Lavillenie cries after 6.07 pole vault ruled invalid

Looks like when the bar bounced it didn't land back in its default position. That wasn't a very clean jump so I'd say that was a fair call. I can sympathize with the guy though...

If you watch the video, in the end it shows that the bar did come off the pegs. It happened to rest on a support bar next to the pegs. Therefore invalid.

2. An athlete fails if:

(a) after the vault, the bar does not remain on both pegs.

Page 178 of IAAF Rule Book.

This still shot makes it seem like it is still on the pegs, but it does show that it has moved off-center. So if it bounces, it can be rule invalid if it isn't in the exact same spot?

https://twitter.com/michellesamm/status/308330086665428993/photo/1

The right call was made. If the bar had landed back on both pegs, it would have been a good jump. With is landing on the top of the standard , the bar was technically dislodged.

coachwk wrote:

The right call was made. If the bar had landed back on both pegs, it would have been a good jump. With is landing on the top of the standard , the bar was technically dislodged.

Sorry for my ignorance, but could you explain the difference between the pegs and the standard?

Mike R.M. wrote:

This still shot makes it seem like it is still on the pegs, but it does show that it has moved off-center. So if it bounces, it can be rule invalid if it isn't in the exact same spot?

https://twitter.com/michellesamm/status/308330086665428993/photo/1

Look at that shot again. It perfectly shows that it is not on the little pegs that stick out. It shows it on top of the support beam.

It has to land back on the little pegs.

Watch the video and you will see.

Mike R.M. wrote:

coachwk wrote:

The right call was made. If the bar had landed back on both pegs, it would have been a good jump. With is landing on the top of the standard , the bar was technically dislodged.

Sorry for my ignorance, but could you explain the difference between the pegs and the standard?

The pegs are what the cross bar rests on. The standard is what holds the pegs. Let me throw this out, if the bar had come off and been caught on another part of the standard to where it hadn't completely fallen, should it have counted?

Now I see! Thanks for your patience. I always imagined that the bar set right on top of the standard. (Our lousy high school high jump standard didn't have pegs.) It seems those pegs would keep the bar on better than if it just set on top.

Not sure what you are asking? bounces and lands on the pegs it starts OK jump lands anywhere that is not the same set of pegs it started out on Not Good.

Bounces off floor hits officials hat bounces up hits the light fixture lands on the same pegs it started alas Not Good... but worth the appeal!!

Mike,

Im glad to clear things up. High jump standards either rest on top or, in newer standards, the standards have and arm that adjusts up. The pegs do seem like it would be better because they are wider than the part of the standards that the bar would rest upon. IT can jump all it wants but if it doesn't rest on the original pegs than it would be a foul.

In my mind he cleared it. He went over and the bar didn't fall. Yes it moved but I have seen plenty of high jump and pole vault competitions where the bar moves. If the peg would have been higher like the ones our state uses for its state championship meet it wouldn't have had anything for it to lay on top of and it would have laid in its original position. Either way in my mind he cleared it and prob in his mind too!

Another fact for you guys that applies to High Jump and Pole Vault: If you brush the bar on the way over and it is wobbling, running off of the mat before the bar falls does not mean that you are credited with a make. If the bar falls, even after you get off of the landing pad, it is a miss.

I was surprised that R.L. reacted the way that he did. The longer (75mm vs current 55mm) pegs that bubka is sometimes blamed for (unfairly, perhaps) wouldn't have helped in this case.

It was a pretty damn fantastic jump (as was the 601 clearance). Lets hope that he can put up something big later this year.

orangecrush wrote:

In my mind he cleared it. He went over and the bar didn't fall. Yes it moved but I have seen plenty of high jump and pole vault competitions where the bar moves. If the peg would have been higher like the ones our state uses for its state championship meet it wouldn't have had anything for it to lay on top of and it would have laid in its original position. Either way in my mind he cleared it and prob in his mind too!

Specs for high school standards aren't the same as IAAF with regards to the offsets and pegs, but some crossbars are more forgiving than others, standards have a bit more sway...He almost certainly is capble of clearing this, but heartbraking misses like this happen all the time (I'd telll the story about how high my PR would be if the pegs hadn't been changed from long to short while I was in colege, but it is only conjecture at this point).

Uh...who cares about pole vault.

Many people. Nobody cares about you not caring.

The style of journalism in that article about Lavillenie, which is the yahoo.com style, is juvenile and I don't need to see more puerile comments at the bottom of purportedly factual stories.

Thanks for the link to the video. That's a miss.

Not only does the article not bother to tell you where this happened, but it calls it the second highest vault in history ...and then cites two higher ones by Bubka.