PoleVaultPower.com

7-2-11: A crossbar displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor after he/she is legally and clearly over the crossbar shall not be a fault.

Rationale: Addresses possible influence of an outside force on the crossbar on an otherwise successful attempt.

The only examples I've seen of a "force disassociated with the competitor" is the wind and the pole hitting the standards or rebounding off of the mats/box collar. A very well known coach told me that this change also applies if the vaulter doesn't "make an attempt to push the pole back" and the pole knocks the bar off after an obvious clearance. is this a correct interpretation?

ashcraftpv wrote: The only examples I've seen of a "force disassociated with the competitor" is the wind and the pole hitting the standards or rebounding off of the mats/box collar.

Another example of an outside force would be if an official or spectator inadvertently knocked the bar down.

ashcraftpv wrote: A very well known coach told me that ...

Hmm ... you didn't mention that he was an expert on PV rules interpretation. You only said that he was well known!

ashcraftpv wrote: ... this change also applies if the vaulter doesn't "make an attempt to push the pole back" and the pole knocks the bar off after an obvious clearance. is this a correct interpretation?

My interpretation is that the pole and the vaulter are associated, so no, I don't think he's correct.

If this rule was intended to include the pole knocking down the bar in the normal course of a vault, I think it would have explicitly stated that and IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FRONT PAGE NEWS!

Kirk

ashcraftpv wrote:

7-2-11: A crossbar displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor after he/she is legally and clearly over the crossbar shall not be a fault.

Rationale: Addresses possible influence of an outside force on the crossbar on an otherwise successful attempt.

The only examples I've seen of a "force disassociated with the competitor" is the wind and the pole hitting the standards or rebounding off of the mats/box collar. A very well known coach told me that this change also applies if the vaulter doesn't "make an attempt to push the pole back" and the pole knocks the bar off after an obvious clearance. is this a correct interpretation?

I think you're interpretation is correct.

KirkB wrote:Hmm ... you didn't mention that he was an expert on PV rules interpretation. You only said that he was well known!

I didn't want to mention his name in case he was wrong

Everyone knows who he is, and he has coached many elite vaulters (not earl), so I'm inclined to believe him. We've just been having some debate at our first couple of meets around this change.

Please help clarify. Part 1 or part 2 or both?
Part 1:

AVC Coach wrote:

ashcraftpv wrote:

7-2-11: A crossbar displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor after he/she is legally and clearly over the crossbar shall not be a fault.

Rationale: Addresses possible influence of an outside force on the crossbar on an otherwise successful attempt.

The only examples I've seen of a "force disassociated with the competitor" is the wind and the pole hitting the standards or rebounding off of the mats/box collar.

I think you're interpretation is correct.

Part 2:

AVC Coach wrote:

ashcraftpv wrote:

7-2-11: A crossbar displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor after he/she is legally and clearly over the crossbar shall not be a fault.

Rationale: Addresses possible influence of an outside force on the crossbar on an otherwise successful attempt.

A very well known coach told me that this change also applies if the vaulter doesn't "make an attempt to push the pole back" and the pole knocks the bar off after an obvious clearance. is this a correct interpretation?

I think you're interpretation is correct.

If both, that's going to be fun changing minds of people. It does take some opinion out of "wind" calls or not which would be good.

Wait. I think I misread what you posted originally. So your interpretation is that if the athlete clears the bar and doesn't make an attempt to throw the pole back...and the pole dislodges the bar, it's a make? Even if wind is not a factor?

Surely that can't be the intention of this rule change. At least I hope not. How could you win the argument on either side - as the official or the coach if a judgement is made on this?

I'd like to add to this. With the new box collars, often a pole will get stuck between the back of the box and box collar lip, thus causing the pole to not be able to fall back towards the runway but instead it stays in the box and may move back towards the crossbar.

I personally witnessed this and we had to have a quick coaches' meeting about it.

So, yea, there is a new force disassociated with the competitor, THE BOX COLLAR!

