NFHS Updates

[rainbowgirl28]

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2009/01/track_a ... notes.aspx

Bungee Cord Prohibited for Pole Vault
Early last season, the NFHS Track and Field Rules Committee clarified that the use of a
bungee cord is not permitted during the competition or warm-up period prior to the
event. The bungee cord is considered a training device inappropriate for use at inter-
scholastic meets. This prohibition is now expressly stated in Rule 7-5-4: “A competitor
shall not use a bungee cord, variable weight pole, a pole which is improperly marked or
a pole rated below his/her weight during competition.”

Leaving Ground in Pole Vault is a Foul
This year, the NFHS
Track and Field
Rules Committee
revised Rule 7-5-
29b to clarify its
original intent: pole
vaulters shall be
charged with a foul
if their feet leave
the ground in an
attempt to clear
the crossbar and
are unsuccessful,
but not when
momentum causes
their feet to leave
the ground while
aborting an
approach.



As the song goes,
“everything old is new
again.” This applies to the
pole vault rule (7-5-29) re-
garding whether the vaulter
leaving the ground is consid-
ered a foul. In a revision last
year, vaulters were allowed
to leave the ground and not
have a foul charged to them
provided they did not touch
the ground or landing sys-
tem beyond the vertical
plane of the zero point. This
year, the NFHS Track and
Field Rules Committee re-
vised Rule 7-5-29b to clarify
its original intent: pole
vaulters shall be charged
with a foul if their feet leave
the ground in an attempt to
clear the crossbar and are
unsuccessful, but not when
momentum causes their feet
to leave the ground while
aborting an approach.
“The change in 7-5-29 last
year by the committee was
not intended to allow a
vaulter to abort a vault but
rather to have the opportu-
nity to stop and abort the
approach,” said Becky
Oakes, NFHS assistant direc-
tor and liaison to the Track
and Field Rules Committee.

Although the decision is
somewhat subjective, here
are a few things to consider
when making the determina-
tion of foul or no foul:

• Did the athlete begin to
slow down prior to
planting the pole in the
box? If he or she did, it
may indicate the athlete
wanted to abort the
approach, and ulti-
mately, the vault.

• To what extent did the
athlete leave the
ground? If the athlete’s
feet were only a few
inches or so off the
ground, this may be an
indication that he or she
tried to abort the ap-
proach.

• Did the athlete remain
in an upright position?
If the athlete planted
and planned to abort,
he or she would tend to
jump straight or lean
forward. If he or she
leaned back when leav-
ing the ground, it might
indicate an attempt.

• Did the pole have an arc
as the vaulter returned
to the ground? If the
pole has a noticeable
arc, it may indicate an
attempt.

Ultimately, it is the head
event judge’s decision
whether the vaulter leaving
the ground is ruled an un-
successful attempt. If the
head event judge determines
it was due to momentum,
this should be immediately
communicated to the vaulter
so he/she can execute a re-
start of the approach and
attempt if time remains.

Over the past few years, the pole vault event
has probably seen the most rule changes, with
most focusing on risk minimization. Here is a
quick review of the changes. (Rule references
refer to the 2009 NFHS Rule Book.)

Weight Rating to be Placed on Pole
(2000) (Rule 7-5-3)
The manufacturer’s pole rating had to be in-
cluded on the pole in a contrasting color, a
minimum size of 3/4 inch, on or above the top
hand-hold band.

Increased Pit Size
(2003) (Rule 7-5-7)
The minimum pit size increased to 19’8” wide
by 20’2” deep, with a minimum width of 19’8”
beyond the back of the standard bases. These
were the dimensions recommended by the
American Society for Testing and Measure-
ment. This same year, pit sizes also increased
in the NCAA.

Plant Box Padding (“box collar”)
Required
(2003) (Rule 7-5-14)
Required a minimum of 2 inches of dense foam
padding to pad exposed “hard and unyielding
surface” when the landing system is not flush
with the plant box.

Reduction in Crossbar Depth Settings
(2004) (Rule 7-5-19)
The range for setting the crossbar was reduced
to 15.5 to 31.5 inches (40 to 80 cm). Previ-
ously, the crossbar could be set anywhere up to
12 inches in front of the zero point to 30 inches
(76 cm) behind the zero point.

Athlete Weight and Pole Verification by
Coach
(2006 ) (Rules 7-5-3 and 7-5-3 Note 2)
Clarified that prior to the competition, the
coach must verify that the vaulter’s weight is
appropriate for the pole being used and al-
lowed the state association to determine its own
procedures to implement this rule.

Only Manufacturer’s Pole Rating Mark
Acceptable
(2009) (Rule 7-5-3 Note 1 and 7-5-4)
The failure to have the manufacturer’s 3/4-inch
contrasting color weight rating band on or above
the top handhold position renders the pole illegal
for use in competition.
Etchings, serial numbers, etc., although contain-
ing pole characteristics for the manufacturer, shall
not replace the pole rating manufacturer’s mark.
Homemade marks placed on poles are not accept-
able. (This includes pre-1995 poles.)

Emphasis that Poles Cannot be Altered
(2009) (Rule 7-5-4 Note)
Emphasized, for risk minimization purposes, that
a pole altered “in any fashion” renders the pole
illegal for use in competition. This applies most
specifically to poles that have been cut.

Only Manufacturer’s Pole Rating Mark
Acceptable
(2009) (Rule 7-5-3 Note 1 and 7-5-4)
The failure to have the manufacturer’s 3/4-inch
contrasting color weight rating band on or above
the top handhold position renders the pole illegal
for use in competition

.
A Quick
Review of
Changes
1. Increased Pit
Size
2. Plant Box
Padding
Required
3. Reduction in
Crossbar Depth
Settings
4. Athlete Weight
and Pole
Verification by
Coach
5. Weight Rating
to be Placed on
Pole
6. Only
Manufacturer’s
Pole Rating
Mark Acceptable
7. Emphasis that
Poles Cannot be
Altered

[powerplant42]

I had my first discussion about 7-5-29 with a meet official yesterday.

I was under the impression that if the vaulter touches the landing system, it is an attempt. (It was definetly an attempt, but I guess not by his discretion... But does touching the pit explicitly make it an attempt?)

[AVC Coach]

It is EXTREMELY obvious whether an athlete was attempting to vault or abort! Bailing out does not count as an abort. If the athlete gets rejected onto the runway or into the standards, front buns, etc. - it does not count as an abort. If the athlete touches anything past the plane of the back of the box (zero) with his/her body or pole it is counted as an attempt whether or not they attempted to abort.

[powerplant42]

Oh, and did I mention that this was our county championship?

The vaulter was a girl on my team (I really just want things called fairly)... I was sitting by the pit watching, and to me it was pretty obviously an attempted vault (she is a beginner, so I don't know whether or not that played into the official's discretion), but she ended up high on the left front bun.

[drcurran]

I've heard lots of people confused (and I'm not sure why) about "making contact" or touching the pit / landing system. The rule is written pretty clearly. If the athlete breaks the plane (zero mark / top back of the box) and makes contact beyond the zero mark it counts as a foul / failed attempt. (This contact can be the athlete or her / his pole). Seems that more than a few people, who are very knowledgeable about the pole vault, get this "rule" incorrect. Touching the pit in front of the zero mark does not, in itself, count as an attempt. I think the same person started that confusion who wanted us to believe if you got out of the pit before the bar fell the vault / jump was good OK just my .02

Dan