Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: high jump at-large/divisional 2nd and 3rd place qualifiers...

  1. #1

    high jump at-large/divisional 2nd and 3rd place qualifiers...

    a league i help with (but don't coach in) has been struggling with matching its league constitution rules with the qualifying jump marks since there are multiple divisions in the same league. the constitution says raise the bar in 2" increments--of course this means bypassing minimum qualifying standards depending on if you start with an even or odd number for the opening height.

    while i think common sense (which, apparently, is not as common as i think it is) would say allow kids to jump at their minimum heights since others can pass to the next height, some felt the rules are the rules. i'd imagine most on the message board would agree with me (but i could be wrong), and that at their next constitutional league meeting, just change the rule for the future.

    that said, i don't think this is addressed at all at the c.i.f. level. maybe hal can chime in on this, but should c.i.f. codify this by stating that leagues should allow athletes to jump at qualifying heights, especially since they can change every year? or, if it has been codified at the c.i.f. level, can someone direct me to the rule?

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Riverside, CA
    Posts
    171
    I certainly do not speak for Hal, or anyone at CIF, but I am fairly confident that CIF does not want to begin to perscribe to leagues what heights or progressions they should use for their championships and thus would not be willing to codify it.
    In my position as a timer I have seen many leagues that have progressions that would match certain heights for qualifying. Some leagues also start with 2 inch high jump progressions and then switch to 1 inch increments to hit certain heights and then even go back to 2 inch increments above these specific heights. The same is true in pole vault.
    It seems that the coaches should change the constitution to eliminate specific language which specifies the heights/progressions and then just agree on a progression at the seed meeting, presumably to include the qualifying heights.

    Just my opinion
    Keith Chann
    Chemistry teacher
    XC Fan
    Rubidoux High School

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    231
    I can't and don't speak for the Southern Section Office, only Rainer Wulf can address this problem from the CIF's perspective. Yes, it does get complicated in multi-division leagues with the vertical events.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •