NCAA Mandates new ASTM Box Collar by Dec 2013

[rainbowgirl28]

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens when the pole tip hits the part of the collar that's draped into the box. Does it slide through to the back of the box or does it stick?

Go to Jan's PV Safety facebook page, there are videos of this.

[RoosterPV25]

First of all, I apologize for the length of this post, but hopefully it helps. I have been pretty quiet around PVP and Facebook about this topic and it seems that people either love or hate the new collar. I also feel that a lot of people are very skeptical and have such a negative opinion on the collar yet have never even seen it in person. That being said, I thought I would finally give my input on it.

I moved out to California in the summer of 2009 to work with Jan for a year at Cuesta before returning back east. I had no idea that he was developing this new collar or that he had been testing it for over a year at that point. The first time I had jumped at his house, I remember saying that it looked like the collar just shifted into the box like many regular collars have done before. When I got down there, I tried to fix it but saw that it had these wings. At first I thought to myself that it looked weird and that I would be affected mentally and physically with seeing the narrower box and the appearance of something in the box that shouldn’t be there. After the first few jumps, I didn’t hit it at all and from then on I was used to it.

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens when the pole tip hits the part of the collar that's draped into the box. Does it slide through to the back of the box or does it stick?

I had jumped with this collar in practice for a year at Cuesta and at Jan’s house for his camps and we even took it to a few meets that season. During this time, I did not see anyone nor have I personally had a jump where the pole “stuck” to the wings. Now I can’t say for sure that anyone actually hit the wings, but I believe that with all the jumps that I have seen using the collar, at least one person must have hit it.

the pole's going to bend differently when you land near the back of the coach's box (as you do in a swing-thru). In competition vaults, the grip will be higher, and the arc of the pole will be greater - and possibly more to the corner or side of the bend cavity of the box/collar

This has been another big concern about the SafetyMax that I have seen come up. Before using this collar I have been at meets where the standard collar and/or mats have impeded the bending of the pole and shot me off to the right. I jump on 16’ and 16’5” poles and to me this is a big concern as well. However, in all of my time with the SafetyMax, I have never had a jump where I went right because of the collar.

Finally, many people are just saying that this is just a band-aid and we need to have better coaching education. I agree with this 100%. However I, like the majority of kids in high school, did not have a coach, let alone one that had proper coaching education. If it was a rule that we could only have pole vault if we had a coach, I probably never would have started vaulting.

I don’t see what is wrong with a “band-aid” if it is going to help safety. Is $600 too much to spend to possibly save a life? I have experienced this thing saving me from serious injury. We went to a meet at another Califoria JC one day and replaced their collar with the SafteyMax. One on of my attempts at 17’ 8”, I hadn’t noticed that the pole had chewed through the plug. I failed to roll the pole to vertical and landed on one of the wings on the right side of the box. I got up and walked away after that but if the collar had not been there, I would have landed on the lip of the box. Would I have walked away?

This is just my opinion and I probably am biased because of my experience and the admiration I have for Jan and all he has done for me. With that being said, hopefully this helps some people better understand the SafetyMax collar.

[PVJunkie]

Jan tested this by intentionally planting very late and on the sides of his original prototypes. No "sticking" occurred.

The following exchange between myself, Tim Werener, Spencer Chang, Becca, Debbie Chappel, Greg Duplantis as well as others. It contains what I believe to be everything you could want to know about the new collar (and then some). If you are truly interested in this topic I recommend you take the time to read through the information below.
From Tim Werners Facebook page:
Bryan Carrel
To be fair, it is a new NCAA rule. It has already passed the rules committee but due to the timing of the change it goes through a few more steps.
There has been a lot of confusion about the ASTM testing requirements. The test is performed from 12.5 feet but it does not mean the collar does not perform well at heights above and below the testing protocols height.
February 17 at 5:52pm • Edited • Like
• Tim Werner
What's the test difference between the two collars? I only see a minimal difference in the coverage of the flat part of the box.
February 17 at 6:04pm • Edited • Like
• Bryan Carrel
There is only a single ASTM that provides force requirements/testing protocol (HIC and GMax) and identifies coverage requirements. The ASTM was published just a few months ago so the difference between the 3 collars above are CENTER) original version/does not cover the "anvil" edges of the box/made out of anything and some were even home made- LEFT) old winged version/covered the "anvil" portion of most of the box but was designed so that it did not interfere with the movement of the pole/foam did not meet the HIC and GMAX requirements of the recently published ASTM - RIGHT) new winged version/similar to the original in shape but the new guts have been tested and meet the ASTM HIC and GMAX requirements.

Is that what you were asking?
February 17 at 6:13pm • Like
• Tim Werner
Pretty much. Thanks Bryan Carrel
February 17 at 6:17pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
What data has been presented to prove that a 4 inch side and back " taper to match the side wall or strike plate" is sufficient to not impede pole bend and rotatation?
February 17 at 8:16pm via mobile • Like
• Greg Duplantis
Why not have the pit go right up to the box and have it match the side wall and strike plate taper.? I know the answer.
February 17 at 8:18pm via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
The area of concern this unique design addressed was the "anvil" edge of the top of the box. 2 to 4 inches of pit foam, as in a pit that hugs the box, provides woefully inadequate protection. The other issue with integrating the protection into the pit is, the pit moves. I was a a meet two weeks ago and there was 3 to 4 inches of surface exposed behind the box an another 2 to 3 inches that were covered only by the 2 inch top pad foam. Even if that pit had been pushed forward the protection in that area was useless, it is a very poor design because as the soft pit foam tapers down it cannot provide the necessary shock attenuation.

I am curious, what is your answer?
February 17 at 8:34pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
Simply extend the pit from the sides and back of the box at the box " slope to match the sidewall and strike plate taper" , draw the lines and you will see it will completely prevent pole bend
February 17 at 8:41pm via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Sorry, I missed your first post. Part of product development is testing. The designs were tested in "cad world", controlled laboratory condition's and test sites. The perception that this design might interfere with the movement of the pole is inaccurate. I provided some high res, slow motion videos a few weeks ago for evaluation (2-5.40 guys and a 5.20 guy jumping). As with any product it must be installed properly (like the improperly positioned pits i mentioned above) in order to perform as designed. I was at a competition this past friday and the collar being used did not extend under the pit and needed to be adjusted almost every jump. It was 3 to 4 inches thick and was not tapered in any way. In my opinion it is the worst design on the market but has been used for several years now. Thankfully there is a standard now and I hope to never have to see that one in use ever again.
February 17 at 8:41pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
I really would like real tests and real data.
February 17 at 8:46pm via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Here are the pictures/videos I mentioned. The collar being used below is fully ASTM compliant. Is there one of these that concerns you?

