Incidents Involving Winged Box Collars

[rainbowgirl28]

No jury is going to expect school administrators to purchase a $75 ASTM standard and attempt to interpret whether or not two similar looking collars meet it.

[DLM]

not sure how so much a safety issue this is yet, but it has to do with the shape of the box collar. At a high school meet that was held in Chehalis,Washington on Wed the 25th as vaulters would attempt to push the pole away from the pit the pole would at time catch inside of the notched of the collar and return the pole with enough force to knock the cross bar off. I have also seen this happen to my vaulters when they are at practice, only in reverse. As they are doing poop up, the pole will catch under the collar and against the pit snapping the pole back up or pulling against the vaulter arm while the arm is not in the best position to have this done. In my opinion the right angle notched should have had a rounded radius to keep this from happening

[VaultPurple]

This is not an incident more than a reiteration of the debate that it may provide a false since of security.

Today at practice I had a male vaulter (15'10 PR) say "I know your not going to want to hear this, but I actually like the new box collar". When I asked him why he said "Because now I really have no excuse not to turn up on a pole".

Now do not get me wrong, I love a guy that is not afraid to grip it and rip it. But here you have a case of a guy with a PR of almost 16' feet saying that he is willing to turn any pole up because he has the box collar to land on. Little did he know, the new collar can only prevent catastrophic injury from heights of about 12'6.

[KirkB]

I agree with Decamouse. I spoke about this in-person with Becky Oakes in December. The NFHS requires you to use a collar that states it meets the ASTM standard. The NFHS is not attempting to interpret the standard or figure out if a certain collar actually meets the standard, nor do they expect high school coaches or administrators to do so. If there is an issue, then that will be on that manufacturer in a lawsuit.

The NFHS rules require "planting box padding meeting the applicable ASTM Specification Standard" NOT padding "that states it meets the ASTM standard." The lawsuit against the manufacturer that is blithley referred to above will be a lawsuit that has the high school's coaches and administrators as parties. If that lawsuit involves the UCS collar, there is a greater liability risk for the coaches and administrators who chose the UCS collar that might meet the ASTM standard rather than the Gill collar that clearly does. Becky Oakes' conversation with Becca in December 2014 will be of no use in that lawsuit. Until the NFHS rule is changed, the ASTM standard is changed or clarified, or the question of whether the UCS collar meets the current ASTM standard is resolved, the Gill collar is the prudent choice from a risk management standpoint.

This is the earliest post that I can find that asserts that the NFHS rules require "planting box padding meeting the applicable ASTM Specification Standard". I believe this assertion by Darth Vaulter, RG, Decamouse, and Becky Oates to be incorrect (unless the NFHS memo is incorrect, incomplete, or outdated).

The underlining and bolding of the word "require" is mine, as that one word seems to be the difference between the NCAA rule and the NFHS rule about box collars.

On their box collar web page (http://www.gillathletics.com/store/product/safetymax-vault-box-collar?part=719), Gill quote the "NCAA Rule Announcement" and the "NFHS Rule Announcement". I assume these announcements to be the most up-to-date from each.

The pages quoted are:

http://www.gillathletics.com/store/documents/ncaa%20astm%20vault%20box%20collar.pdf and
http://www.gillathletics.com/store/documents/NFHS%20Memo%20719.pdf .

What I hadn't noticed before (and perhaps some of you are unaware as well) is that the NCAA rule makes a winged box collar MANDATORY (i.e. required, but the NFHS rule only allows it.

In other words, the NCAA requires that a SafetyMax+ (or equivalent product meeting the ASTM spec) must be used at all NCAA sanctioned meets, whereas the NFHS simply state that if any part of the box collar is within the box itself (as opposed to being above the box, or around the box), then that box collar is permissible.

The Memorandum from NFHS states (in part):

Rule 7-5-24…The planting box shall not contain any foreign materials except
planting box padding. Such padding, if used, shall meet the applicable ASTM
Specification Standard, and can be incorporated into the design of the planting
box or can be a padding addition to an existing planting box.

The words "if used" are also important to the clarity of this rule.

This avoids the situation where a high school meet is held at a college with the box collar installed, and some coach arguing that the box collar isn't allowed because it's not compliant with NFHS rules.

This NFHS rule announcement avoids this situation. But this is a far cry from stating that the new box collar with wings is required at all NFHS sanctioned meets.

So I see no reason why the UCS (wingless) box collar isn't allowed to be used for HS meets. In fact, is there even an NFHS rule requiring box collars at all? If there is, it wasn't mentioned in this memo.

Please clarify if I have misread the NFHS rule announcement, or if there's more to it since this April 4, 2013 memorandum.

I would also be interested in knowing if any HS meets took place where there wasn't a box collar, or if there was one, whether it didn't have wings? If every HS met the NCAA rule (as opposed to the NFHS rule), then it's a moot point that wings were not required for HS meets.

Kirk

[Darth Vaulter]

Here is the full text of Section 5, Article 24 from the 2014 NFHS Rule Book:

"ART. 24 . . . The planting box shall not contain any foreign materials except planting box padding. Such padding, if used, shall meet the applicable ASTM Specification Standards, and can be incorporated into the design of the planting box or can be a padding addition to an existing planting box.

NOTES:

1. Padding meeting the ASTM Standards may be used immediately, subject to rejection or conditional approval by state association action.

