NCAA Crossbar rule change 2013-2014

[Cooleo111]

I just read some of the new rules for the NCAA in 2013-2014, and it seems they are outlawing the Gill Anti-Gravity crossbars. The rule change is on page 29, and is Rule 2 Section 5 Article 5, and can be found here: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/TF14.pdf

This is discussing the shape of the crossbar for the high jump, but also applies to the pole vault as is stated later. The specific rule states (in reference to the flat surface of the bottom of the crossbar ends that rests on the pegs): "This flat surface may not be higher than the vertical cross section of the crossbar." The language is a little confusing in my opinion, but after discussing it with a few friends, I take this to mean that the vertical cross section is a vertical line drawn from the top to the bottom of the side of the crossbar; essentially an "I" drawn from the top to the bottom of the "O"-shaped crossbar. Therefore, the part of the crossbar end that lies on the pegs cannot rest anywhere along that "I", or vertical cross section, and must therefore lie beneath it, as traditional crossbar ends allow. Because the anti-gravity crossbar ends allow for the flat surface to lie somewhere along that vertical cross section, they will now be outlawed.

Sorry if this is confusing, and please correct me if my interpretation is wrong! This seems to be an important rule change, and I'm not sure how I feel about it!

[KYLE ELLIS]

If I read this right the LCOG cross bars are outlawed? If so good because I hate those things! lol, sorry if that offends anyone.

[rainbowgirl28]

If I read this right the LCOG cross bars are outlawed? If so good because I hate those things! lol, sorry if that offends anyone.

What are LCOG crossbars?

[PVJunkie]

Your interpretation is incorrect. The change in the wording brings their rule in line with the IAAF rules. It allows the flat surface to be above the bottom edge of the shaft but not above its center of gravity.
IAAF wording:
These end pieces shall be circular or semicircular with one clearly
defined flat surface on which the bar rests on the crossbar supports.
This flat surface may not be higher than the centre of the vertical cross
section of the crossbar. The end pieces shall be hard and smooth.
They shall not be of, or covered with rubber or any other material
which has the effect of increasing the friction between them and the
supports.

The fact is the AGX bar is possibly the best performing/most legal bar made. Traditional style bars (with the slip on ends) roll easily due to the COG being way above the flat surface. They also slide just as easily as all other style ends (check this simple test - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150759199364529&notif_t=like).

The traditional style ends are smooth but are they "hard"? Since there is no test with a set hardness that must be met they all kinda meet the rules. If you take one of those ends off of the bar I would challenge you to call them "hard". The AGX ends on the other hand (although its all relative without a set hardness in the rules) are noticeably harder than most others.

This years AGX bars will outperform every bar made to date. Check out the 2013 Gill catalog for details. I am trying to locate that testing video so I can post it.

Kyle, feel free to keep using the old style bar. They always rolled off easier and now compared to the new version of the AGX, they will also slide off easier too.

[Cooleo111]

IAAF wording:
These end pieces shall be circular or semicircular with one clearly
defined flat surface on which the bar rests on the crossbar supports.
This flat surface may not be higher than the centre of the vertical cross
section of the crossbar.

The difference between what you wrote for the IAAF's rule and the NCAA rule is this one little word. I know this is nitpicking, but hey, what else are rules for?? In this example, however, it may make a huge difference. If in the NCAA the bottom of the crossbar end is allowed to be "on" the vertical cross section, but not "higher" than it, then maybe the flat surface can be higher than the center of the crossbar (where the COG presumably is), but not higher than the highest point of the crossbar. Again, splitting hairs here, but I find it interesting the way they almost plagiarized the IAAF rule, but left out one crucial word.

[PVJunkie]

I copied that from the IAAF rules word for word.

NCAA - "This flat surface may not be higher than the vertical cross section of the crossbar."
IAAF - This flat surface may not be higher than the centre of the vertical cross
section of the crossbar.

Where would you define the vertical cross section of the bar? I not being confrontational, I am just curious because I worked with one of the committee members on this. I thought they were copying the IAAF word for word. The diagrams on the next page (30) shows that the AGX style is still acceptable/legal. They did not want to exclude the AGX bar with the new rule.

[Cooleo111]

Where would you define the vertical cross section of the bar?

That is the part that I am having trouble with. Here is a diagram from the side of the crossbar that I am using to try to understand this "vertical cross section" concept with.

Crossbar diagram.png (4.4 KiB) Viewed 18335 times

In this diagram, the black circle is the circumference of the crossbar, the vertical red line is what I believe to be the "vertical cross section", the horizontal green line is the bottom of a standard crossbar end, and the horizontal blue line is the bottom of the anti-gravity crossbar end. The little black dot in the middle is where I imagine the COG would be.

If this diagram is accurate, then the anti-gravity crossbar end would lie on the "vertical cross section", but not above it, and the traditional end would lie underneath it. Is this right??

[VaultPurple]

This years AGX bars will outperform every bar made to date. Check out the 2013 Gill catalog for details. I am trying to locate that testing video so I can post it.

And every pole vaulter that just does not hit the cross bar will outperform every crossbar every made!

[PVJunkie]

Everyone nudges the bar from time to time. The rule changes a few years ago that shortened the pegs and made it a miss to "steady" the bar, without retiring the records and starting over, made all this a point of interest.

Without innovation we would all still be jumping on bamboo....and thank goodness we advanced past those triangle bars.

The flat part of the AGX ends is below the black dot/blue line in your diagram. So that means, if your interpretation is accurate those ends are still legal.

This is why the wording of rules is so tricky.

[Vaultref]

I think "coolieoo" is correct UNLESS the NCAA wording forgot to include that one word "centre" from the new rule.

Anyone have a contact at Gill they could ask?

You could always contact Bob Podkaminer.. he will respond.

The change, even if the word center was not part of the rule will not prevent using that semicircular alternative end as depicted on page 30 AS LONG AS the flat portion is no higher ( or even lower) than the bottom of the crossbars.

I'm looking closely at this now as I have a pair of end pieces on a small section of crossbar for both a Gill
anti-gravity end and standard pink UCS crossbar with the green ends. The Gill end would have be to redesigned
if we really do find out the new rule wording is correct.

[rainbowgirl28]

PVJunkie works at Gill.

[PVJunkie]

Can you explain your statement below.

The Gill end would have be to redesigned
if we really do find out the new rule wording is correct.

The AGX half moon puts the flat surface slightly below the center line of the shaft.

"The change, even if the word center was not part of the rule will not prevent using that semicircular alternative end as depicted on page 30 AS LONG AS the flat portion is no higher ( or even lower) than the bottom of the crossbars."

Which is the case, thus all this speculation is creating confusion. We all agree the AGX bar is still legal even without the word "centre".

I recommend you contact the NCAA, as any good official would do, to verify the intent of their wording.