Yes - but with the box collar the pole would initially move away - so now it makes it even harder for the official - attempt to push pole back versus the box collar then rebounded back into the crossbar -- not pushing back at all is different -

Here in South Australia at the school level of competitions many of the competitors, especially the girls, often use poles that have a vertical height when in the planting box at pole release that is much higher than the height of the cross-bar. It often happens when there is a strong following wind for the vaulter and despite their best effort the pole blows the pole through and dislodges the cross bar after a clearance vault. In this case the officials make the ruling quite easily.

The case where the vaulter shows a definite attempt to displace the pole back towards the runway and the wind direction is not a factor and the pole subsequently dislodges the bar after the vaulter has cleared it has been a contentious issue at the local level.

At Nationals normal IAAF rules have applied.

At the local (South Australia) interclub meet competition level the officials, due to strong argument representation from the coaches, will allow a clearance provided that the vaulter does, in the official's opinion, make a clearly observable effort to displace the pole back towards the run way on pole release and clears the bar. If the cross-bar then gets dislodged by the pole hitting it after a clearance is made the clearance is allowed. At these competitions this appears to work well and the very young girls and boys are rewarded for their efforts rather than penalised.

At State Championships the IAAF rules apply. To compete at this and National level the expectancy is for the school age participants to be competent vaulters capable of operating under the normal rules for this event.

Under difficult weather conditions at these championships the normal interpretation of the IAAF rules often leads to contention and controversial disagreement between some coaches and officials on interpretation that are made in these circumstances.

No solution is offered other than to suggest at the local level "common sense and encouragement of the young vaulters (boys and girls age groups)" should be at the forefront of the officials mind when making a "long pole dislodging the cross-bar in clearance vaults" decision. As always safety of the vaulter should be of primary concern.

Got the official interp from our state assoc. (Illinois) It can all be boiled down into one sentence.

The pole and the vaulter must at some point move in opposite directions.

Illinois did a terrible job with their interp. They used the USATF rule that has additional wording to determine what to do. Its bad enough that the rules get messed up on a regular basis but to intentionally use part of the other rule, that doesn't exist in the rule your interpreting, will just created confusion.

The NFHS will be releasing an interp soon.

In order to properly evaluate the wording you have to relieve yourself of the old. Read only what the new rule says not what it used to say because....well, those things are no longer rules. Here is the result of a prolonged discussion/evaluation of the wording of only the new rule(s).

Disassociate and Dissociate are interchangeable/the same.
Dissociate - : to end your relationship with or connection to someone or something : to separate (yourself) from someone or something
Associate - : to join or connect together : combine

None of these definitions reference motion so they need to be considered in the context.

If they are still holding/touching the pole the athlete is still “associated” with it and - It is a foul if the competitor displaces the crossbar from the pins on which it originally rested with the body or the pole.

At the point the athlete lets go of the pole, they are no longer associated with it and - If the crossbar is displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor and he/she has legally and clearly gone over the crossbar, it should be considered a successful attempt.

FORCE = POLE
ASSOCIATE = join/connect/touch
Force disassociated from the vaulter = once they let go the pole, no matter what direction it is travelling, it cannot cause a miss. It can dislodge the bar but would not count as a miss.

The rule makes no mention of the continuation of motion/attempt to push the pole back. The argument is simple…….what all does the word “disassociate” encompass? I contend that IF the force/direction were to be linked back to the vaulter the wording would have stated so.

The way to connect that the athlete can be disassociated with the pole but responsible for the forces created would be if the rule specifically says so….which it does not. The wording is not there.

Im not an English major....not by a long shot, but if you read the rules as if you are someone brand new to officiating and you have no knowledge of what the past rules were, how would you interpret all of this?

There is some ambiguity depending on how you interpret the word "disassociate" in the context of the the rule. Rule 7-5-27a still says
- It is a foul if the competitor:
a. Displaces the crossbar from the pins on which it originally rested, with the body or pole.

But, using the new wording and the definition of the word disassociate, it could still be inferred that the pole is an extension of the athlete only if they are still touching it.

The above interp lessens the number of judgement calls an official needs to make. They already need to determine if the athlete clears (touches) the bar, and always will. Then all they need to determine is, in the occasional instance where the pole knocks the bar off, was the athlete still touching the pole or not. All of which takes place in the same space (field of vision).