2. Padding meeting the ASTM Standards shall be required for the start of the 2014-15 track and field season."

I don't have the 2015 Rule Book so I don't know if or how Note 2 was incorporated into the rule itself.

[KirkB]

... from the 2014 NFHS Rule Book:

...

"2. Padding meeting the ASTM Standards shall be required for the start of the 2014-15 track and field season."

Thanks for that 2014 Rule Book excerpt, Darth Vaulter. Does anyone have the 2015 Rule Book to verify that it's the same?

So unless the 2015 Rule Book is different (doubtful), then the April 4, 2013 memo on Gill's website is outdated and misleading.

It's very strange that Gill has not kept their website updated.

Kirk

[KirkB]

NFHS stated they require compliance with ASTM - it is the manufacture that states they comply -- NCAA stated they need to be version with wings - NFHS does not - so the UCS is acceptable -Gill says/implies that NFHS requires wings which is not true - NFHS requires an ASTM box collar

Going back to this post by Decamouse (March 6, 2015), he says that "Gill says/implies that NFHS requires wings which is not true ...".

From the Gill web page that I quoted, they say the opposite, and it's not a Gill interpretation of a rule, it's a memo directly from the NFHS.

Between statements from Decamouse, Becky Oates, and Darth Vaulter on this thread, we have yet to see a quote from a 2015 Rule Book that says that "the NFHS requires wings" or "the NFHS requires an ASTM box collar".

Decamouse: You did state "check this web site" in one of your posts, but you didn't give us the link. Can you please do that now?

Very confusing.

Kirk

[Decamouse]

I have a 2015 Rule book at home and will quote or scan and attach the section -- later tonight

2015 Rule 7 Section 5 Art 14 -- "Plant box padding meeting the applicable ASTM Specification Standards is required and shall cover any hard and unyielding surface including between the planting box and all pads. Such padding can be incorporated into the design of the planting box or can be padding addition to an existing planting box"

This allows softbox installations - does not require wings -- ASTM std does not require them - it gives specifications "if" they have wings

Question -- What did the NCAA use at recent Nationals in Eugene?

[pv161]

the UCS box collars were used.

[KirkB]

Question -- What did the NCAA use at recent Nationals in Eugene?

the UCS box collars were used.

So much for only the Gill box collar meeting both NCAA and NFHS rules.

I quoted the links on Gill's site re the 2013 NCAA and NFHS memos, but (according to the 2015 Rules quoted by Decamouse), the NFHS memo published on the Gill website is outdated.

Furthermore, in the Gill Catalog ( http://www.gillathletics.com/pdf/2015_Gill_Track_Catalog.pdf ), they say:

NO WINGS NO WAY!
Effective in the 2015 season, the 719 SafetyMax+ Vault Box Collar will be the only one to meet ASTM F2949 standards as mandated by the NFHS.

Other box collars do not have wings that properly descend into the vault box as shown in the ASTM Standard F2949-12, and thus are not NFHS or NCAA legal. Only the 719 SafetyMax+ Box Collar from Gill Athletics has the exclusive edge-wrap protection of a winged design, as illustrated in the ASTM F2949-12 Standard.

So the 2015 Gill Catalog is also (apparently) inaccurate.

My conclusions:
1. NCAA rules require wings.
2. NFHS rules do not require wings.
3. Gill is falsely advertising their box collar (the UCS box collar is legal for HS meets).
4. NCAA is not enforcing their own box collar rule (they allowed the UCS box collar at their 2015 Nationals).

These conclusions are based entirely on official, written documents from NCAA, NFHS, and Gill. I didn't use any hearsay or subjectivity to arrive at these conclusions.

True or false?

What a confusing mess!

Kirk

[KirkB]

It looks like Gill and UCS may have a difference of opinion about what collars meet the NCAA and NFHS rules.

The difference between the two box collar designs is that the UCS collar is cantilevered over the box on each side, but does not wrap down into the box; whereas the Gill collar wraps down into the box (below runway level).

According to the UCS website (http://www.ucsspirit.com/track-field/product-detail.cfm/category/Pole-Vault/subcategory/Pole-Vault-Accessories/product/Box-Collar-2-3-09-16), but not according to the Gill website (http://www.gillathletics.com/pdf/2015_Gill_Track_Catalog.pdf), the UCS collar is fully compliant.

In part, the UCS website states ...

The NEW UCS Pole Vault Box Collar System Meets ASTM F2949-12 Standard to be compliant with 2015 NCAA & NFHS Rules

Considering that the 2015 NCAA Championships used the UCS box collar, I'm assuming that their claim must be true, and the Gill collar is NOT the only one that's compliant (contrary to their 2015 catalogue, which I quoted in my previous post).

Given this information which I just now discovered on the UCS site, I amend my conclusions in my previous post to ...

My conclusions:
1. NCAA rules require wings, which may be cantilevered above the box, or may wrap down into the box.
2. NFHS rules do not require wings.
3. Gill is falsely advertising their box collar (the UCS box collar is legal for both HS and NCAA meets).
4. NCAA is enforcing their box collar rule (the UCS box collar at the 2015 NCAA Championships was compliant).

Are these conclusions now correct?

If so, what ever happened to truth in advertising, and when will Gill correct their error?

Kirk