PoleVaultPower.com

I was told at the Arcadia Invitational by a meet officer that because the information about their pole vault pads not being legal according to NFHS Rules, was not in Dyestat that it did not matter. http://advantageathletics.com/2005/?page_id=76 You have my permission to use my photos on that page.

Here is my story:

At the Pole Vault Summit I was asked by Christel Donley (Meet Officials' Chairman) to officiate the pole vault at the Arcadia Invitational, one of the biggest high school invitational's in the country. I told Christel at that time there has been a problem with the landing system used at the Arcadia Invitational. See: http://advantageathletics.com/2005/?page_id=76

When I arrived at the meet and checked in I was given a size small officials shirt (I'm 6' 1" 220 lbs.) and a wrist band. I went to the pole vault area and pointed out to the other officials that the pads were not legal according to the 2005 Track and Field and Cross Country Rules Book, published by the National Federation of State high School Associations.

I opened the rule book to "Section 5 Pole Vault" "Art. 8" and showed some man, that said he was in charge, the rules straight from the book. He said the base pads are part of the "landing system" so that makes the landing system 19'8" wide. He said the about 6 inches of padding on top of the steal standard bases was, "high enough and of a composition that will decelerate the landing."

I brought it to the attention to Bob McGuire, CIF Officer and Christel Donley. They both agreed with me. Mr. Maguire asked the man if they could raise the base pads with more padding to make it safer and closer to the rules. Christel Donley said she didn't have time to deal with it at that time even though I told her back in January, 2005. The man refused and told me I had to leave the field.

When I went into the stands where all the coaches were sitting, the coaches asked me what was going on out there on the field. When I told them they all said that's what they thought it was about. The coaches I spoke with in the stands all noticed the infractions about the pit too. They all agreed that the pole vault pit was not legal according the rules.

Is it is fair to all the rest of the schools in the country that had to upgrade their pole vault pads to meet the new rules?

Is it a very good example at Arcadia for the rest of the country to see that it is okay to use pads that are not legal according to the NFHS rules?

Is it a very good example for the student athletes that were at the meet to show them: If an official points out that rules are being broken and the landing area is not save, that official should be removed from the meet rather than make the landing surface comply with the rules and/or make the landing surface safer for the athletes?

that's pretty sad that they are not taking into account the safety of the athletes. those rules are there for a reason!

advath wrote:I opened the rule book to "Section 5 Pole Vault" "Art. 8" and showed some man, that said he was in charge, the rules straight from the book.

That 'some man' was the head coach of Arcadia HS. I dont know his name, but I'm sure someone does.

advath wrote:He said the base pads are part of the "landing system" so that makes the landing system 19'8" wide. He said the about 6 inches of padding on top of the steal standard bases was, "high enough and of a composition that will decelerate the landing."

Well, that material is there to stop someone from landing on steel. The other material (the entire pit) is to stop someone from landing on a rubber track (or grass). I wouldnt say its ideal, but I do think its good enough.

advath wrote:I brought it to the attention to Bob McGuire, CIF Officer and Christel Donley. They both agreed with me. Mr. Maguire asked the man if they could raise the base pads with more padding to make it safer and closer to the rules. Christel Donley said she didn't have time to deal with it at that time even though I told her back in January, 2005. The man refused and told me I had to leave the field.

I dont know what the words were, but the section of standard cover WAS 'filled' up with more padding, in order to be the same height as the rest of the pit.

advath wrote:Is it is fair to all the rest of the schools in the country that had to upgrade their pole vault pads to meet the new rules?

Not sure what its worth, but these are the EXACT same pits used in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. If they're good enough for 19'+ jumpers, I think they'll catch some 16' kids in HS.

advath wrote:If an official points out that rules are being broken and the landing area is not save, that official should be removed from the meet rather than make the landing surface comply with the rules and/or make the landing surface safer for the athletes?

You were not removed from the meet. I heard this conversation with my own ears.
Arcadia HS head coach: "Are you a meet official?"
Tim: "Yes"
Arcadia HS head coach: "As an official, do you not feel comfortable officiating with these pits?"
Tim: "No"
Arcadia HS head coach: "Then you are relieved of your duties. Please leave the track."

You asked to be released of your duties, and you were. Then you hung around and insisted on telling more people that the pits were illegal.

