NFHS Pre-Meet Notes vs. Five-Alive Rotation
Posted: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:59 am
Is it not enough to have to fight the stupidity and ambiguity in the NFHS rule book?
Now they are going out of their way to spread it to other published material. A second front—just what I needed.
regarding the just-2012 NFHS/USATF Pre-Meet notes http://www.usatf.org/groups/officials/newsletters/
The part about NFHS being different and adding F after E instead of in C’s place is purely a misguided opinion or interpretation by the author.
You can quickly see how this messes things up because D and E immediately wind up jumping every 4th instead of 5th.
There is nothing in NFHS book to justify running it different than the rest of the world. (e.g. just like the McGloin slideshow that was in my clinic or USATF Best Practices http://www.usatf.org/groups/officials/files/resources/field-events/Vertical-Jumps-Five-Alive-Jan2010.pdf or the example in NCAA rule 6-4-3).
The articles recommendation of “abandon at 8 or less” is a hard rule in NCAA (albeit a flawed one in my opinion) and is totally unaddressed in NFHS. I would not do it outside of NCAA rules--although I know of other officials that don't mind it. (As an aside, the explanation of how to implement the "NCAA end game" when 8 remain is flawed in both the USATF Best Practice and NCAA Rulebook. I guess this is just my opinion but I'll prove it if requested). (Also note that USATF, to their credit, abandons 5-alive at the end of the height---not in mid-height).
It gets worse. I just looked at Case Book 7.4.10.
The case example is totally discredited since it has #5 taking his first attempt after he already cleared it ...but... I will hold them to their statement: “simply move the next contestant to fill the gap” which is how it should be.
This year’s rule changes simply goes from “three to five” to “no less than five”---which is fine. The rest of the write-up baffles me and undermines the understanding of what is already a confusing concept.
Now they are going out of their way to spread it to other published material. A second front—just what I needed.
regarding the just-2012 NFHS/USATF Pre-Meet notes http://www.usatf.org/groups/officials/newsletters/
However, unlike the other rules codes, the added jumper is placed at the end of the order instead of replacing the other jumper in the order. ......Here is an example using the NFHS rules: there are 20 jumpers (A-T) jumping at a height. The first five jumpers are A, B, C, D, and E. A, B, D, and E miss their first jump; C makes her first jump. F is added to the order. So, the order is now A, B, D, E, and F.
The part about NFHS being different and adding F after E instead of in C’s place is purely a misguided opinion or interpretation by the author.
You can quickly see how this messes things up because D and E immediately wind up jumping every 4th instead of 5th.
D X4 O8
E X5 X9 X13
There is nothing in NFHS book to justify running it different than the rest of the world. (e.g. just like the McGloin slideshow that was in my clinic or USATF Best Practices http://www.usatf.org/groups/officials/files/resources/field-events/Vertical-Jumps-Five-Alive-Jan2010.pdf or the example in NCAA rule 6-4-3).
It is recommended when starting a new height and there are eight or fewer (total) competitors remaining in competition, that the continuing flight (5-alive) procedure be abandoned and the competitors be called in the order they appear on the event card/sheet.
The articles recommendation of “abandon at 8 or less” is a hard rule in NCAA (albeit a flawed one in my opinion) and is totally unaddressed in NFHS. I would not do it outside of NCAA rules--although I know of other officials that don't mind it. (As an aside, the explanation of how to implement the "NCAA end game" when 8 remain is flawed in both the USATF Best Practice and NCAA Rulebook. I guess this is just my opinion but I'll prove it if requested). (Also note that USATF, to their credit, abandons 5-alive at the end of the height---not in mid-height).
It gets worse. I just looked at Case Book 7.4.10.
CONTINUING FLIGHT PROCEDURE
7.4.10 ...... For instance, if there was a grouping of five, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 would start at a given height;
if No. 1 was successful on the first attempt, No. 6 would then follow No. 5. If No.
1 missed and Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 were successful, No. 1 would take his or her second
turn, followed by Nos. 5 and 6 for their first attempts. This would continue throughout the competition. As participants are eliminated, simply move the next contestant to fill the gap. This procedure maintains a high level of interest and
eliminates long delays.
The case example is totally discredited since it has #5 taking his first attempt after he already cleared it ...but... I will hold them to their statement: “simply move the next contestant to fill the gap” which is how it should be.
This year’s rule changes simply goes from “three to five” to “no less than five”---which is fine. The rest of the write-up baffles me and undermines the understanding of what is already a confusing concept.