PoleVaultPower.com

On December 1, 2013, the new NCAA Track & Field rule that mandates the use of a Pole Vault Box Collar that meets ASTM Standard F2949-12 goes into effect.

NCAA Track & Field coaches should be aware that the ASTM’s F08.67 subcommittee, which is responsible for the ASTM F2949-12 standard, has now stated and clarified that the wing sections extending into the pole vault box described and illustrated in ASTM Standard F2949-12, is an optional part of the standard and therefore wings are not required in order to meet the ASTM F2949-12 Standard.

In summary, an institution or facility may purchase a pole vault box collar either, with wings that extend inside the pole vault box area or without wings and meet ASTM Standard F2949-12 if all other requirements of the standard are met. We suggest that when purchasing a pole vault box collar to meet the new NCAA rule effective December 1, 2013, make sure the pole vault box collar you purchase is stamped by the manufacture indicating that it is compliant with ASTM Standard F2949-12.

At this time, we are unsure as to whether competitions will need to supply both a pole vault box collar with wings and a collar without wings that meet ASTM Standard F2949-12 in order to provide fair and equitable competition for all participating student athletes.

Wings are not required but it looks like the rules committee still has some work to do to clear things up before the first meets start in December. I can not imagine them making meet officials change out the box collar to each athlete's preference though.... or at least I would hope not...

Hmm changing things 4 months before the first meets start and still making it (like you said) clear as mud. If they do require us to switch each collar for competitors that obviously means we have to purchase 2 collars then! The committee obviously changed the wording to accommodate the ESSX body glove box collar, which is fine but, they cant expect us to purchase 2 different collars in 4 months. Also I know UCS is in the process of coming out with one which could throw another wrench into all of this. Being a D3 college, we don't have money to throw around for extra collars and it obviously takes money away from me being able to buy poles, which we badly need. I'm all for improving safety but, we need to pick one and go with it because this is starting to get really annoying.

Keep in mind this came from the USTFCCCA NOT the NCAA or the ASTM. The coaches association does not write or interpret the NCAA's rules nor do the have any substantial involvement with the ASTM. Members of the USTFCCCA make up the NCAA rules committee but they are writing NCAA rules. There are a few USTFCCCA members involved with the ASTM but they are developing ASTM standards. It also references an interpretation of the ASTM box collar standard. No such interpretation has been performed by the ASTM or the subcommittee. Maybe they are sharing the opinion of the USTFCCCA.

The rule is pretty clear and I am confident if you contact the NCAA they will tell you that you must have an ASTM compliant collar in place, just one, any design you choose as long it meets the ASTM standard.

There are lots of different pits out there in all shapes and sizes, that provide very different "feels" visually around the box, in front, to the back and to the sides. It would make about as much sense to suggest switching pits for each vaulter as it does to provide multiple collars. Heck when the UCS Futura standards first came out there were a lot of vaulters who struggled with depth perception, some still do.

If you have a soft box you still don't need a collar at all. Wonder what the USTFCCCA will say about that?

The labeling is still in balloting at ASTM so that is not set in stone. There are also question going on about what about existing devices that do not have whatever the final ASTM labeling requirment ends up. There is some language that still needs to be cleared up/cleaned up.

I have tried to check several places and can't get a straight answer to this question. If the pit is of the type that comes to the edge of the box on the sides and back, is a collar required. We had that type of pit and a collar at one college meet and athletes and coaches were complaining that the added height (collar lifting the pit up another 2" or so) was hindering their pole bend. The collar was removed. but with this new rule I can't get an answer. Any ideas?

I am pretty confident that an ASTM collar will be required even if the mat extends to the box (the slanted mat material is not nearly thick enough or of the same quality as the ASTM standard box).

From what I have heard I would assume the UCS collar will look a lot like their old one but just meet the standards without the wings. So the best thing to do would probably be to get one without wings because people may complain at meets that they are at a disadvantage because they do not train with the wings, I could not imagine too many people complaining that they have too much room to plant their pole with the one that does not have the wings (I am sure someone will come up with something even if it is they do not have confidence to jump without the extra safety equipment, but I think that will happen less often).

I prefer mats that have the front buns to come out in front of the box, but places are not required to have big front buns. I see no reason why if both wings and no wings are legal, the school hosting a meet would be required to change out the pad.

There is a lot of miss-information going around about this. I made a few calls to insure I am sharing accurate information.

There was recently an ASTM conference call to discuss and vote on a single proposal. There was no evaluation or interpretation done. In fact ASTM does not provide interpretations of standards. While someone may offer a personal opinion in this regard, the only action a committee or subcommittee may take is to introduce a revision to the standard to further clarify its intent.

The proposal was voted down and as such nothing changed. Everything that was true before the meeting remains so today. The current standard references wings in its description as well as its drawings. It is my opinion the current active standard does indeed require the wings.

There were a lot of new members on that call so it's easy to understand that they are not familiar with the ASTM procedures and may have made assumptions based on some of the conversations.

No matter what information you have received the past few days there has been no revision, interpretation or clarification done regarding the ASTM or the NCAA rule that has been out for several months.

drcurran wrote:I have tried to check several places and can't get a straight answer to this question. If the pit is of the type that comes to the edge of the box on the sides and back, is a collar required. - YES, UNDER THE NEW NCAA RULE A COLLAR THAT COMPLIES WITH THE ASTM STANDARD IS REQUIRED WITH ALL STYLE PITS BEGINNING 12/1 OF THIS YEAR.