I have it on good word from multiple Port A Pit reps that the pits ARE legal. The standard base paddings are considered a padded landing area, and therefore comply to the rules.

I do agree that the verbage of the rule should be rewritten to be clearer, yet there are quite a number of people who interpret the rule different than yourself.

That 'some man' was the head coach of Arcadia HS. I dont know his name, but I'm sure someone does.

Does that mean upgrading the pits to meet the new rules and fixing the standard base pads comes out of his track budget?

Not sure what its worth, but these are the EXACT same pits used in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. If they're good enough for 19'+ jumpers, I think they'll catch some 16' kids in HS.

I don't think the standard base pads look like in 1996. That's what the pads looked like 2 years ago. The same gap pad was being used yesterday and that little pad next to it was not there. The yellow line is the back of the standard bases. The high school rules were made after that year. That still does not make the pit legal according to the new rules. I asked Mr. McGuire, "Does this mean that any school can extend their standard base pads back to accommodate the rule change?"

Then you hung around and insisted on telling more people that the pits were illegal.

More people were Bob McGuire and Christel Donley. After I was asked to leave by the Arcadia HS coach, on my way out I brought the matter to the attention to Christel Donley, Arcadia Invitational's Meet Officials' Chairman, and Bob McGuire, CIF State Meet Manager. Christel was the one that asked me in the first place to help officiate the pole vault. Because of that I felt it was my duty to bring this matter to her attention. I showed the Rule in the book to Mr. McGuire and pointed out the problems from across the field. He agreed with me and asked me to go back to the pit to show him up close. Mr. McGuire even asked to have more padding added to the standard base pads.

TIM, You and I have had this conversation before when I was making ESSX pits and now that I am the GM for PORTaPIT.

IN your opinion as you have construde the rules you feel this pit is illegal?

TIM,
This pit is legal,
This system is legal and safe as long as the meet keeps the standards bases put together properly. Not the way you have shown a picture, that is not proper.

PLease read your rule book entirely, not just the parts that make your opinion valid!

ART 8 in my book reads "The overall size of the pole vault landing area shall be a minimum of 19' 6" wide by 20' 2". The landing surface measured beyond the back standard bases shall be a minimum 19'8" wide."

Directly beyond the Standard bases the system is 19'8" wide. If your line was as you define the back of the standard rail the standards would not stay up.
The rule refers to the standard base units not the base of the standards?
One could say the 3-4 standard base units would be the back base units? ONe could refer to as you the rails of the standadrd as the base units?Many standards have lengths to thier bases that are longer than others. So the standard and the rails are covered by the standard pads to reduce the deceleration of a fall on the standards. That is why they are called standard base units or standard protection bases.
You see something differrent this year and also last year, so I ask did you contact the NFHS to reword this properly as I suggested last year when I was not a PORTaPIT GM?

This could have three meanings if you are wishing someone to stop the PV at a meet.

Standard bases
1. Back standard base units back pads
2. rails of the standards
3. Back protection bases padding for the standard rails

In the rule book there is a drawing to illustrate what the intention of the rules is. The drawing shows standard base protection units 36-38" beyond the box touching the back standard base units and on top of the standard bases (rails) . The pit's front units are refered to in the rule book as Front bases and the back base units are called standard bases.

We need officals who offer positive solutions to potential problems not
doomsday officials who want to show off how much more they know than anyone else!!! If one did not feel the standard protection base units on the standards are not protective enough, add some foam to help the event to be completed safely!!!

Bruce,

I read the book entirely and showed Bob McGuire. That's why there were piles of pads under the base pads to make it safer tonight (Which is the night after the first post). That's why Bob McGuire said they are going to get the parts and fix the pit to make that pit legal according to the rules for next years meet.

If you had clicked the link I put in the above post, you would have found the entire ruling:

“Section 5 Pole Vault:
Art 8…The overall size of the pole vault landing system shal be a minimum of 19 feet, 8 inches (6m) wide by 20 feet, 2 inches deep. The landing surface measured beyond the back of the standard bases, shall be be a minimum of 19 feet, 8 inches (6 m) wide. The dimension of the landing surface in back of the vaulting box to the back of the landing pad shall 16 feet, 5 inches (5 m) deep. The material in the system shall be high enough and of a composition that will decelerate the landing. When the landing pad is made up of two or more sections, the landing surface shall include a common cover or pad extending over all sections.â€Â

READ the rules again
In any Pole vault landing system there are Standard bases in the back of the pit. This represents the landing area. It may be 3 standard base units or 4 standard base units depending on the size of the system.
These need to be 19'8" wide or more and covered with a top pad. The rule is poorly written I agree. As far as the standard's base pads if that is what it looks like today they need to be replaced. If this was a one time occurrence please state so, do not imply PORTaPIT made them that way.