In your method you have to determine if several other factors influenced the poles trajectory. Wind, collar, pit etc, all things that occur outside of the officials focus when watching the athlete clear the bar and let go of the pole.

I see both sides of the argument but I feel that the new wording (NFHS) falls short of saying it is a miss if the pole knocks the bar off after the athlete lets go and I hope that is the case.

PVJunkie wrote: ... if you read the rules as if you are someone brand new to officiating and you have no knowledge of what the past rules were, how would you interpret all of this?

Here's my shot at this ambiguous rule ...

The rule:

7-2-11: A crossbar displaced by a force disassociated with the competitor after he/she is legally and clearly over the crossbar shall not be a fault.

The rationale:

Addresses possible influence of an outside force on the crossbar on an otherwise successful attempt.

From google (when you search for "define dissacossociate" and "define dissociate"):

dis·as·so·ci·ate
ˌdisəˈsōsēˌāt,ˌdisəˈsōSHēˌāt/
verb
another term for dissociate.

dis·so·ci·ate
diˈsōSHēˌāt,diˈsōsēˌāt
verb
1.
disconnect or separate (used especially in abstract contexts).
"voices should not be dissociated from their social context"

If you take the word "separate" to mean "physically separate", then I would agree that the vaulter is dissociatated with the pole the moment he releases it.

HOWEVER, notice that the definition further explains: "(used especially in abstract contexts)", and gives the example of "voices should not be dissociated from their social context".

The words in brackets mean that 2 objects can still be associated even if physically separated. In the PV context (using the concept of the vaulter-pole system as a single entity, controlled by the vaulter), this means (to me at least) that the vaulter is NOT dissociated from the pole the moment he releases it. Instead, it means (to me at least) that the vaulter continues to be in control of the pole (thus still associated with it) after release. Exceptions would be outside factors (wind, other humans, etc) that are DISSOCIATED with the vaulter and the pole.

But I do agree that this is a grey area, requiring better explicit language of what the rule-makers really meant.

I agree that you cannot look at previous wordings of the rule to interpret any new wordings. The new wordings should stand on their own. In this case they apparently don't, so the rule-makers need to go back to the drawing board (to RE-WRITE the rule based on their INTENT).

PVJunkie wrote: Rule 7-5-27a still says
- It is a foul if the competitor:
a. Displaces the crossbar from the pins on which it originally rested, with the body or pole

7-5-27a lends further credence to the concept of the vaulter still being responsible for any actions of the pole after it's released. For the strict interpretation of rule 7-2-11 to mean that the vaulter isn't responsible for the pole once released to hold water, I think this rule 7-5-27a would also have to explicitly remove the words "or pole".

In fact, what are the circumstances in which rule 7-5-27a would be applied due to the pole displacing the crossbar?

There are only 2 that I can think of: (1) If the vaulter continues to hang onto the pole, with the vaulter clearing the bar but the pole knocking it down; and (2) if the vaulter releases the pole, but the momentum of the pole (in a forwards direction) knocks down the bar.

In scenario (1), I think all of us would agree that it's a miss.

In scenario (2) --- the scenario that we're debating --- it's subject to the official's interpretation of whether it was (a) the vaulter or (b) OUTSIDE FACTORS that caused the pole to dislodge the bar.

Based on the definition of the words dissassociate and dissociate, I think (IMHO) that if the vaulter (knowing that the pole is longer than the height of the crossbar) failed to push it back (towards the runway), then it was (a) --- it was his/her fault that the bar was dislodged by the pole; not (b).

I also happen to agree that it would be simpler (thus less subjective, thus perhaps fairer for all) if the official didn't have to make a judgement call on the cause of the bar dislodging. However, in the absence of any explicit rule, no one (except the rule-makers) should inject their own simplifications of these rules.

We can't have it both ways - we cannot argue on the side of strict rule interpretation of exactly what the rule says, and then also argue that the rule's too complicated, so it should be subject to interpretation in order to be less subjective.

This is all just IMHO, of course.

Bottom line: Implore the rule-makers to improve the wording, so that the intent of the rules cannot be misunderstood.

Kirk