Officiating Problems...

[mcminkz05]

I tell my boys to be warm and "runway ready" as soon as the girls' last bar falls.

Thats what I try to do (despite my teammates not warming up on the track until guys are on the runway), and at that same U of M meet Zach brought up I ended up getting 3 short approach jumps, and 5 full approach runs. I agree that warm-ups were very poorly run, and we got about 5 different answers from officials about what pit to use or if there were two flights, which was more motivation to be warm and have a pole in hand as soon as the last girl takes her last jump As people have mentioned, yes it is unsafe, but short warm-ups will happen and its good to be prepared for anything!

[utVOLter]

Vaultref.... please don't take this personally..... but in my opinion, your arguments demonstrate the problem...

Everything you say refers straight to some rulebook somewhere. "There is no defined legal time limit for warm-ups".... "The NCAA doesn't provide any coverage for the concrete".... I think you are missing the point. You don't need a rulebook to help figure out what is safe for the athletes.

So with that in mind, let me re-phrase my previous statement..... now, I know this isn't a rulebook.... but I would venture to say that most track meets provide some sort of coaching packet that usually contains information about the meet schedule and warm-up periods. For instance, I'm quite certain the Georgia Tech packet read something to the effect of "The pole vault pit will be open for warm-ups 1 hour prior to the start of competition".

So, taking this into account, limiting warm-ups below the allowed time is unsafe and should be unacceptable. Open concrete near the vault area is unsafe and should be unacceptable. Asking a vaulter to jump multiple times consecutively with 1 minute or less between jumps is unsafe and should be unacceptable. To hell with the rulebooks.... use your common sense!

Here are my suggestions:

1. At least 1 hour of open pit for warm-ups before competition starts

2. Warm-ups can be ceased by the official at the end of the 1 hour period or if everyone (vaulters) agrees they are ready to compete or if no attempts are taken by any vaulter within a 15 minute period.

3. A vault field of over 25 vaulters should be split up into 2 flights or run on two seperate pits. More than this is simply too many people to allow for adequate warm-ups for everyone, and also promotes injury simply by the length of time a vaulter must wait between attempts in the meet.

I know I'm not on the rules comittee. Probably never will be. I'm sure some people won't agree with my suggestions or will propose modifications. I hope that those who disagree with my comments are people who have actually attempted to vault in some of these situations. If you haven't tried it, you really aren't qualified to comment.

[rainbowgirl28]

1. At least 1 hour of open pit for warm-ups before competition starts

2. Warm-ups can be ceased by the official at the end of the 1 hour period or if everyone (vaulters) agrees they are ready to compete or if no attempts are taken by any vaulter within a 15 minute period.

3. A vault field of over 25 vaulters should be split up into 2 flights or run on two seperate pits. More than this is simply too many people to allow for adequate warm-ups for everyone, and also promotes injury simply by the length of time a vaulter must wait between attempts in the meet.

One hour should be minimum for big competitions (20+ guys) but for smaller meets you can get away with less if the guys are ready to get on the runway as soon as the girls are done. Certainly if everyone is ready to go sooner they should start sooner.

Your third suggestion is just not always practical given the constraints of most meets. What big meets should do is either have a qualifying standard, or publish the opening height, so that no one enters who is not ready, and then go 20-30cm increments for the first few bars.

I am a huge fan of starting low and going in big increments for the bars.

[utVOLter]

I don't mind that approach either. I'm a fan of starting a few bars lower with 20-30cm increases. Virginia Tech is usually very good at planning this type of meet indoors. However, you still may run into time constraints with the warm-up period and sometimes will still encounter extremely lengthy vault competitions

Also, mandating a qualifying mark poses at least 2 disadvantages:

1. More work for the meet director/host/officials in verifying valid marks.

2. Exclusion of some individuals or teams. It has been my experience that most teams enjoy traveling to meets where all of their athletes can compete in their desired events. However, most teams also have individuals who are at varying degrees of talent in their respective events. For example, Elliot Haynie of Gardner-Webb is a national caliber vaulter, but his other teammates have not yet reached his level of success. Do we penalize him by making him travel to competitive meets alone simply because his teammates cannot meet the qualifying standards of the other events? Or what about decathletes who wish to compete in multiple events at each meet? If qualifying standards are too high, they are unable to do so. On the other hand, if qualifying standards are too low, we end up with too large a field and encounter time and staffing restraints. Providing for "A" and "B" sections can accomodate both groups of people. However, I am aware that staffing a meet is difficult and therefore the provision of 2 flights in each field event may not be reasonable.

I think as long as we make safety the priority then we are on the right track. We may have to bend the rules at times to allow for this, but it is far better to bend the rules than to have any more tragedies in this sport.

[master]

Based on the posts here, I think the title of this thread should be
Rules Problems... not Officiating Problems...

- master

[BethelPV]

It should be now, but if you read my original post it was about the officials at the UofM track meet not allowing us sufficient warm up time and hampering the meet!