You said the very same things last year and again I suggested that you contact the people who write the rules to get an Interpretation
If you had we would not be having this conversation and the facility would have been changed or the rule would of been more descriptive.
It is like you waited for this to happen so you could yell again?
I suggest you contact the NFHS for an Interpretation to clear this up.

READ the rules again
In any Pole vault landing system there are Standard bases in the back of the pit. This represents the landing area. It may be 3 standard base units or 4 standard base units depending on the size of the system.
These need to be 19'8" wide or more and covered with a top pad. The rule is poorly written I agree. As far as the standard's base pads if that is what it looks like today they need to be replaced. If this was a one time occurrence please state so, do not imply PORTaPIT made them that way.

I don't need to read the rule again. Coaches, CIF Officials and CIF State Meet Managers agree that the pit at the Arcadia Invitational did NOT meet the new rules.

IF YOU WOULD HAVE READ WHAT WAS POSTED ABOVE...COACH FOX SAID,

Not sure what its worth, but these are the EXACT same pits used in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. If they're good enough for 19'+ jumpers, I think they'll catch some 16' kids in HS.

What's the big deal? The new NFHS rule was made after 1996. Like the rest of the country, the system needs to be upgraded. That meet should be setting an example not getting behind the times.

You said the very same things last year and again I suggested that you contact the people who write the rules to get an Interpretation
If you had we would not be having this conversation and the facility would have been changed or the rule would of been more descriptive.

I did that 2 years ago. The person that helped write the rule agreed with me. I rule does not need an "Interpretation".

It is like you waited for this to happen so you could yell again?

I got high fives and thumbs up from athletes, coach and parents in the stands last night after they made the landing area more safe BECAUSE OF MY PERSISTANCE not you telling me what to do. If I am concern for the safety of all student athletes, let it be heard. My concern is the safety of all the student athletes not how to interpret or twist the rules.

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.

Our high jump pads are sagging. Now are you going to magically tell me where and how they are stored? Are you going to tell everyone that you told me what to do last year?

You could have a legit case who knows, but typing in caps, attacking another board member, complaining about Tshirt sizes and having an obviously inflamitory topic title is not the way to prove your point.

advath wrote:

Our high jump pads are sagging. Now are you going to magically tell me where and how they are stored? Are you going to tell everyone that you told me what to do last year?

I am not sure what this has to do with the post.
But for what it is worth?

Too preserve standard base units from sagging you need to make sure they do not get wet, from rain, or from humidity.
Rotating the units frequently and storing the units on their sides will improve the life of the units!


PS there are standard rails in the market place that are 4' long and the need for such a long base protection pad is necessary to cover the whole area. I am not impressed with how these look after left out and water logged from the elements. I will be searching for a solution to this.

I personally think the whole problem started when you got the too small T-Shirt. I am sure you do however have positive suggestions to offer!
Just my thoughts

I am making changes to the PORTapIT landing system since I have been back on board now for 6 months. I welcome your positive suggestions in an email to help make the event safer!

dafox wrote:Not sure what its worth, but these are the EXACT same pits used in the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. If they're good enough for 19'+ jumpers, I think they'll catch some 16' kids in HS.

Below is what was written in a press release from NFHS (Item#: 180 Posted: 11/07/03)
[i]“If a vault is performed correctly, the size of the pad now is efficient, but by increasing the size of the pad, we’ve allowed more room for error,â€Â

The Atlanta PV system was 22' wide 18'6" deep from back of box and 28' long. I do however remember this one vaulter who landed on the standard and the standard base protection units.
Yes the new rule was to make the PV system wider and longer to allow those who error and do not land in the middle of the pit.
I think we just have an interpretation issue here in the rule book as
Standard base units refers to the back base units. ANd the standard cut-out area is required to be 16'5" wide.

"We all look out our window and we all see differrent things and it does not make any of us wrong." Judy Caldwell (My Mother)