We had that type of pit and a collar at one college meet and athletes and coaches were complaining that the added height (collar lifting the pit up another 2" or so) was hindering their pole bend. - IT IS COLLARS THAT CREATE THIS PROBLEM THAT DROVE THE NCAA TO ADOPT THE ASTM STANDARD INTO THEIR RULES. The collar was removed. but with this new rule I can't get an answer. Any ideas? IF YOU ARE A COLLEGE COACH YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE NCAA FOR AN INTERPRETATION. THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES QUALIFIED TO GIVE ONE.

See my answers in ALL CAPS above.

Currently only facilities with a soft box will not require a collar.

F2949 in Terminology - Definitions states "If the box collar has box collar wings" -- definition time word "If"

a: in the event that

b: allowing that

c: on the assumption that

d: on condition that

Not sure how that can be stated that this means it must have wings: That is the discussion point. We know the soft box does not have wings - it meets a performance criteria. There is also a reason for a max thickness but no minimum.

There are inconsistency in the wording that need to be addressed - There will be opposition to removing the word "if" based on conversations during the last meeting. Back when this standard was first being developed the idea was to word it so they would be allowable - the original discussion was not to make it required.

PVJunkie wrote:There is a lot of miss-information going around about this. I made a few calls to insure I am sharing accurate information.

There was recently an ASTM conference call to discuss and vote on a single proposal. There was no evaluation or interpretation done. In fact ASTM does not provide interpretations of standards. While someone may offer a personal opinion in this regard, the only action a committee or subcommittee may take is to introduce a revision to the standard to further clarify its intent.

The proposal was voted down and as such nothing changed. Everything that was true before the meeting remains so today. The current standard references wings in its description as well as its drawings. It is my opinion the current active standard does indeed require the wings.

There were a lot of new members on that call so it's easy to understand that they are not familiar with the ASTM procedures and may have made assumptions based on some of the conversations.

No matter what information you have received the past few days there has been no revision, interpretation or clarification done regarding the ASTM or the NCAA rule that has been out for several months.

No matter what information you have received the past few days there has been no revision

OK the ASTM standard states IF THE COLLAR HAS WINGS clearly means it dost not have to.

You making post about this makes Gill look even more corrupt than before.

1) ASTM clearly states IF THE COLLAR HAS WINGS
2) UCS has told people they are working on a collar that has NO WINGS because the rule DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM
3) It is clearly in Gills favor to have an employee of theirs telling everyone that the wings are required unless you have a soft box (that is also made by gill). I personally have never seen any wording or heard any interpretation that it was not required for a soft box until one of PVjunkies post above.

The soft box solves nothing without the collar. The rubber track is still hard and the tiny bit of track exposed when mats shift could easily crack open someones skull.

As Jeff pointed out the word "if" is used in the definitions/terminology section not the requirements section of the document. It is used in the definition of the "arms" part of the collar.

If you focus on the actual requirements section there is no reference to wings being optional.

The NCAA rule reads
Pole Vault Box Padding. A pole vault box collar, which is a device used to offer protection to pole vaulters in and around a pole vault box, shall be in place not later than December 1, 2013. The device must meet the most current ASTM Specification Standard and can be incorporated into the design of the pole vault box or a padding addition to an existing pole vault box.

The use of the word "in" when defining the location of the protection provided gives some insight into how the NCAA has interpreted the ASTM.

Edits to either the rule or the ASTM are a possibility but as of right now, for this upcoming season, to meet the 12/1 deadline, only what has been published is important.

PV2020 wrote:You making post about this makes Gill look even more corrupt than before.

*** It would be impossible for "corruption" to influence the topic of safety in any way. Both the ASTM and the NCAA rules committee are made up of individuals from all parts of the pole vaulting world. I am the only member of the ASTM who is employed by Gill Athletics and I have no involvement with the rules committee. The other voting members of the ASTM are affiliated with Port A Pit, Essx, USATF, the NCAA, event organizers, club coaches and even a few high school coaches. Recently employees from UCS upgraded their membership to include voting rights and a representative from MF Athletics became a voting member. The members of the NCAA rules committee are all division 1, 2 and 3 coaches none of whom are members of the ASTM.

PV2020 wrote:3) It is clearly in Gills favor to have an employee of theirs telling everyone that the wings are required unless you have a soft box (that is also made by gill). I personally have never seen any wording or heard any interpretation that it was not required for a soft box until one of PVjunkies post above.

*** I am employed by Gill Athletics but what I am doing is sharing factual information. Regardless of my employment, what part of the information that I have shared do you believe to be incorrect? It would be irresponsible of me not to try and correct bad information.
*** I can say with confidence that the soft box, without the aid of a collar, meets the ASTM requirements.

PV2020 wrote:The soft box solves nothing without the collar. The rubber track is still hard and the tiny bit of track exposed when mats shift could easily crack open someones skull.

*** I don't think you are familiar with the soft box and how it works. Please take a look at this link -> http://www.gillathletics.com/store/product/skydex-soft-vault-box and let me know if you have any questions.