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 171624.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 171643.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 171708.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 171717.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 171844.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 174356.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 174518.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 174541.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 174939.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 175105.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 180147.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 180223.mp4
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20 ... 180254.mp4
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9210036/Box%20C ... 171624.jpg
dl.dropbox.com
February 17 at 8:48pm • Like • Remove Preview
• Bryan Carrel
What do you mean by real tests and real data? As I mentioned real tests were performed in "computer world", controlled laboratory conditions and eventually at test sites before the first versions of this design were offered in the Gill Athletics catalog over 2 years ago. In the past 2+ years there have been sites at all levels (HS/College/USATF Clubs) using them without issue. I shared some of their comments on the thread I mentioned above.
February 17 at 8:54pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
The 540 guys use 14' poles.? Those are clearly not real jumps with long poles ... And still impact the pad. Sorry not close to convinced. Like I said I want real tests and real data.
February 17 at 8:55pm via mobile • Like • 1
• Bryan Carrel
They were 440 and 460 poles doing what we call a "vault for distance" drill. During this drill the pole rolls much further past vertical than a normal jump thus impacting any collar or pit more. I did that intentionally to demonstrate that it did not interfere with the pole. I could get normal full jumps tomorrow or tuesday with the same guys, but it will show even less contact since they will be actually vaulting instead of swinging for distance.

If you can tell me what you mean by real data I can see what I can make public but the 100+ already in use for the past few years would probably be more meaningful to you. I could provide you with contact information for 2 or 3 of those sites if you would like.
February 17 at 9:14pm • Edited • Like
• Greg Duplantis
Just as the ASTM standard tests HIC for an object dropping on the pad I want data to show the occurrence of pole impact with the pad ,measurements of the force that the pad absorbs on impact, and resulting lost in pole penetration . That has not been done. And it is not science to say we took some films of some guys jumping . And it is not a believable position ,if you say that the pole can't hit the pad.
February 17 at 9:19pm via mobile • Like • 1
• Bryan Carrel
What you are asking is an interesting hypothesis but almost all the current box collars are not tapered at all and the box hugging pits have a 2 to 3 inch tall vertical (not tapered) profile behind and to each side of the box. The taper is an improvement to the designs that have been used since 2003. During discussions, the members of the ASTM along with input from coaches, athletes, scientists, and manufactures who had been evaluating the designs for months found that when properly installed this design improved typical performance and did not require any further discussion.

You should consider attending the ASTM meetings. They are open to the public but you need to join (75.00 a year, I think) in order to vote. If you believe there is more to this area, you could provide the research for evaluation.

This new design is an improvement in performance (HIC and GMAX) and design (potential pole interference) over every collar and box hugging pit sold for the past 10 years.

If you are interested in attending the next ASTM meeting let me know and I can get you the details.
February 17 at 9:47pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
I was asking for your research in this area.
February 18 at 5:15am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
The research was the discussion about the design and if it was an improvement over any product with a vertical component (pit or box collar) in the bend cavity area. The decision was made that the tapered design interfered far less than products in use for the past several years. Since there had been no challenges to the performance of box hugging pits with a vertical component or vertical back collar designs it was decided that it was un-necessary to conduct formal testing.

Is is your contention that the tapered design interferes more?

I hadn't thought about it until now but it would be interesting to conduct testing to compare the products with vertical components to the tapered design of this one.
February 18 at 6:53am • Edited • Like
• Tim Werner
What happens when the pole tip hits the tapered pad sides during the plant?
February 18 at 8:49am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
The same thing that happens when a vaulter plants that late without the tapered sides, it deflects into the bottom of the box and they probably get yanked off the ground. Hopefully, if this is a common issue for that vaulter, the coach steps in and makes the necessary corrections.

Greg Duplantis concern was when the pole is bending normally. The tapered design (in the bend cavity) only becomes a factor if the pole is bent so much that it has already contacted the top back of the box. With products and pits that start off with a vertical component the pole will contact that area before it hits the top of the box.
February 18 at 9:00am • Like
• Spencer Chang
Hey Greg, I was in Seattle at UW where they have this box collar. Problem is, if the slope of the collar is the same as the box, then in effect what the collar does is deepen the box by 4 inches. So even though you can vault with this box collar design, what happens is the back of the pole levers off the box collar earlier, and forces the pole to swing to the left or right much earlier as opposed to rolling forward which is what we want to do to vault well. As a consequence I noticed vaulters struggling including my own with poles they normally did well on. I pointed this out to Pat Licari and he then shaved the slope of the collar back. Now the poles levered off the back of the box and not a higher box collar. Immediate effect was that the poles weren't hitting the box collar and shifting to the side prematurely. Vaulters jumped better and moved up poles.
February 18 at 9:39am via mobile • Like • 1
• Tim Werner
My contention is (and I pointed this out to Jan at his camp) the most dangerous area in the box is the area closest to the back. I believe it would be most advantageous to NOT taper at least the back of the side pad. As long as you're doing it the most horizontal padded surface area toward the back of the box would be the safest. That also closes the surface area of a vaulter coming in upside down (like when a pole breaks) with the back of their head toward the top of the box.
However I still contend that there is no difference in the padding over the bottom of the box. There is minimal difference over the sides of the box because they are already padded above the edges. And on the case at my school the U shape box collar pad usually folds in overlapping the top side edges anyway.
The box collar pad rule just changes. All the schools naught new box collars that are supposed to take care of a problem. Now someone comes up with a "new and improved" box collar. The schools see this as spend spend spend. And like what happened when the pit size changed schools discontinued the pole vault. (I'm NOT saying the pit size rule change was bad).
I believe any box collar morphing must be done slowly to keep the event alive at schools.
I believe any rules changes should be written so that there is a fair market to everyone. Without that, like in the oil industry, consumers will be forced to pay the higher price.
February 18 at 9:40am via mobile • Like
• Spencer Chang
Tim, the problem is that the design may actually make it more likely to land in the box because it prevents the pole from penetrating forward. It really needs to be studied better before becoming universally accepted. It would be the easiest way to cripple vaulting in the US compared to other countries, because we won't jump as high. There could be a gradual slope perhaps, but it can't be the same slope or it needs to be set back a little from the box.
February 18 at 9:50am via mobile • Like • 1
• Greg Duplantis
Spencer, that was my exact concern. All of the testing results shown go to dropping an object on a pad and its decel rate. No tests are reported showing that the proposed slope is suffcient ,what happens when the pit is raised an extra 4' , and the result of padding in the box. This is a product that alters the function of at least two other products ( ie the pit an the box ) without any reported objective test as to its real world function and its effect on the products that it alters.
February 18 at 9:52am • Like • 1
• Tim Werner
I was talking about the back portion of the side flaps. I agree that the back above the back needs to be tapered much more than the angle of the box.
February 18 at 9:57am via mobile • Like
• Greg Duplantis
And, Spencer what you said also goes to my comment before asking why dont we just have the pits go right up to the box and extend at the same slope of the box angles? We should know the answer. Because the poles will not be able to bend thats why. Then we'd have 4 foot boxes.
February 18 at 10:03am • Like
• Tim Werner
I know at my school we can push the pit almost right up to the box without the pole hitting the pit.
February 18 at 10:12am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Representatives from almost every pit manufacture, elite vaulters, coaches at every level and even some outside entities (foam manufacturers and testing labs) had either no comment or approved of the current design. Your theories were discussed at length and modeled for evaluation.

