PoleVaultPower.com

Ok lets get everyone's take on this rule interpretation. This is for college pole vault competition which is governed by the NCAA rule book... So the rules are not the same as high school.

Please do not take into account the time limit. This was turned off due to weather conditions.

Vaulter upon taking off was rejected but never break the plane of the pits. As they were heading back towards the side pad and off the pits they were steadied so they did not fall onto the ground by their coach.


Was this a no attempt because the athlete did not break the plane.

or

Was this a failed attempt because the athlete was touched.


Please give your opinion and any rule citation you feel would make the call one way or the other.

I know what my interpretation is. In this setting and most I don't like the if you did not break the plane rule and count it as a miss either way, but I am curious what the official call is on this situation.

The way I read the 2008 rules for the NCAA its not an attempt either way. In regards to the vaulter being touched: "The practice of tapping is prohibited" it specifies at takeoff, preventing the vaulter from an unnecessarily rough landing is completely legal. The question is whether or not the vaulter or the pole touched any part of the landing system "beyond the vertical plane of the inside edge of the top of the box" If he/she's pole touched the mats or collar beyond the plane of the box, its an attempt, if not then they are still within the "time limit." In most all vaults I've seen which involve this rule being utilized/questioned, the pole almost always bends and touches the mats past the zero plane of the box.

What was the coach doing there in the first place?

OH-IOvaulter wrote:The way I read the 2008 rules for the NCAA its not an attempt either way. In regards to the vaulter being touched: "The practice of tapping is prohibited" it specifies at takeoff, preventing the vaulter from an unnecessarily rough landing is completely legal. The question is whether or not the vaulter or the pole touched any part of the landing system "beyond the vertical plane of the inside edge of the top of the box" If he/she's pole touched the mats or collar beyond the plane of the box, its an attempt, if not then they are still within the "time limit." In most all vaults I've seen which involve this rule being utilized/questioned, the pole almost always bends and touches the mats past the zero plane of the box.

It is not a foul a properly planted pole bends past zero and touches the collar or mat. I did not come to this conclusion myself, I was told this by Stanley Underwood today.

Mental block I suppose she has. She had a bad fall in high school and needs coach standing there during practice and smaller meets. It is a subconscious thing so she will leave the ground.

Meet in question had a 28 mph cross wind. Rough day over all but need the points in the conference meet.

vaultman18 wrote:It is not a foul a properly planted pole bends past zero and touches the collar or mat. I did not come to this conclusion myself, I was told this by Stanley Underwood today.

Explain how that doesn't violate the NCAA rule book, it says nothing about a properly planted pole.

I cannot explain other than I asked Mr. Underwood and he showed me exactly what is a foul and what isn't. His response was if the tip of the pole is properly planted into the box (tip in the bottom) and the pole bends into the box collar or pit beyond zero and vaulter gets stood up and spit out the front It is not a Foul. You may need to look in the case book, or contact him directly to clarify.

I think in this an any other "questionable" situation it is up to the pole vault judge to make the correct decision. I was at this meet and I feel that he did the right thing by catching his athlete because if not she would have crashed hardcore. I do not understand how saving an athlete from injury was considered a miss, especially after the "not breaking the plane rule" had been in effect the entire day.

under what grounds was it called a miss?

Out here in the Pacific Association we do not consider the bend of the pole when ruling on breaking the plane. While I agree that that is not the letter of the law, I do not know of any experienced certified official in any association that would call a miss based on the bending part of the pole breaking the plane.

As far as a bystander/coach preventing an athlete from crashing and burning, I don't think that constitutes a foul, but don't have any particular experience in that situation.

BTW, the OP could be worded so that it is easier to figure out what the situation is.