New Box Collar Rule Interpretation (USTFCCCA)

[PV2020]

Has the Skydex Soft Vault Box been ASTM certified? It would still be considered a 'collar that is incorporated into the box' and all collars must meet ASTM standards.

Also I have just always found it fishy that Gill releases the Safety Max, then ASTM comes out with a set of standards that match it almost identically (with some slight variations), and then it is all pushed into rule in almost one year. I have never seen a Safety Max at an NCAA meet, and the ones I have heard of they were sometimes asked to be removed. The only soft box I have ever seen is the one at Penn State and I do not think it is a Skydex so it would need to have a collar as well. You can say all you want that ASTM is just made up of voting members, bla, bla, bla, but no one even knew they had anything to do with the mats in pole vaulting until they made this stupid rule.

[PVJunkie]

Has the Skydex Soft Vault Box been ASTM certified? It would still be considered a 'collar that is incorporated into the box' and all collars must meet ASTM standards

YES the Skydex Vault box has been tested in accordance with the ASTM. That is why I was sharing that sites utilizing that product will not be affected by the rule change, they are already in compliance.

Also I have just always found it fishy that Gill releases the Safety Max, then ASTM comes out with a set of standards that match it almost identically (with some slight variations), and then it is all pushed into rule in almost one year.

The research, development and testing of the product had been going on for years before it was introduced in the catalog. A lot of people were following the progress of the device. To those who don't know better it would appear to be quick but in reality it was a very thought out, long, deliberate process.

I have never seen a Safety Max at an NCAA meet, and the ones I have heard of they were sometimes asked to be removed. The only soft box I have ever seen is the one at Penn State and I do not think it is a Skydex so it would need to have a collar as well.

Since that style collar was a bit more expensive and most sites already had some version of a collar, not many sites had upgraded to them yet. There were over 200 sites with a winged collar in use before the publication of the ASTM a few months ago. Thousands of vaulters performed millions of jumps on them over several years without incident. Unfortunately there was no way to expose every vaulter at every level. There must not have been one in your area. I have posted a large number of photos and videos if you are interested in learning more about the design.

You can say all you want that ASTM is just made up of voting members, bla, bla, bla, but no one even knew they had anything to do with the mats in pole vaulting until they made this stupid rule.

I am sorry you feel that way but the ASTM for pole vault Saftey has been around for more than a decade. They have produced several standards that have affected pole vault related products and rules at every level. Don't be mistaken, an ASTM is not a rule, It is a voluntary standard that rules makers/industry can use if they choose to do so. The NCAA rules committee chose to use this one to address a problem. Here is their rationale for doing so - Rationale: To provide as much padding around fixed and solid objects as possible to absorb a possible impact. The NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports recommended this proposal for safety purposes.

You should consider joining the ASTM. It is a volunteer based organization. Joining is free but to vote you must have a paid membership ($75.00). There are some criteria that must be met to be a voting member but it appears you will do so without question.

[Decamouse]

Skydex Soft box has been around for years - an NCAA Regional was run at a site that has one in the past. It was IAAF certified years ago and vaulters have vaulted over 19' on them.

Regarding what ASTM standard Bryan is referring to I am not sure. In particular I do not believe it meets F2949 unless it is only the performance testing portion. It will not meet the dimensional critieria in every aspect unless F2949 is revised.

I have been at meets at colleges that have had this type collar and no one said a word. Does not mean that holds true everywhere.

We will have a new one that "meets the requirements" where I coach this year. I also have concerns about what really meets or will meet versus pictures I have already seen.

Collar dwg various thickness.jpg (40.3 KiB) Viewed 15743 times

[rainbowgirl28]

NCAA clarifies that the ASTM box collars need to have wings to comply with the NCAA rule.

http://content.ncaa.org/vo/?FileID=abad ... D=27422622





VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

MEMORANDUM


October 18, 2013


TO: Head Men’s and Women’s Track and Field Coaches, Directors of Athletics and Conference
Commissioners.

FROM: John McNichols, chair
NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee

Bob Podkaminer, secretary rules-editor
NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee.

SUBJECT: Pole Vault Box Padding Rule Clarification.


This memorandum is to provide clarification to NCAA members that the NCAA’s pole vault box padding rule requires all pole vault box collars to contain padding in and around the pole vault box collar, as required by the applicable ASTM specification standard (designation F2949-12), including on the part of the box collar arm that extends down the inner sidewall of the pole vault box (referred to in the ASTM specification as a “box collar wing”). Doing so will give effect to the NCAA’s purpose in adopting the rule – to reduce the risk of injury to student-athletes caused by impact in and around the pole vault box.

The NCAA’s pole vault box padding rule, approved in early 2013 by the NCAA Men’s and Women’s Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee (“Rules Committee”) and the Playing Rules Oversight Panel (“PROP”), requires pole vault box collars to be in place by December 1, 2013. Additionally, the rule specifies that each box collar must meet the most current ASTM specification standard and be capable of being incorporated into the design of the pole vault box or serve as a padding addition to an existing pole vault box.