If you still speculate that there may be a bigger influence that the group identified you are welcome to do some independent research. If you choose to do so I hope that the previous designs are tested as well, the group did agree that the vertical walls of the previous collars and pits needed to be avoided.
February 18 at 10:12am • Like
• Tim Werner
Padding the sides of the box only increases the vertical surface space that will be padded with the new box collar by about 1 square foot. Does that merit changing the rules and forcing schools to spend another $600
February 18 at 10:13am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Tim Werner you should ask the NCAA rules committee about their decision. I am only familure with the product and its development.

Here is the current committeee -http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=TRACKRULES
COMMITTEE SELECTION LINKS: A JSP APPLICATION
web1.ncaa.org
February 18 at 10:16am • Edited • Like • Remove Preview
• Greg Duplantis
Spencer's personal observations carry great weight with me. He has no dog in the fight , is a vault expert ..and an MD.
February 18 at 10:17am via mobile • Like • 1
• Bryan Carrel
I agree completely but I also respect the opinions of Wilson SooHoo,Peter McGinnis and Jeff Hartwig who are all active members of the ASTM and were a part of the lengthy discussions about ASTM requirements for design and performance of this product. Spencer is making initial observations about a topic that has been discussed at length.
February 18 at 10:22am • Edited • Like
• Greg Duplantis
But why not tests for these issues ? I still do not understand.
February 18 at 10:27am via mobile • Like
• Tim Werner
Don't get me wrong please. I'm all for improvement. My biggest concern is: when I brought this subject to a leading high school coach and board member of the California Interscholastic Federation his response was, "they're killing the sport". That's my biggest concern. There are more schools without pole vault in my area than schools with pole vault.
February 18 at 10:35am via mobile • Like
• Becca Gillespy Peter
Tim Werner schools that bought the $550 box collar will have to throw them out as well. No box collar on the market, not even the current SafetyMax, meets the ASTM standard. The new one that does should be for sale soon, but basically no one has it yet.
February 18 at 10:42am • Like
• Bryan Carrel
The issue that needed to be addressed was resolved by the discussion of the group using models/drawings comparing the new and old designs. Basically, (condensing hours of discussion here) if the products/pits with vertical profiles that contact the pole significantly earlier (even before the pole would contact the top of the box) than the tapered design were not an issue over the past 10 years we could proceed to prototyping the design.

If I am missing your point and you contend the tapered design is inferior to the vertical one please let me know. If not there is not testing data because it was determined not to be necessary because the design was an improvement to previous designs that were not an issue.
February 18 at 10:43am • Like
• Tim Werner
Can we all go fishing now?
February 18 at 10:52am via mobile • Like
• Greg Duplantis
All I am contending is that there is no reported testing to show that the proposed design that alters at least two other existing products does not interfere with the pole . You are satisfied that your group has figured it out .. " without further discussion" so we will just have to see . I just pray that it doesn't do more harm than good like the last Eureka box collar.
February 18 at 10:58am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Testing comes in lots of forms. Testing was done it just didn't progress to the force measurements level you are looking for.
February 18 at 11:52am • Edited • Like
• Debbie Chappell
I’ve been following this thread with interest. While I applaud Mr. Carrel for his openness and candor about it’s development, there obviously remain many questions about the design of the box collar. Ordinarily, this wouldn’t be an issue – put it out there, see how it performs, make adjustments accordingly. But to lobby for specific and sweeping regulation changes based on a questionable design that has not been thoroughly tested and vetted by an objective, independent source (other than the manufacturers) is premature at best. And the accompanying alarmist rhetoric that the event is inherently dangerous unless said new regulations are enacted only threatens the survival of the sport in institutions that already consider it a high maintenance event and are looking for their next budget cut.

I just hope in 10 years we’re all still in the business and around to talk about it.
February 18 at 12:15pm • Like
• Becca Gillespy Peter
Over the past few years, I've talked to dozens of coaches who have used this design of collar in practice and meets and none of them have had any problems. The more mental vaulters are sometimes a little nervous at first, but quickly grow comfortable with it.
February 18 at 12:36pm • Like
• Becca Gillespy
Peter I am not advocating that these collars be mandatory, but there is this idea out there that these will make the sport LESS safe, and there is simply no evidence of that thus far. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to make the event significantly safer, at best it is a band-aid and does not address the root of our safety issues, which is coaching/vaulter education.

The idea that Jan and Gill have the power to enact a rule change like this is silly. The NCAA is sponsored by UCS, not Gill, and if anything would be less inclined to listen to what Gill says. This is being pushed by the lawyers who know nothing about the sport, who want easy fixes. Jan designed a product that is a nice band-aid for them. If it was as easy as just lobbying for new equipment, we'd all be wearing helmets by now.
February 18 at 12:40pm • Like
• Bryan Carrel
There is definitely a lot of rhetoric floating around about this topic.

The development process has been ongoing for over 4 years and the product has been available to everyone for over 2 years. It was thoroughly tested before being offered in the Gill catalog and now has over 2 years worth of use in many facilities. These sites have provided lots of objective, independent information about its performance and how it effected participants. Their experience has been what was expected.

I have heard the word "lobbied" used a few times now. To my knowledge no one lobbied for a new collar or a rule change. In fact they are very different issues managed by totally different groups of people. The collar has evolved, as many products do, into a much safer product. It was marketed at all levels and it caught the attention of the rule makers. You would need to speak to them about the reasons and timing but the NCAA initiated discussions on this topic, not the other way around. I provided a link to the 8 coaches who make up the rules committee in an earlier post, they could fill in what led them to change the rule.

I try very hard to keep my emotions out of this topic but the implications some have made, suggesting the coaches on this committee did something inappropriate, angers me. One of the committee members is my former college coach/boss, many of the others are friends in the coaching world. Before anyone slanders them and their efforts maybe they should be contacted to see what brought them to this decision.

I do agree that the there is inherent risk to sports but our event has been very passive versus active about safety. We have reacted to events instead of looking to the future and protecting pole vaulting from those who want it gone or see an opportunity to sue someone. We live in a much more litigious society than ever before. The practice of reacting to accidents is the worst approach we can take, we are allowing lawyers to slowly eat away at our event. Reacting is the only thing we have done, until recently.
February 19 at 7:53am • Edited • Like
• Debbie Chappell
I have absolutely no objection to Jan designing a box, Gill selling it, and both making a handsome profit. But the fact remains that Jan IS it’s main proponent, stands to gain from mandatory implementation regarding it, and HAS represented himself as an “expert safety witness” to varying regulatory bodies and associations, as well as in associated lawsuits on many occasions. His considerable time and effort in promoting it can and is considered “lobbying” by most the commonly accepted definitions and not only a presents a clear and personal conflict of interest, but will have significant and lasting repercussions on the entire event if successful.

No one has suggested at ANY time that coaches on this committee “did anything inappropriate”, and it is certainly no one’s intent to slander anyone in the course of this discussion. But the facts are what they are. The NCAA initiated safety discussions in response to a very unfortunate and extenuating set of circumstances. It is the timing, exploitation of, and subsequent wholesaleing of those circumstances that I object to. A mandatory regulation, promoted by someone who continues to malign the event as inherently dangerous, is what I take issue with and feel is entirely counter productive to the survival of the event as we know it.

Note: UCS does not sponsor the NCAA (nor me for that matter...unless you count my meager monthly wardrobe/chardonnay allowance I get from my husband’s paycheck.) UCS has been chosen as the official equipment supplier to the NCAA, and proudly so.
February 18 at 3:24pm • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Lobbying, Marketing, Promoting....I agree that the definitions do somewhat cross paths. I would use terms like "marketing" or "promotions" in place of what some are calling lobbying. Since I have been involved in this I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim a conflict of interest. That is why I shared the emotion I did above about the accusations directed at the members of the NCAA committee. Some of the accusations about this becoming a rule can only be directed at the committee members. If someone with something to gain was a member of the rules committee there would most certainly be a conflict of interest.

Jan is interested in safety, and he happens to be an inventor, and he is a voting member of the ASTM, that is not a rare combination nor does it represent a conflict. The ASTM committee for pole vault safety has voting representatives from USATF, Essx, Gill Athletics, BSN, club coaches, biomechnists, doctors, high school coaches and non voting members who have attended the past 2 meetings include the NFHS, a testing firm (cant remember the name) the NCAA and UCS among others. In fact the statement "why are we discussing money, this is about safety" came from an attendee from UCS.

Is Jan an expert in pole vault safety? I dont know what the criteria is but I would say that he is the closest thing there is to an expert out there. I don't know anyone who has done more research into accidents than him. I dont know anyone who has invested more time or invested more of his own money into increasing safety in our event. He is a friend of mine but I don't know anyone more concerned (selfish or not) about safety in pole vaulting.

On that note I will not comment any further. The same emotional reply's as seen on other posts are sure to start soon.
February 18 at 4:53pm • Edited • Like
• Becca Gillespy Peter
I maintain that a box collar cut from a single piece of wrestling mat (not multiple pieces taped together) probably offers superior protection than the majority of box collars being sold today
February 18 at 4:32pm • Like
• Howard Freedman
They dont care abt safety they care abt exposure and costs and Lawsuits. If u can show them their insurance costs would go down or not rise as quickly and their exposure to potential lawsuits wud go down they may be interested
February 18 at 4:46pm via mobile • Like
• Howard Freedman
A final comment- The NFL has known abt better helmets for years made by a company that does not have a contract w the NFL. For years they stayed with the less protecting helmet that was produced by their contracted company
February 18 at 4:51pm via mobile • Like
• Howard Freedman
Going fishing now. Good Nite
February 18 at 4:52pm via mobile • Like
• Debbie Chappell
The facts are what they are, and obviously open to interpretation depending on the perspective from which you look at them. I think we can all agree that safety is and should be a primary element in discussions regarding the event…but not to the exclusion of all others. While we’ve been discussing box collars on a domestic level, La Villinie of France just cleared 5.93 at the French Championships and has jumped at least 580 over 50 times, Cuba (hardly the model in technological innovation and modern facilites) has produced two globally ranked vaulters including the Olympic silver medalist, Bjorn Otto of Germany jumped 5.80+ landing on a pit no wider than the standards, and Brazil, with it’s limited-to-non-existent facilities has produced a World Junior Champion, a Women’s Indoor and Outdoor World Champion, and a Pan American Champion with little or no competitive infrastructure in place at it’s schools and universities.

Bryan, I agree, further discussion on the subject is at this point counter productive. Let the box collar chips fall where they may.

With what looks to be a promising current domestic class of collegiate and high school vaulters showing impressive early season performances, our attention, passion, and focus is better served turning to the development of the event as a whole, and to encouraging these young, talented athletes. This would not only increase over-all safety, but would ensure a promising and rewarding future for them to compete at the highest international level, and perhaps reclaim what was once a uniquely American legacy.
February 18 at 6:07pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
In speaking with Dr. Spencer Chang ,I believe we have touched upon the issue: The vault box is designed to STOP the pole from further movement and rotation. The old 90* boxes allowed less movement and rotation than the modern 105s. The pole bends forward and to the side far beyond the top of the top but not AT THE BOX because the box STOPS it from doing so. An Extension of the back and sides at the same angles /slope will necessarily STOP pole movement beyond the back of the box.
February 19 at 8:29am via mobile • Like
• Greg Duplantis
Simple tests could prove wether the pole would hit. Simplly extend the sides and back of box up at the angles and hieght proposed with pressure pads to measure the force (or not) at which the pole hits.But surely this was done?
February 19 at 10:14am • Like • 1
• Bryan Carrel
I am happy to engage in educated debate.

Greg Duplantis and Spencer Chang as I stated before, the sloped design is an improvement over previous collars and the box hugging pits which claim to negate the need for a collar. They all contain a 2 to 3 inch vertical component immediately around the now defined bend cavity. When properly positioned to cover the hard surfaces as required by the rules (we will ignore the lack of force spec for any of these designs) these designs contact the pole much earlier than the new tapered one. Is it your claim that these designs, that have been in use for 10 years now are faulty as well? If they are not then the new tapered profile of this collar is an improvement to something that was not considered an issue to begin with.

That is where I am having trouble following you. Or is it your claim that this design is not an improvement?
February 20 at 11:29am • Like
• Spencer Chang
Is there a greater slope on the new design, Bryan? It looks as if on the diagram the slope is identical to the box, and is meant to sit right up on the box. Unless the design has changed, the box collar at UW is the same one that the new ASTM standard supports, except that Pat cut out the wings. Certainly, this box collar is an improvement from previous designs. However, I do believe the slope has to be much more gradual then matching the slope of the box. I'm merely pointing out something that should be looked at further. I really have no stake in this argument except that I'd like to see our sport move forward. Certainly, everyone on the ASTM committee is well qualified, very smart, and thoughtful individuals whom I also consider my friends and respect very much. I just wanted to point this out, especially since I didn't think it was an issue until I witnessed it myself. I hope people choose not to dismiss my warnings. Aloha, Spence.
February 20 at 11:46am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Pat said he has used the "winged" box collar in practice and meets for about a year. Only one athlete ever had an issue with it and he removed it for her because it was her first time ever seeing it, and since it was a meet he accommodated her request. He has modified the one he uses but it still hangs over the sides.

No, there is not a greater slope but the new version has been tested and meets the force requirements.

I respect your opinion and I hope the manufactures of products with angles less than the box angles take note. The slope used in this design has been evaluated thoroughly by the members of the ASTM .
February 20 at 12:09pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
THe problem I have is that I seems that Bryan is saying that because they have made a deterinmatiion ,without data, That the proposed box collar is is lees intrusive than both the prevoiuse collar designs AND "Box hugging" Pits that there was no need for independant testes to show that the proposed collar will not impeade the pole. I will for porpuses of this discussion admit that the old box collars have been nothig but an impedmnet to vaulting .
February 20 at 1:17pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
Didn't mean to send without proofing but I will continue;. As far as the pits, I have not seem a pit so close in proximity to the box that it was essentially an extension to the back and part of the side wall. Nor, haveIi seen any pit that goes into the box . It is obvious to everyone that the proposed collar is the most extensive padding ever IN and around the box. I do not understand the reasoning ( other than you think it is better than the rest) to make the top and sides if the box 4 inches higher , and think it will have no impact on bend. Bryan, you can prove me wrong with simple tests, by getting a box and extending the sides up 4 inches and at the angles proposed with a static object made of metal , wood ,cardbord ect. with a measuring devce to MEASURE the force (or not) . Have REAL vaulters that jump 17-18 feet take many real jumps. I do not understand why this has not been done."We think it's better'" just doesnt do it for me. Ive it is proven with real tests that no bend is impeded I'll be onboard. But I wont, until then.
February 20 at 1:44pm • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Greg Duplantis I understand what you asking but there is a process that takes place. Everything imaginable is discussed. Some issues are resolved quickly, others take more time, some require research and when an issue cannot be resolved to everyone's satisfaction testing is discussed. If everything imaginable had to be tested, blindly, the cost of products would skyrocket and everyone should open a testing lab.
The historical data on this area is overwhelming and is made up of every HS and college in the US for the past 10 years. The NCAA and the NFHS rules require hard surfaces in the box area be padded or, there is one company that offers a pit that if properly positioned negates the need for a collar. So every facility in the nation was providing data on the less desirable profile every time someone took a jump. That data was captured in the most comprehensive pole vault injury report ever presented. The primary point during the discussion was this new design will impact the pole far less than any other padding system (collar or pit design) on the market. The issue you are concerned about was discussed and resolved with the experience of the members and historical data.

Correct me if I am wrong but I think Spencer Chang agreed with this in his comment above "Certainly, this box collar is an improvement from previous designs." I concede he feels the slope could be improved even more, but for the purpose of this discussion, as a group, we came to an agreement using the experience and historical data.
February 20 at 1:57pm • Like
• Greg Duplantis
I respect your work and that of the ASTM panel, but do not accept that the issues that I am concerned with are resolved. It is my hypothesis that the angles proposed for the cut-out bend -cavity area are far too high to allow safe pole vaulting particularly at the Collegiate mens' level. Without testing and data ,the angles for your collar are based merely on hypothesis as well. I understand that my views are irrelavant insofar as NCAA and HS rules or designing your product for that matter, but would like to go on record as a matter of safety and the general welfare of pole vaulting in this country to request that you thouroghly and scientifically test your collar specifications, particularly the bend cavity angles , before such a device is made mandatory .
February 20 at 4:13pm • Like
• Bryan Carrel
The foam in the new collar is about 3.25" thick. This topic has nothing to do with what I personally think. I was only one of dozens involved in the process and I am sharing how, as a group, we got where we are.

