I’ve known about this issue for years, and it’s bugged me all along, but it’s only now reached the point where I’m sufficiently motivated to bitch about it in writing.
I’m speaking specifically about Rule 181.8(b) Placings from the IAAF Competition Rules 2012-2013, although I assume that the NCAA rule is effectively the same. Maybe I’m overlooking something obvious, but I don’t understand the rationale at all.
If two or more athletes clear the same final height the procedure to decide the places will be the following: (a) The athlete with the lowest number of jumps at the height last cleared shall be awarded the higher place. (b) If the athletes are equal following the application of Rule 181.8(a), the athlete with the lowest total of failures throughout the competition up to and including the height last cleared, shall be awarded the higher place.
In every ball sport that I can think of, if competitor A is ahead of competitor B at some arbitrary point during the competition — halftime for example — and if A and B match each other point-for-point over the remainder of the competition, then competitor A will win. Similarly, on the track, if runner A leads runner B at the end of the Nth lap, and if both runners post exactly the same times for the remaining laps, runner A will beat runner B. But in the vertical jumps, according to Rule 181.8(b), the relative placing of jumpers can change while matching each other jump-for-jump.
For a concrete, yet still hypothetical example, consider the wHJ silver and bronze medalists this past Saturday…
189 193 197 200 203 205 2 Brigetta BARRETT o o xo xo xo xxx 3 Svetlana SHKOLINA o o o o xxo xxx
Barrett earned the silver based upon her second attempt clearance at 2.03, where Shkolina required a third attempt to clear. When both then failed to clear 2.05, Barrett’s earlier success at 2.03 was rated to be more significant than whatever had occurred at the lower heights — per 181.8(a).
But suppose that both women had cleared 2.05 on their third attempts, like so:
189 193 197 200 203 205 2 Svetlana SHKOLINA o o o o xxo xxo 3 Brigetta BARRETT o o xo xo xo xxo
Aside from making an already good competition even better, this would also have had the effect of reversing their relative placement. Since at this point they would be tied in number of jumps at the last height cleared, Rule 181.8(b) would kick in, effectively rating Shkolina’s fewer total misses to be more significant than Barrett’s fewer misses at the 2.03 height.
So what is it about clearing 2.05 that makes the misses at 1.97 and 2.00 suddenly more important? This obtuse rule seems totally counter-intuitive to me, but perhaps I'm just being dense. Can anybody explain to me why it makes sense to score them this way?
The philosophy behind the rule is simple. Priority is given to the highest bar made; after that, the lower heights are viewed in mass to determine the best overall performance with one bar being equal to all other bars.
I do not know the rational behind the Vertical Jump rules but this is a good example of an inexplicable situation. Personally, I think a tie is a tie regardless of how many attemps were made or missed. The horizontal jump tie breaker makes a little more sense but, even there, sometimes a poor jump beats a series of long fouls.
Barto wrote:The philosophy behind the rule is simple. Priority is given to the highest bar made; after that, the lower heights are viewed in mass to determine the best overall performance with one bar being equal to all other bars.
Agree or not, the philosophy is simple.
I did not know there was an official philosophy. If so, I disagree. IMO, it is the highest bar cleared, not the body of work, that should count. This seems kinda like adding style points in ski jumping.
I'm all on the side with Lonewolf and Bruce, although our opinions count for ... um, let's see... nothing at all. A tie is a tie vertically. In horizontal jumps it makes sense to count next-best attempts as tie breakers. But vertically, NO! Bruce's example is a good one. I learned to dislike the rule in college decades ago when, at the old West Coast Relays, I lost a first place (and with it one of those cool Fresno State Bulldog watches!) on misses: I was clean on first attempts up until the winning height where I had one miss and then a clearance. The winner cleared on his first attempt but had several misses at lower heights, including one at the opening height. Overall, at least in MY paradigm, I'd had a much better record whereas the winner had been sloppy, even stinky-inconsistent at much lower bar placements. So much for the "body of work" element... Ptooeey! I've always known the rule, but I have also always thought ties should be ties unless decided by a jump-off. And if there must be a scoring tie-breaker it should be on total misses throughout the competition. That way I'd have gotten my rightful Fresno State Bulldog watch instead of a stupid Bulldog belt buckle!!!
Barto wrote:The philosophy behind the rule is simple. Priority is given to the highest bar made; after that, the lower heights are viewed in mass to determine the best overall performance with one bar being equal to all other bars.
Agree or not, the philosophy is simple.
Yes, it is. And for what it's worth I like that philosophy.
lonewolf wrote:I do not know the rational behind the Vertical Jump rules but this is a good example of an inexplicable situation. Personally, I think a tie is a tie regardless of how many attemps were made or missed. The horizontal jump tie breaker makes a little more sense but, even there, sometimes a poor jump beats a series of long fouls.