ASTM, through ASTM Committee F08 on Sports Equipment and Facilities (Subcommittee F08.67), adopted designation F2949-12 as the specification standard for pole vault box collars.

The NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sport (“CSMAS”) recommended adoption of the pole vault box padding rule for safety purposes to further reduce the risk of student-athlete injury caused by impact with the pole vault box. There is substantial evidence demonstrating that a number of pole vault injuries occur when student-athletes land in or around the vault box. The box collar padding rule adopted by the NCAA was designed to mitigate such injuries by providing as much padding around fixed and solid objects as possible to absorb the potential impact from a student-athlete.

At the time of the rule’s adoption, the Rules Committee, PROP, and CSMAS determined that pole vault box collars with padding inside the box collar would provide student-athletes with greater protection from injury than what would be provided by box collars without such padding. Additionally, the NCAA found that ASTM designation 2949-12 – which ensures padding inside the box collar through the use of box collar wings (in addition to other padding around the box collar) – adequately addresses the NCAA’s concerns about student-athlete injuries caused by impact with the pole vault box. The NCAA does not consider such padding, to be located on the part of the box collar arm that extends down the inner sidewall of the pole vault box, to be optional under the ASTM specification. Rather, the standard provides adequate specificity regarding the nature, purpose, dimensions, and need for padding inside the box, through box collar wings. This interpretation is consistent with the NCAA’s rationale for revising the rule – to enhance student-athlete safety.

In view of the foregoing, the Rules Committee hereby clarifies that its pole vault box padding rule requires the use of box collars that comply with the current ASTM standard, which specifies the inclusion of padding inside the box collar through the use of box collar wings.

The Rules Committee has no intention of changing or altering the rule, and expects all Division I, II, and III members to be compliant with the rule by December 1, 2013. However, you are encouraged to contact the NCAA if you discover that compliant pole vault box collars are not adequately available in the marketplace.

Please contact Rachel Seewald at rseewald@ncaa.org or 317­-917­-6141 if you have any questions regarding this communication.


CJT

cc: Mr. Sam Seemes
Men’s and Women’s Track and Field/Cross Country Rules Committee
Playing Rules Oversight Panel (PROP)
Selected NCAA Staff Members

[Decamouse]

ASTM had meeting and std was to be discussed. I had to miss meeting. Have not heard much on that front and ! december is getting close.

[rainbowgirl28]

ASTM had meeting and std was to be discussed. I had to miss meeting. Have not heard much on that front and ! december is getting close.

I will be posting a lengthy update later today or tomorrow, just having a few other people look it over first to make sure I am clearly and accurately explaining the situation. There was less yelling at the meeting than I expected haha.

[napalaw]

ASTM had meeting and std was to be discussed. I had to miss meeting. Have not heard much on that front and ! december is getting close.

I was in Jax for the ASTM meeting, a lot was discussed over 6 hours that I'm sure others can better summarize everything that was discussed. As for votes, two were taken:

-As to the proposed revision to change the labeling requirements (ie. ASTM conformity language), an objection was not overturned and, thus, the revision was killed. Existing labeling requirements remain unchanged

-as for the F2949 standard itself, the subcommittee voted 24-8 (I think) to put a ballot to the main ASTM committee to withdraw the standard. As of today, the standard remains active but is subject to pending the official vote to withdraw.

Hope that helps.

[Decamouse]

Two weeks until the 1 December date -- and nothing is clear -- what is the NCAA take on the ASTM meeting - are collars available that meet the standard - yet to see one - or will they even be required -- guess best course of action at this point is no action - wait and see

[rainbowgirl28]

Two weeks until the 1 December date -- and nothing is clear -- what is the NCAA take on the ASTM meeting - are collars available that meet the standard - yet to see one - or will they even be required -- guess best course of action at this point is no action - wait and see

The NCAA had a representative at the meeting and she is reporting to them what happened. I have absolutely no idea what they are going to do with that information.

[PV2020]

ASTM had meeting and std was to be discussed. I had to miss meeting. Have not heard much on that front and ! december is getting close.

I was in Jax for the ASTM meeting, a lot was discussed over 6 hours that I'm sure others can better summarize everything that was discussed. As for votes, two were taken:

-As to the proposed revision to change the labeling requirements (ie. ASTM conformity language), an objection was not overturned and, thus, the revision was killed. Existing labeling requirements remain unchanged

-as for the F2949 standard itself, the subcommittee voted 24-8 (I think) to put a ballot to the main ASTM committee to withdraw the standard. As of today, the standard remains active but is subject to pending the official vote to withdraw.

Hope that helps.

In summary:

The original ASTM sub committee was made secretly of people in favor of the Safety Max+ design (mostly people related to the testing or creating of the product or in close connection of those).

Once the rule passed and people found out there was a committee that voted on it in the first place, they joined the committee and voted against it.

[KYLE ELLIS]

We really need a Facebook "Like" button on here

[VaultPurple]