If the box hugging pit was not positioned properly then you would be correct, it would not interfere with the pole however it was also not a legal (per the rules) set up nor did it provide the protection it was designed to provide. The fact that it needs to be pushed back and expose hard surface should be a concern. The same could be done with any collar. Take a look at the head on photo of this pit - http://www.ucsspirit.com/track-field/pr ... -Vault-Pit - In my experience that is properly set up and would not perform as you described. In fact the front extensions of that pit appear to be hanging over into the box.

Any testing protocol would need to be approved by the group. I for one disagree with your set up. A piece of metal does not give like a piece of foam. Vinyl will not react the same as metal when rubbed by fiberglass. Any testing would require comparison to other products to know what is and what is not acceptable and those products would need to be set up/positioned correctly.

This leads right back to the discussion points of the ASTM. We compared/discussed all of the devices, and their performance, when properly installed and positioned. With that in mind it was clear that the sloped profile is superior in performance in the bend cavity.

I feel like we are all getting really close to going fishing.......Right Tim Werner

1900 Pole Vault Pit | UCS Spirit
www.ucsspirit.com
1900 Pole Vault landing areas feature vinyl material equivalent to 37oz, three d...See More
February 20 at 4:16pm • Like • Remove Preview
• Greg Duplantis
You missed my point. I understand for instance Coefficients of friction will be different for different surfaces . Foam in your collar will create much more friction than fiberglass on metal . And stop rotation more. My point is that NO Tests were shown to have been done to tests forces from bending poles on your collars.
February 20 at 4:30pm via mobile • Like
• Greg Duplantis
I ask that you do that .. Then go fishing .
February 20 at 4:32pm via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
I wish I could give you that information, but I took the long road to saying, as a group it was not deemed necessary. Dont get me wrong we did not say it is not important we just satisfied the question as a group without load cell type testing.
February 20 at 4:33pm • Like
• Spencer Chang
I should clarify a little. I think the new box collar is better than previous box collars with vertical slopes. I'm not a big fan of the wings, and yes Pat removed them because of Katerina Stefanidi and Toby Stevenson's complaints. I don't want people to take my comments out of context. If the pole does not penetrate into the pit as well, it makes sense that there may be more landings around the box. Becca, is right in that we don't have hard facts about this, but we have enough anecdotal information that we need to look into this. Certainly, if someone lands in the box this new box collar would be safer. However, we are trying to prevent landing in the box in the first place. I do have concerns about this particular design becoming mandatory. I'm not sure who is pushing for it to be this way. However, before this is done we should all take a few steps back and think about is this the right thing to do. I'm all for innovation and thinking "outside the box", no pun intended. However, let's be honest. We really don't know the impact of this box collar on our event yet, and so we really shouldn't make it mandatory. If an elite vaulter is unable to jump at a venue because of this box collar even if it is more of a mental thing, is that good for our sport? Do you think elites and Olympians like Renaud, Fabio, Daichi, Fabiana, or Katerina for that matter would have jumped at the Reno Pole Vault Summit if theses box collars were in place? Is that a good thing for our sport?

Why is it only in America that we seem to have a safety problem?

Greg, you should make a comment about legal ramifications as well.
February 21 at 11:41am via mobile • Like
• Bryan Carrel
Spencer Chang you should become more involved in the process. The ASTM is free to attend and have even offered conference calls for people who were unable to travel. You must become a member in order to vote on standards, the fee to do so is 75.00.

One of the members of the ASTM is a law professor and has done extensive research into the specific risks of our event and the potential legal impact. This same person was an early adopter of the new collar (2 years ago) because in his opinion it reduced his liability. I can only assume the legal advisers to the NCAA did their research as well.
February 21 at 11:52am • Like
• Tim Werner
My high school coach back in the 70's always said some day we'll see the front buns collapse in together after the pole hits the back of the box. So far it seams he's half right. Maybe some futuristic day we'll see that with poles that start off like mush then straighten up faster propelling vaulters sky high. Without vision there's never improvement.
February 21 at 12:24pm via mobile • Like

[vaultmd]

Thanks, Bryan.

[KirkB]

Kudos to Bryan for patiently answering all of our questions, and also for copying the FB thread to PVP. I learned a few things from the FB dialogue, but I'm still in the dark (as is Spencer Chang and Greg Duplantis) re what the OPTIMAL angles are for the planes of the collar that follow the planes of the box.

Clearly, a collar with vertical planes following the planes of the box (the current SafetyMax+ design) will cause less interference than if the edges weren't tapered at all. The question appears to be whether this design is sufficient to avoid any and all interference. No one seems to know.

My SUSPICION is that the current design is the OPTIMAL design, but let's face it - it just LOOKS optimal because of its symmetry. This is not a time to GUESS. Now is the time to determine - by scientific methods, including scientific testing with REAL vaulters in real-world scenarios - what the optimal angle should be.

Obviously, the more obtuse (closer to 180⁰ horizontal) the angle of the collar above the faceplate, the less protection upon bodily impact. Conversely, the less obtuse (closer to 90⁰ vertical) the angle, the greater the chances of interfering with the bend of the pole.

The angle above the faceplate of the box is absolutely critical from a safety perspective - it's where I fell in the box THREE times (needing casts on my ankles - so I know from bitter personal experience - and also from Jan's injuries/deaths analysis - that's it's the hot-spot), and it might also be critical from a pole interference perspective (depending on the obtuseness of the angle).

I'm particularly concerned with the angle directly above the faceplate of the box. The angles of the collar in each corner of the bend cavity might not be as critical from a safety perspective because of their very short span, but those angles might be critical from a pole interference perspective.

So to err on the safe side, the corner angles could be more obtuse without introducing any additional safety risk. I'm 100% not certain (I would need to see close-up slo-mo vids of elite vaulters pole rotations to know for sure) but I think the front corners of the box collar's bend cavity is where the pole is at max bend).

I actually don't see this "box collar design optimization" as an issue for GILL to solve, or for the ASTM to solve (especially now that the ASTM have said that they're "done"). It's actually the NCAA's problem to solve, isn't it?

My reasoning is that they're the ones that will be sued if a someone sustains a serious injury or death if they land in the box area in an NCAA-sanctioned meet. If the NCAA were the ones that forced the host college to pass their equipment rules (by installing a SafetyMax+ or any other competitive product), AND if those rules are discovered during the course of a trial to be rushed into force without adequate testing, then the NCAA will legally be on the hook.