Your last sentence ("Sometimes a poor jump beats a series of long fouls.") kinda jumped out at me. (No pun intended, but it works!! ) I'm NOT into technical stuff, and know extremely little about the rules of the various field events, but in my world, a foul is a foul, no matter how egregious it is.
Take baseball, for example.
If a batter hits a ball 600 feet, but it goes foul by inches, it's still a foul....and becomes just a strike......as in "three strikes, yer out!!".
If another batter hits a ball 370 feet, but it lands in the stands in FAIR territory, even if by mere inches, it is ruled a home run!!!
So who cares how many 600 foot fouls a guy hits?? It doesn't get you on base, and it doesn't score any runs.
If a LJ'er, for example, goes 30 feet, but steps over the board, it's a big "F" on his record. If another LJ'er jumps 25-5, but it's the best mark in the event, then he wins the Gold!!
As someone who primarily officiates vertical jumps and not horizontal ones the only issue that I am a little hesitant with the discounting of a miss at a lower height when passing to a higher height. To review, if a jumper (PV or HJ) misses one or two times at height h and then passes to height h + delta (delta is the increment to a higher height) and then makes that height with fewer misses than another athlete that cleared the preceding height they are placed higher in the finishing order than the other athlete.
Since the fundamental unit of the vertical jumps is that you are out when you have three consecutive misses, I think that the primary unit is the trio of allowed jumps, not the height of that jump. Thus, I would prefer to have the prior jumps in the sequence count, even if they are at a lower height because failure to clear at that lower height in the trio should mean something other than being part of the overall total of misses.
1) The current rule leads to (many?) fewer ties than the proffered rule of total misses. Further, it does not penalize as severely an athlete that comes in at a lower height as does the suggested alternative, and NH are really the bane of the sport and setting up the reward system that would lead to higher starting heights so that the better athletes did not jump as often is a dubious incentive.
2) There is more strategy in the vertical jumps that in otherwise similar events and that is an interesting element, whether everyone is fully aware of the details or not. Further, this structure is known to all and is there to be utilized by the participants. It is not like Barrett used something that the others jumpers did not have 'access' to.
3) Especially in the PV, there are technical things that enter into the process that need to be worked out because jumping is an interaction of the runway, the atmospheric conditions (especially the wind and its variability), and penetration that you get on the runway and that warmups can help resolve but not completely and since conditions change, not an hour or two later as happens in many competitions.
4) It is safer to have athletes coming in at heights that they can more easily make and to work out the details at these heights rather than waiting to higher heights because of the proposed changes in the rules.
With all due respect to lonewolf, who might be my favorite poster )along with the recently returned epelle), The structure of horizontal jumps and vertical jumps, especially the vault, are subtly but fundamentally different. In horizontal events, all attempts are created equal, in vertical jumps, an attempt that is way over the current par setting only yields the result of the current setting.
Finally, I would be interested in the opinions of Pole Vault Power because she has been involved as a participant, an official and someone with an overview of the sport (e.g., like a USATF board member that looks at the overall 'health' of the event.
From a little different perspective, what is the history of the tie-breaking rules for the vertical jumps. I remember in HS several (ten+?) years ago, they would give passing a height credit over clearing a height, with the minimum total number of jumps as one of the tie-breaking criteria.
I preferred the old rule that looked at the heights in reverse order to break the tie, not total number of misses before the last height. The rule will always be arbitrary, so it just depends on what one's competitive philosophy is. To me, the higher the height, the more importance should be attached to it.
JohnB wrote:From a little different perspective, what is the history of the tie-breaking rules for the vertical jumps. I remember in HS several (ten+?) years ago, they would give passing a height credit over clearing a height, with the minimum total number of jumps as one of the tie-breaking criteria.
I also remember that rule as a tie-breaking rule no. 3. This rule decided, for example, the winner of 1976 pole vault. In the London Olympics, it would have made Grabarz the sole bronze medalist. I asked about the rule history in another thread but nobody answered then.
Marlow wrote:I preferred the old rule that looked at the heights in reverse order to break the tie, not total number of misses before the last height. The rule will always be arbitrary, so it just depends on what one's competitive philosophy is. To me, the higher the height, the more importance should be attached to it.
This "old" rule sounds logical, but has it actually ever been in force?
1.I believe the 1932 OG HJ winner( McNaughton) was decided on a tie breaker process, that if today's methods were used, would have produced a diffferent winner. Maybe some bigger wonk than I can offer details.
2. I've officiated at many high school HJ's, and I have very often seen jumpers make poor decisions about taking 2nd or 3rd attempts that will help them not one bit, as their opponent had cleared the height on an earlier attempt. Not always a bad decision, but often it is. Why don't coaches teach their kids the rules ( if they even know them themselves) ?!
