ADTF Academy wrote:Like I said yes safety is important and those should have been covered. Size of pit was what I was referring to not padding on standards. If you drift that far right something went wrong it had nothing to do with the pit itself.
2nd was this meet even sanctioned by the IAAF or following its rules? How many meets don't follow a rule book 100%? Does that make it right not at all, but we do live in the real world.
If there is a crack in the cement and you trip on it whose fault is it? I say the idiot who tripped on the crack and didn't pick up their feet. I'm guessing you say the company who didn't fix the cement.
Without knowing all the information on this occurrence In the end the error comes on Hooker..... Why did this occur should be the real question?
I'll bet you the situation its self will cause the meet to pad the area next year and it will be interesting to know if after this occurred if they did in fact pad the area.
3rd its not about the cost of meet to do more its about them either having the meet or not having the meet. No meet means no opportunity means no pay check.
Bottom line vault safe and land in the middle and nothing is an issue.....
Well, I think sanctioning is not really an issue. I would have the same objection to an unsanctioned street vault or club meet that had an unsafe venue. Its not really "legality" in a strict sense that is at issue: it should be prudence and a mindfulness for safety that led the event host to install the proper padding and to position the metal fence far enough away, but in the absence of the proper mindfullness, then at least adhere to the *common* rules of the sport.
I feel strongly about this because I know that having the rules is not sufficient, they have to be followed, and not just for the sake of following the rules, but for the sake of making the sport as safe as it can be. One of the two times I witnessed an accident that led to a vaulter carted off in an ambulance (a *well* trained HS vaulter) was at a meet that lacked padding around the standards (exposing a bare concrete surface and the metal standards base), and everyone there, including the dedicated PV coach running the event, *AND* me(!) saw the problem before the event and did nothing.
That was my wake up call. No more making excuses for safety. Ever! (it took maybe 10 minutes to find the pads and get them in place to continue the event with the remaining vaulters). No "its just a HS meet, they won't fall that far", no "If I object, they might have to cancel the event if they don't have pads to cover the concrete and standard bases", no "these are well trained vaulters who probably won't land there". I mean, Hooker is one of the top vaulters in the world, more highly trained than 99.9999% of all other vaulters, someone that you wouldn't even dream of advising to "land in the middle of the pad", and he landed off the pit; his head landing 2 feet from a metal fence. Sure, it was his "fault", either for vaulting at all under the conditions, and/or for whatever mistake(s) he made in that one vault, but we know that people make errors in judgment and in execution all the time (even the best) and we should (within reason) try to accomodate for those errors.
I don't follow the international circuit enough to know if the conditions of this meet were exceptional or typical, but I think the general reaction here is that, *at the very least* they could have done a better job to make the area safe (and at worse, it was patently dangerous). And I suspect the athletes and coaches and knowledgable spectators at the event would have said so prior to the accident if they were asked. And yet they vaulted anyway; no one (apparently) said a thing. I suspect that, like the event I described above, everyone had their own excuses as to why they shouldn't say anything; there is a reluctance to speak out for safety. I would like to change that, and ideally with as few avoidable injuries along the way as possible.
If barraging meet hosts that have an unsafe facility leads them to improve it, then that is a good thing. OTOH, they are free to ignore me, or to defend the facility (I'm not perfect: maybe I'm wrong?) if they believe the condition were safe. If they do come to the realization that it was unsafe, and improve it next year, then that is fine, but what if they are clueless, and don't?
[Edited to add: it looks like the post I was replying to has also dissappeared. (You punking me, ADTF?
]
Overall tell the meet director it was a very cool meet for those that actually care about international based meets. I saw the setup as a whole for the track and idea behind the meet. I wish more countries would do something like this. Very well done. 