Of course, the college, Gill, the ASTM, and the second cousin of the head groundskeeper of the college will also be sued, but that's par for the course. It will be the NCAA's insurance company that ends up paying, if the NCAA rules are found to be inadequate to prevent the injury - or worse yet if the box collar design CAUSED the injury (due to interfering with the pole). So it's in their best interests to not only "get the design right", but also to be able to PROVE that they thoroughly tested their rules prior to enforcing them.

Kirk Bryde

[Editted 3/29 to explain obtuse angles more clearly, and to suggest that max bend occurs in the corners of the bend cavity.]

[KirkB]

In the "Safety Max PV Collar" vid on Jan’s SkyJumper’s site http://vstraining.com/sky/index.php, some very interesting points are made by Jan and a couple other coaches.

For anyone that wants the Reader’s Digest version re the SafetyMax Box Collar, I suggest you just watch this 5-minute vid, and you'll have a very good summary of what this box collar is all about and how well it works. Keep in mind that this is a pre-production prototype that doesn’t have tapered planes around the bend cavity yet.

Perhaps an update would be helpful, now that the SafetyMax+ is available. I’m particularly concerned with the additional stiffness of the ASTM-certified material POTENTIALLY adding additional interference to the pole bend.

At the 0:34 mark, you can see the pole bend to the corner of the box's bend cavity. I think these 2 corners are where the design needs to be the most obtuse angle - to prevent any possibility of the collar interfering with the pole bend.

Here’s my transcript of this vid, starring Jan Johnson, Kyle Bishop and Doak Markley ...

0:51 Jan: Every time we have a big accident now - that's in the box – it’s almost every doggone one now since 2003 …
1:00 Kyle: You don’t have trainer poles anymore, so people aren’t running full vol … on a training pole … off the back [of the pit] any more …

1:07 Jan: … and the pit’s longer and deeper and wider … but we still have every year one or two of those ... and every time I see that happen or hear of that happen it just makes me cringe. We need to eliminate that, and as far as I'm concerned, the sooner the better.

1:25 Kyle: ... this is probably the most economical way to do it. You know, you've got the soft box that’s what? $1,800?

1:31 Jan: Not counting your installation.

1:32 Kyle: Exactly! … the trigger across was a thing which … just out of liability involved with another human being making a decision … if that's [the SafetyMax is] 500 bucks and it saves a life … let’s spend the 500 bucks.

1:46 Kyle: If the box collar is as narrow as 8" apart and the mere fact that it doesn’t go all the way to the bottom … the pole will scoop all the way in and the kids haven't had any problem …

1:54 Jan: You had the front 8 inches wide, pal. It’s Kyle Bishop, by the way – Mechanicsville Virginia.

2:04 Jan: [referring to the front lip of the box] I would say that is at the most 12" wide ... it's probably 13” … I like that because you can adjust it …

2:24 Doak: Yesterday, you’d pulled it in and it migrated a little bit … then we went over and moved it back out some …

2:36 Jan: “Yeh … I think it just reinforces my attitude that there's too many hard spaces there and the box doesn't have to be nearly that big …

3:00 Kyle: As long as it funnels the pole into the place where it needs to be … at the bottom of the back of the box … you’re OK … and if not … I was a little skeptical at first …

3:09 Jan: I was too. I'll tell you what though, when we figured out how to bevel the back so that it was the same angle as the box, that was a big day … that was a big day at my house!

3:18 Kyle: And it's not catching the pole and pushing it back in like I thought …

3:22 Jan: Yeh, I think once the pole has fallen this far out, it's going to just fall that way. … it's got too much inertia at that point – it's just going to keep going.

3:30 Doak: [joking] I heard [where you were buying your foam] … I heard their stock went down after you had the angles you wanted … cuz they weren’t selling as much foam after that.

3:40 Jan: … You should have seen it … I bought about 10 of those things, they were about 2” thick … and I just kept cutting and gluing them together man. I’ve got video of the whole thing. It was pretty damn funny …

3:50 Doak: [joking] … you probably ordered a whole semi load in and you didn’t need it once you had found the right formula …

3:58 Jan: So … Doak Markley – [Williamstown HS] West Virginia … helped me at PV camps for 15 years … many, many camps … 12 years

4:08 Doak: Ohio Pennsylvania Camp …

4:13 Doak: I’m a firm believer; I mean I remember at the ground level you were talking about narrowing the box itself …

4:19 Jan: It was a year ago you and I spoke of this at this camp …

4:23 Doak: … and this accomplishes the same thing …

4:26 Jan: We were gonna make metal sides and cut ’em, because every box was the same … and make the box narrower … which meant we would’ve had to make the front buns all different and everything … to cradle it …

4:41 Jan: I think the point that one guy made was great … where it was flat right there was great … I think it’s better to be flat … around the box rather than angled cuz when you come down short and you land on those angled sides going down the pit, it’s much easier to hurt your knees and your ankles – I’ve seen that far too often – but HERE it gives you a flat area to land on … cuz that’s what happens you know, when you’re stalling … you’re looking for that spot … to put your feet … so I feel pretty good about that …

5:25 [end]

Kirk Bryde

[coach lou]

We got our new box collar in this week and have had two vault practices using it. We had no issues. When I say we had no issues, I mean NOTHING was said about it and we had no run throughs or "freak outs" due to it being in the box. That is with 18 vaulters and Monday's practice we had 12-15 vaults plus drills from short approach (270 vaults) and Wednesday's practice 5-8 vaults plus drills from full approach (144 vaults). I feel by March next year this will be a non-issue for college vaulters. We will being using it at our next three home meets. I would like to hear more from people who have recently bought and started using this collar.

[belmore]

I am all for making this event safer, never had a vaulter hurt vaulting. But we have just entered the point that we price this event out of exisitence. How many years has that existing box been jumped on? Why do we need more foam around that area? Bad coaches? Bad rules on weight and hand band limits? Where does this crap stop? When are we going to help a kid enjoy pole vaulting and not make them scared to do this? Pad this, don't jump on that. Look over at high school rodeo, I haven't seen a padded arena yet. They protect em with helmets and a pickup rider and a clown, but they compete without astme rules and people trying to make a buck on some new "safety" trick. Instead of making this event too expensive, I propose this, take fiberglass poles and make them illegal. Don't change any other rule, the pits stay the same, the standards setting stays the same and everybody jumps on alluminum or bamboo thru the high school age. No weight limits, no hand grip limits, just clear a bar and land in the foam like in the old days. Pure athletics, when they advance to collegiate competition, put a fiberglass pole in their hands and let the sponsor bidding begin. I guess I am at the end of my patience with people that want to screw up this event. If I were in charge of a collegiate team, I was told to put in a 600 dollar padding around a box that has been used for a hundred years, I would say "screw this" add the steeple chase.