3. Back in The Day I won some, lost some, on misses. Just the name of the game.
Marlow wrote:I preferred the old rule that looked at the heights in reverse order to break the tie, not total number of misses before the last height. The rule will always be arbitrary, so it just depends on what one's competitive philosophy is. To me, the higher the height, the more importance should be attached to it.
This "old" rule sounds logical, but has it actually ever been in force?
Marlow wrote:I preferred the old rule that looked at the heights in reverse order to break the tie, not total number of misses before the last height. The rule will always be arbitrary, so it just depends on what one's competitive philosophy is. To me, the higher the height, the more importance should be attached to it.
This "old" rule sounds logical, but has it actually ever been in force?
It was THE HS rule in the 60s and 70s.
HS? Does that mean American high school? If so, I do not know anything about it. I meant international rules.
Marlow wrote:I preferred the old rule that looked at the heights in reverse order to break the tie, not total number of misses before the last height. The rule will always be arbitrary, so it just depends on what one's competitive philosophy is. To me, the higher the height, the more importance should be attached to it.
That was NEVER a rule. I challenge you to show me an old rule book that had it in writing.
I have a friend who has done some research on this topic. The only change to vertical jump tiebreaking was 40+ years ago they used to have an additional tiebreaker of total attempts (rewarding an athlete who entered at a higher height).
These rules are frequently applied incorrectly, especially at the HS level.
JohnB wrote:From a little different perspective, what is the history of the tie-breaking rules for the vertical jumps. I remember in HS several (ten+?) years ago, they would give passing a height credit over clearing a height, with the minimum total number of jumps as one of the tie-breaking criteria.
Any help here for IAAF, USATF, NCAA, HS? thanks
That hasn't been a rule for over 40 or 50 years. Many many high school officials (usually just a parent or coach) don't understand the rules and apply them wrong or make up their own.
polevaultpower wrote: I have a friend who has done some research on this topic. The only change to vertical jump tiebreaking was 40+ years ago they used to have an additional tiebreaker of total attempts (rewarding an athlete who entered at a higher height).
It cannot have been 40+ years ago, since, as I already mentioned, the winner of Montreal pole vault 1976 was determined by this rule. (Slusarski and Kalliomäki had otherwise similar records but Slusarski had skipped more heights.)
polevaultpower wrote:That was NEVER a rule. I challenge you to show me an old rule book that had it in writing.
I GUARANTEE it was the rule in New England Prep Schools before and when I jumped. It may be an assumption on my part that it was the national rule, but I very much doubt we made it up.
In a tie situation, the official looked at the last successful height to see if someone made it on fewer tries. If that was the same, it went to the next previous height and so on. If tied all the way back, it went by fewest jumps (which was our incentive to pass, sometimes perilously).
Well, one thing that I did not see discussed is that the athletes in these events know the rules and understand how important each jump is. Hence, the games we see so often in passing attempts and heights. How often have we seen Jesse Williams win an event where he has not jumped higher than competitors but wins on the count back? He may know his limit is 2.33 or 2.35 for most meets and rarely misses until that height. The athletes have to take that into account and gain consistency if they want to win. They all play by the same rules. I haven't heard any of them complain about it, though they may.
polevaultpower wrote:That was NEVER a rule. I challenge you to show me an old rule book that had it in writing.
I GUARANTEE it was the rule in New England Prep Schools before and when I jumped. It may be an assumption on my part that it was the national rule, but I very much doubt we made it up.
I am positive it was not a national rule. Maybe your local association made up their own rules, most likely your own officials made up their own rules. Did you ever see it in writing?
You would not believe the number of coaches and officials I have seen misapply these rules who are POSITIVE they are right.
odelltrclan wrote: They all play by the same rules.
They don't, because they jump in a certain order, and whoever jumps last has an advantage. And the more complex the rules, the bigger that advantage.
I don't agree with that at all. Why does whoever goes last necessarily have an advantage? Yes they may have seen what another competitor has done but that can also add up to additional pressure when the earlier competitor makes a height. That added pressure can make them miss just as much as make a height. I have heard jumpers discuss making the height to put pressure on a later jumper and you see all the time where a later jumper passes a height because an earlier jumper made it and already leads in the competition.
Last edited by odelltrclan on Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
I worked the HJ quite a lot thirty or forty years ago (and still do occasionally) before I gravitated primarily to0 the horizontal jumps. There was definitely a third count back tie-breaker of total attempts but without digging out old rule books I don't know when it changed.
