings. There is no other part of the rule that contradicts that requirement. Our opinions about the ASTM wording are meaningless since schools don't abide by ASTM standards. I recommend that schools contact the NCAA since they do offer interpretations of their rules.

[PVJunkie]

Not necessarily arguing that this is the right thing to do. Just I think if there is a rule in place there needs to be a better way to regulate and enforce it.

Amen. They rushed to implement the rule and it's going to be a cluster****

There will not be a collar from Gill (that was not a prototype) that will not have labeling on it. To my knowledge no one has a collar with any printing on it whatsoever so by simply putting our logo on, it will identify it as a new collar BUT we are going even further and will print the astm compliance onto the casing. For collars from Gill there will be no way to mistake a compliant collar for one that is not.

[Decamouse]

Did you read the meeting minutes -- if so - not sure how you can say "If" does not mean "If" - it is spelled out clearly in the meeting meets - since I was in on the development and was in on the recommendation that we word it as "if" so it would "allow" wings -- I have other documents that also show this including others who are part of the ASTM F08 agreeing with "If". You where not there so I am not sure how you know better than those who help draft and questioned the wording.

Not sure why you are hung up on the word "If" -- there is no doubt that wings are allowed - it was written specifically so they would be allowed. If someone wants to say (NCAA) that they want box collars with wings because they believe it adds a higher level they are every right to do that -- I have no problem with that either -- up until this standard was written it was clear that wings or anything in the box would not be allowed. That was why the word "If" was put in. Even Jan agrees with that.

Again - it is to set a standard with minimum requirements with measurable performance criteria.

as far as the pole slide side wall interface - easy enough for anyone to verify - put the box collar in place - stand with the pole against the stop plate like you are checking you step - have pole in corner and slowly back down runway with pole above head -- if it can not maintain contact with the pole slide and the side walls (ie the collar does not allow the pole to slide freely) all the way until the tip is at the beginning of the box - it does not meet the requeirment in 5.9 - "shall allow room for a pole to slide freely down the interior edges of the pole vault box where the sidewalls meet the pole slide".

Quick check - if you are standing on the runway at your tackoff point and you can not see the intersection of the pole slide (bottom of the box) and the side wall along it complete length -- the collar is not situated correctly or was not fabricated correctly

[PVJunkie]

I was there in person and yes I re-read the minutes. If I recall someone said that meeting set an attendance record. Was that the meeting you attended via conference call? We also met in Indy recently and a lot of opinions about this topic were shared then as well. Will you make it to Jacksonville in November?

We agree that members of the ASTM have different opinions about what the word "if" implies in the definition of the collar arms. That disagreement is meaningless and is causing confusion for the market. Per the ASTM, its members do not provide interpretations or clarifications, they can propose edits/revisions that then go through the balloting process. The only thing that matters is how that document is then used by outside entities. In this case the NCAA.

I am not hung up on the word if. In fact I am focused on the document as a whole which is why, in my opinion, it does not make the wings optional. If the wings were optional wouldn't it stand to reason that the definition of the wings themselves would reflect it? Wouldn't the drawings show some reference to the options? Wouldn't it be identified more clearly than the use of the word "if" in the definition of some other part of the device?

The fact is, anyone using the words "clarification" or "interpretation" when referring to the document is in reality sharing their opinion. The only opinion that counts in this instance is the NCAA's. That is why I continue to recommend that people refer to the NCAA rule and if they feel it is unclear contact them for an interpretation.

If you would like to continue discussion about the opinions of the ASTM members about this topic lets do so via PM.

POLE SLIDE
Now I see what you are trying to say. I will try that in the next few weeks. My guess is we will need to discuss the meaning of the requirement. Just a guess, I think it will allow room but at the very beginning of the box (shallow side) it will touch the collar at the same time as the intersection. If that is the case does it still slide freely?

[VaultPurple]

I recently joined ASTM and became a voting member. I have now learned that this is one of the worst regulated organization and am really baffled as to why the NCAA would ever use them.

I needed to show no proof that I knew anything about the equipment or pole vaulting. I also receive emails asking me to vote on other standards related to Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities. I am a pole vault coach that was asked to vote if I wanted a certain standard to be upheld for a hockey helmet that I had never read!

This means that the people voting for this standard may not be educated on the standard, may not be educated on the equipment, and may not even know anything about the sport the equipment is used in.

[PVJunkie]

I recently joined ASTM and became a voting member. I have now learned that this is one of the worst regulated organization and am really baffled as to why the NCAA would ever use them.

I needed to show no proof that I knew anything about the equipment or pole vaulting. I also receive emails asking me to vote on other standards related to Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities. I am a pole vault coach that was asked to vote if I wanted a certain standard to be upheld for a hockey helmet that I had never read!

This means that the people voting for this standard may not be educated on the standard, may not be educated on the equipment, and may not even know anything about the sport the equipment is used in.

It is a self regulated organization. You will be vetted by the other members of the group and while your initial enrollment is pretty simple, voting privileges can and have been taken away. Your participation is voluntary. The pole vault group is a subcommittee of the Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities category. If you had voted, randomly, on the hockey helmet proposal, not only would your vote have easily been tossed you would risk possibly losing your membership. The reason for all members of F08 getting (they are actually required to vote/abstain on a certain number of ballots each year) the opportunity to vote is to allow people with very specific skills/knowledge the opportunity to provide input. Lets say the helmet was proposed by a hockey subcommittee and someone from a helmet committee (also under F08) were to see it, vote negative, and provide why he/she voted that way. It forces the hockey subcommittee to address the information from someone with unique insight into something they are working on but is not a part of their subcommittee.