[KirkB]

I am all for making this event safer, never had a vaulter hurt vaulting.

Belmont, I honestly don't understand your rant. Your complaints don't seem to be rationale. Your basic complaint seems to be that this new NCAA rule is a bad rule. But since you're "all for making this event safer", I don't understand why you're opposed to it.

Since you've "never had a vaulter hurt vaulting" I suppose you don't see the need for a padded box collar? But what about all the injuries and deaths caused by bodily impact with the hard surfaces of the box? Are you not sympathetic to the athletes and families of all these injuries and fatalities?

How much is a human life worth to YOU?

But we have just entered the point that we price this event out of exisitence.

$600 isn't much, compared to the cost of health care and human life. In my case, the UW (probably their insurance company) spent an estimated $20,000 on my rehab from PV injuries caused by missing the pit. This includes replacing my two front teeth, lots of pain medicine, and roughly a dozen casts on my ankles. A modern sized pit and a box collar might have saved most of this cost. I'm not saying I'm typical, but it only takes one ankle sprain (needing a a doctor's visit and a cast) to justify the $600. Do you dispute these economics?

And what about the "lost opportunity" costs? Every athlete that sustains a season-ending injury is a "lost opportunity" cost to the college. With scholarships costing thousands of dollars per year (wasted costs if he or she is injured), these are real costs to the college.

Modern pits with front buns and increased dimensions probably cost a LOT more than $600. Are you disputing the need for today's larger pits too? I actually think that some of the cost of the larger pits is wasted - the front buns for example. Do the front buns have to be THAT big? They could be half the size and save > $600 of foam.

The only way you're going to land on the front half of the front buns is if you're riding your pole down after an aborted jump. You don't need to land on as much foam if you're riding your pole slowly down like that. So why not reduce the size of the front buns and then spend those savings on a box collar? In fact, why not replace half the front buns with box collar material? It would be less bulky, and just as safe. Just an idea.

Why do we need more foam around that area? Bad coaches?

No matter how good or bad the coaches are, the hard surfaces around the box are EXTREMELY dangerous, and that's EXACTLY where you'll usually land when you stall. I agree that coaching is important, but you can't rely ENTIRELY on coaches. For example, the coach should teach his vaulters to land in the Coach's Box (Preferrred Landing Zone or PLZ). But does that mean that we should reduce the size of the pit down to the size of the PLZ (to save money), and then blame any bad landings outside the PLZ on "bad coaching"? Of course not! That would be absurd!

Bad rules on weight and hand band limits?

I don't think the NFHS pole rules are CAUSING stallouts or injuries - I just don't think they help much in PREVENTING them. At least not as much as they were INTENDED to help. Compliance to these rules seem like so much regulation for so little benefit.

When are we going to help a kid enjoy pole vaulting and not make them scared to do this?

I think the proposed box collars will help a kid to enjoy PV more - by preventing injuries when they make mistakes. And kids WILL make mistakes - coach or no coach - so we need to protect them from these mistakes.

Look over at high school rodeo, I haven't seen a padded arena yet. They protect em with helmets and a pickup rider and a clown, but they compete without astme rules ...

I think rodeo is far more dangerous than PV, the most danger being the hooves and horns of bulls striking the bull riders. But it's not a very good argument to compare PV to another dangerous sport. Each has its own safety issues. The trend is that more and more bull riders are wearing safety vests and helmets. This is all good, but rodeo dangers are DIFFERENT than PV dangers. There is no hard-surfaced plant box in the middle of the rodeo arena. The riders aren't landing on concrete. They have made the ground soft enough that landing injuries aren't the major problem - the temperament of the bulls is the major problem.

... people trying to make a buck on some new "safety" trick.

Gimme a break! The proposed box collar standard is not a trick - it's an excellent design! And to suggest that Gill and other manufacturers are selling snakeoil is so far from the truth that it borders on slander or libel!

Instead of making this event too expensive, I propose this, take fiberglass poles and make them illegal. ...

Well, you can propose that, Belmore, but do you really think that will be as exciting for fans to watch or for vaulters to do? If you really want to KILL our sport, then that will do it. But you're joking, of course, so no further comment is necessary.

Kirk Bryde

[beutz003]

Since you've "never had a vaulter hurt vaulting" I suppose you don't see the need for a padded box collar? But what about all the injuries and deaths caused by bodily impact with the hard surfaces of the box? Are you not sympathetic to the athletes and families of all these injuries and fatalities?

All I have read about this new box collar change is that it's performance is better and it COULD make falling into the box safer. I am curious if the underside of the "wings" are rigid so any impact into them would not cause them to buckle down into the box. Unless this is the case, then I don't see their function being any safer. Adding to that, this new collar only makes landing into the box possibly safer. It does not make vaulting overall safer, and might potentially make it less safe. This could make vaulters less fearful of landing near the box, and more fearless of taking most any bad vault up. If this mandate stays, only time will tell if it actually makes the event safer.

However, I'm not buying into it. If I can get my buddy to rate any impact forces for me at his firm, I'll just make our current collar up to the mandated standards.

....Pretty soon they will be mandating the box to be made of foam!

[GreenSilver]

What is the best laser measuring device for pole vault competitions? Is it a laser measuring device that can be picked up at the hardware store or the really expensive stuff at Gill or UCS or....?

[Decamouse]

Difference is accuracy -- believe the ones Gill and UCS use (you can also buy directly from a Leica) which has a accuracy of +/- 1 mm over 100m -- those you by at most home improvement stores (Lowes/Home Depot/Menards) are =/- 1/4" at a shorter distance -- that and the ability to but the offset in for the bar thickness is the things to look at - plus must be able to read in metric - also see if they are listed as meeting ISO 16331-1 (Rules talk about scientific instrument)