Re: t-and-f: Volzing

ok, time to weigh in my $0.02 Is it an unfair advantage if my competitor can grip 6" higher on a pole 1 foot longer than i can? it would seem that way using some people's arguments. Just to make it fair, why don't we make every vaulter jump on the same pole? of course we wouldn't! The problem w

Re: Re: t-and-f: Volzing

I tried to think of examples in other sports, similar to this Volzing rule. The closest I could come was the goaltending rule in basketball. But the significant different is that if you touch a ball in 'the cylinder', it's goaltending. None of this trying to interpret whether it was inadverten

Re: Re: t-and-f: Volzing

With the new rule specs for the standards, and the end of the crossbars, (which T&FN is now "dissing"), it makes it even MORE hard to intentionally keep the bar on. Probably almost as difficult as 'volzing' a high jump crossbar! So now there's even LESS reason for an anti-Volzing rule. RT

RE: t-and-f: Volzing

ECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 10:57 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: Volzing Here's a perspective by a 5.82 vaulter: Rulers are obviously not a vaulter. Should ask him if there is a difference in points given for a baske

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

Here's a perspective by a 5.82 vaulter: Rulers are obviously not a vaulter. Should ask him if there is a difference in points given for a basketball shot that swishes or one that bounces on the rim 4 times and then goes in. They both go in just like both vaulters go over the bar. Is there a cha

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

Glad to see you didn't take things personally. ;-) I'm sure you won't mind the rest of the list catching a glimpse of your most excellent discussion skills. Dan --- lacc7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You are so cool. Do you understand the term moron? Rules have an > intent & a meaning, henc

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

hink that contact can be reliably determined to be intentional or not is ludicrous. - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: "Dan Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:32 AM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Volzing > I officially nom

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

"MO-ron.. In a message dated 6/10/2003 11:04:00 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I officially nominate the below as the most moronic post of the year. >Anyone care to step up and challenge it for the title? > >Dan >

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

Dan wrote: >I've never understood the big deal here. "Volzing" is a skill, just like >travelling upside down on a pole is a skill. Keep it simple: You make it >over the bar and the bar stays up, then it's a make. Otherwise, it's a >miss. Just part of the event... I second it. Sheesh, from readin

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

I officially nominate the below as the most moronic post of the year. Anyone care to step up and challenge it for the title? Dan --- lacc7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I apologize as it is late: But - Do you clowns really think that > there is something analogous in your arguments? To replac

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

I've never understood the big deal here. "Volzing" is a skill, just like travelling upside down on a pole is a skill. Keep it simple: You make it over the bar and the bar stays up, then it's a make. Otherwise, it's a miss. Just part of the event... Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Desig

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

simply wrong! Leo-Original Message- From: Roger Ruth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:56 PM Subject: t-and-f: Volzing >Earlier today, someone wrote: > >>Once again, in its latest issue, Track and

Re: t-and-f: Volzing

>I am sure that it will >always be a problem for an official to judge whether the vaulter's motive And that is by far the number one problem with this rule from a judge's perspective. For many of us who got into track & field as teenagers, part of the attraction was no subjectivity in referee's d

t-and-f: Volzing

Earlier today, someone wrote: >Once again, in its latest issue, Track and Field News takes up the >question of "Volzing" and onmce again insults the iltelligence of its >readers with this offhand remarkj: "Offensive as Volzing may be to purists." > >IIt is not a question of pursist

Re: t-and-f: Volzing is wrong

> IIt is not a question of pursist, it is a question of what is right > and wrong. Volzing is a deliberate vilation of the rules, so bad that severe > penalties should be placed on vaulters who regularly use it. I am talming > about long-term suspension from the sport, not just negating the

t-and-f: Volzing is wrong

Netters: Once again, in its latest issue, Track and Field News takes up the question of "Volzing" and onmce again insults the iltelligence of its readers with this offhand remarkj: "Offensive as Volzing may be to purists." IIt is not a question of pursist, it is a question of what