2011-2012 NCAA Rule Changes

[master]

As far as I know there are no extensive "actual use" studies that have been done regarding helmet use. The concern and point of major discussion in the committee was that the benefits of helmet use during vaulting would be outweighed by the possibility of neck hyperflexion given the thickness of the back (padding and hard shell combined) of some helmets. I believe the ASTM standard might specify a maximum thickness. That may be the justification for the new rule.

Although if that is the justification, then a more appropriate rule might be to limit use of helmets to those whose thickness of the back complies with the ASTM standard. However, checking the thickness would be a difficult task to put on a pole vault official.

If anyone knows what the max allowable thickness is, please post it. Then I'll check the helmet I wear.

[Steeleboy]

OK, lets be honest. This is a ridiculous rule. No helmet is safer than a non-certified helmet? Save your theories and anecdotal evidence and show me the empirical data.
I haven't found anyone with any credible information about who proposed this new rule. And the best theories on this site seem to be that the committee is making a guess that a helmet too thick in the back could actually cause more injuries than no helmet at all. In certain, very specific cases, I'm sure that is true. But do these specific instances outnumber the other specific instances when a helmet of any kind would prevent a head injury? This "neck injury/thick helmet wall" theory gets a bit flimsy when cross examined. Have we decided a head injury that could be avoided by wearing a helmet of any kind is preferred over an incredibly small number of neck injuries possibly caused by a non-certified helmet? Any head injury experts out there care to jump into this debate? In fact, lets consider some of the actual head injury cases the vault world has experienced in the past few years. Would these individuals have still benefited from non-certified helmet (even with a thick back wall)? I'm guessing they would have.
I think it is important we all understand the implications of this new rule. If, for example, a vaulter shows up to a meet with the same non-certified skateboard helmet he has been wearing for years and is emotionally attached to; he will not be allowed to wear it- if we all follow this new rule. So an unintended consequence is that there may be situations where an athlete is forced to go without a perfectly good, yet non-certified helmet he or she wants to, but is not required to wear. They will be required by rule to risk a possible head injury in the name of avoiding a possible neck injury. Please tell me I'm not the only one that has a problem with this.
Maybe it's just me, but I get really uncomfortable when rules are changed or created without a well-reasoned explanation complete with empirical data provided as supporting evidence. I think we all have a right to know who proposed it and who actually benefits from it- financially or otherwise.
For me these questions bring us back to the beginning. Until we are ready to make vaulting helmets a requirement, this new rule is very hard to defend.
Dan

[stangarstokkvari]

Nothing against being safe and wearing a helmet if that is your thing, but... Honestly, forget focusing on helmets, focus on coaching! If you have a coach who knows what they are doing then there is no need for a helmet. Prevent them from ever getting in a situation where they would need a helmet. Most kids get hurt because they don't know what they are doing and don't have a coach who knows anything either, not because they weren't wearing the proper equipment. Put your focus on what is going to actually help.

[achtungpv]

We already have the rule on no hard surfaces around the pit but it is blatantly ignored by most facilities. Have any head injuries occurred at a facility that is following that rule?

[rainbowgirl28]

We already have the rule on no hard surfaces around the pit but it is blatantly ignored by most facilities. Have any head injuries occurred at a facility that is following that rule?

There's no exact definition of a hard surface. Two relatively recent college head injuries that come to mind were both on field turf, a surface most would not think needs padding.

[master]

... So an unintended consequence is that there may be situations where an athlete is forced to go without a perfectly good, yet non-certified helmet he or she wants to, but is not required to wear. They will be required by rule to risk a possible head injury in the name of avoiding a possible neck injury. Please tell me I'm not the only one that has a problem with this.

Although this does not currently apply to me (a masters vaulter and helmet wearer), I too have a problem with this.

There is more discussion about this in another topic. (My latest post there is viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22428&p=154840#p154840)