Yes, joining is easy but it doesn't mean you have any influence on anything and if you abuse your membership it can be taken it away. Take a look at almost any product you have contact with and you are likely to find some sort of ASTM compliance.

From their website:
ASTM International, formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), is a globally recognized leader in the development and delivery of international voluntary consensus standards. Today, some 12,000 ASTM standards are used around the world to improve product quality, enhance safety, facilitate market access and trade, and build consumer confidence.

ASTM’s leadership in international standards development is driven by the contributions of its members: more than 30,000 of the world’s top technical experts and business professionals representing 150 countries. Working in an open and transparent process and using ASTM’s advanced electronic infrastructure, ASTM members deliver the test methods, specifications, guides, and practices that support industries and governments worldwide.

[VaultPurple]

In my opinion ASTM is a way to pass the blame.

If the NCAA were to come straight out and state their interpretation of the rule in the NCAA rule book they would be liable if anything went wrong. This is why I think the 'And' in the rule was more of a wording error on their part that they will allow to stand to create confusion.

If the NCAA would write in the rule book that a removable box collar place over a hard runway and hard plant box (not a Safety Box) was required to have wings, then they would be liable if anything went wrong. If someone got hurt because of the wings in any way, shape, or form, the NCAA would be liable.

They get around this by having the ASTM develop a standard and write a rule stating that the box collar must meet current ASTM standards. This way if someone gets hurt, they can just say, "well, we only required safety equipment that meets current industry standards". Someone might then try and blame ASTM but they are very smart about covering their own track as well. ASTM does not interpret their own standards so they can always just say 'that's not what we meant' if someone tried to take them to court.

There is a very simple way to fix this whole debate as well. If Rachel Seewald or someone at the NCAA will issue an official statement saying that the rule requires "The use of wings on pole vault box collars or some sort of ASTM compliant material is required to cover hard non-ASTM compliant surfaces inside of the vault box". This one statement right here will solve all our problems.

However I would be willing to bet no one at the NCAA would dare to make this statement. If they official stated the use of wings or padding inside of the vault box was required in any statement that they did not attach the ASTM standard to, they would be liable for any incident caused by the required padding.

They create confusion intentionally. They do this by making a statement saying that "Pole Vault Box Padding. A pole vault box collar, which is a device used to
offer protection to pole vaulters in and around a pole vault box" and following it with a statement requiring the padding to meet current ASTM standards which are pretty much open for interpretation by anyone that reads them.

If anyone gets hurt by the wings they can point to the standard and say it did not really require wings and that is what the rule meant, and if anyone gets hurt with no wings, they can point and say they required the wings.

Pole Vault Box Padding. A pole vault box collar, which is a device used to
offer protection to pole vaulters in and around a pole vault box, shall be in
place not later than December 1, 2013. The device must meet the most
current ASTM Specification Standard and can be incorporated into the
design of the pole vault box or a padding addition to an existing pole vault
box.

Rationale: To provide as much padding around fixed and solid objects as
possible to absorb a possible impact. The NCAA Committee on Competitive
Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports recommended this proposal for safety
purposes.

Please contact Rachel Seewald at rseewald@ncaa.org or 317-917-6141 if you
have any questions regarding this communication.

[PVJunkie]

Independent standards are indeed a way for entities to improve quality, safety and confidence within their products or in this case the products of their members and deflect some of the liability. The NCAA does not manufacture products so by incorporating standards into their rules it allows them to address issues in equipment. There are ASTM standards on Soccer goals, residential basketball goals, diving boards, tires....the list goes on.

The NCAA rule is clear and well written. I have yet to see that anyone has submitted an iterp to them as their procedure requires. They have no reason to put out a release if no one is asking them to interpret the rule.

The ASTM is not for "anyone" to interpret. In fact the standard is not available for public scrutiny for just that reason. As a member you have access to standards but are not authorized to share them. Non members can purchase standards but cannot reproduce or share them. The problem with all of this is that people are desperately looking for a way around a rule and attacking the ASTM (in most cases without reading it) is how they have chosen to do so.

The thing I struggle with the most is - this addresses a problem that has been around since 2003. I agree with Becca when she says this was all rushed, not the rule that takes effect on 12/1 but the original rule back in 2003. Box collars are a good idea but without any standard there were some very dangerous ones being used.

[Decamouse]

It is interesting how Engineers or people would work with standards such as ASTM, NEC, NFPA etc read a rule - very literal -- While I did spend 8 years heading Engineering at Gill - I have been a Engineer and dealing with regulatory compliance, specifications and such since the late 70's -- currently back in a regulation/compliance driven industry -- If a specification or standard said you have a control system and "if" you have a local control station or an e-stop and later defines exactly what that local control station or e-stop must meet or do -- I believe you would be hard pressed to find a competent engineer would that would say it means you must have a local station. It means "If" you have it then it must be like this. Wording like that is common in standards and specifications worldwide.

Now with standard approval -- simply say no because I do not like it does not work. Need some valid reason why. Now remember a lot of anal engineers (I am one at times) will read it and say things like - If does not mean must. ASTM has guidelines on the balance between people voting -- Engineer, manufactures, users -- but you still have to convince a bunch of anal engineers that it makes sense to get in published as a standard. Yes - mistakes still get made in wording.

A local ordance or organization (NCAA, NFHS, IAAF, USATF) can say it must meet this standard and also must -- many local ordances are stricter than the NEC and NFPA. Calif and many state have stricter requirements for many things than other states.

What is better, say you require a box collar but not define any performance standard or have a minimum standard it must meet.

Why have seat belts?

Face it things change - hockey players now are required to wear helmets and they must meet certain standards - is that bad?

Why does a batter needs a helmet and why does it need to meet a standard.

If a standard ends up saving a life - is it worth it?