Someone commented about coaches and athletes not knowing the HJ rules.In my experience, this is still fairly common in HS but when I work college HJ, I am impressed and sometimes a little amused, that the athletes know the rules and where they currently stand as well, or better, than the official with the clipboard.
odelltrclan wrote: I have heard jumpers discuss making the height to put pressure on a later jumper and you see all the time where a later jumper passes a height because an earlier jumper made it and already leads in the competition.
Exactly, and that later jumper can make the decision to pass without wasting that attempt precisely because he or she's the later jumper. Being the later jumper gives you additional knowledge, and that's an advantage.
As a former High Jumper, I was very dumb in high school as to the rules and how best to apply them. I watched a video tape to learn how to high jump, and my coach was more concerned with the sprinters and left me to my own devices, even though I was a 7+ foot high jumper. I knew I could pass bars and that I could actually walk under the bar after a clearance, but past that I knew very little. Meets were not ran the best, and rules were often times made up.
But when I got to college, I was educated on the rules. But even in the college meets, where we had experienced officials, Rules were often misinterpreted.
I am now a College Coach and I am constantly correcting officials on what the rules should be and how best to interpret them. They all mean well, but there has been a long history of doing things a little differently that has altered what many view to be the actual rule.
A great example of this was this year at our Conference meet in the horizontal jumps. I had an official tell me that my athlete could not walk back towards the board on a bad jump make it a foul and not measure it. I showed him my current rule book where it clearly states that you can do that and he tried to tell me that there were "case studies" and "interpretations" that supersede that rule and thus make it irrelevant.
Sometimes officials just do what makes sense to them, and that is the nature of the beast, so to speak...
repmujhgih wrote:A great example of this was this year at our Conference meet in the horizontal jumps. I had an official tell me that my athlete could not walk back towards the board on a bad jump make it a foul and not measure it. I showed him my current rule book where it clearly states that you can do that and he tried to tell me that there were "case studies" and "interpretations" that supersede that rule and thus make it irrelevant.
Except, if I'm reading this right, you are incorrect. If a jumper walks back through the sand, he's just shortening what the jump was. He can't MAKE it a foul, as the throwers do by intentionally stepping out of the circle to the front. That said, most officials won't bother to measure it if it's obvious that's the jumper's intent.
repmujhgih wrote:A great example of this was this year at our Conference meet in the horizontal jumps. I had an official tell me that my athlete could not walk back towards the board on a bad jump make it a foul and not measure it. I showed him my current rule book where it clearly states that you can do that and he tried to tell me that there were "case studies" and "interpretations" that supersede that rule and thus make it irrelevant.
Except, if I'm reading this right, you are incorrect. If a jumper walks back through the sand, he's just shortening what the jump was. He can't MAKE it a foul, as the throwers do by intentionally stepping out of the circle to the front. That said, most officials won't bother to measure it if it's obvious that's the jumper's intent.
Marlow is correct. If the jumper makes a legal landing and exit, he/she cannot negate the jump by re-entering the pit and walking back.. if the jumper walks back without exiting, he/she is shortening the jump. HOWEVER, if first foot contact with the ground outside the pit is nearer the board than closest impression in the sand, it is a foul. This rule has been in effect for several years. Formerly the jumper could tap a toe in the corner of the pit and foul the jump. I am not familiar with any "case studies" or "interpretations" in this regard. It is pretty straight forward.
polevaultpower wrote:That was NEVER a rule. I challenge you to show me an old rule book that had it in writing.
I GUARANTEE it was the rule in New England Prep Schools before and when I jumped. It may be an assumption on my part that it was the national rule, but I very much doubt we made it up.
In a tie situation, the official looked at the last successful height to see if someone made it on fewer tries. If that was the same, it went to the next previous height and so on. If tied all the way back, it went by fewest jumps (which was our incentive to pass, sometimes perilously).
I was a New York State HS kid, and at least up through 1961 ( my senior year) a tie was a tie was a tie, with points divided). No fewer misses, no fewer attempts, no jump offs, no nothing. Individually, we athletes would flip for gold/silver, red/blue awards.
On the NCAA level the same was the case until, I believe about 1963. Need help on this one. I recall ties competing as frosh in 1962, and fewer misses as a junior in 1964. So must be around there somewhere.
odelltrclan wrote: They all play by the same rules.
They don't, because they jump in a certain order, and whoever jumps last has an advantage. And the more complex the rules, the bigger that advantage.
I believe that as to the slight advantage of jumping further down in the order, the typical practice is to "seed" the jumpers so the ones with the best seasonal prs jump the furthest down. Ditto in horizontals and throws.
dukehjsteve wrote:I believe that as to the slight advantage of jumping further down in the order, the typical practice is to "seed" the jumpers so the ones with the best seasonal prs jump the furthest down. Ditto in horizontals and throws.
