When the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee held its 2002 annual meeting in June, it was a foregone conclusion that rules changes in the pole vault were going to be made because of a series of deaths and injuries to vaulters earlier in the year.

Sure enough, the committee approved several measures intended to enhance competitors' safety and recommended that the changes be effective with the 2002-03 indoor season. That recommendation, and the decisions that occurred afterward because of it, have raised a concern on the necessity of a committee with only rules-making responsibilities.

One of the changes the committee proposed in June increased the minimum size of the pole vault landing pad. Given the estimated cost of $8,000 to $10,000 for a new landing-pad system, or $1,000 to $3,000 to add pads to an existing system, the proposal had to be approved by the division governance committees under their responsibility of addressing playing rules that involve significant financial impact to institutions.

The first step in that process was approval by the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet, and the Divisions II and III Championships Committees. All three groups supported the change at their next meetings, but those were not until mid- to late September.

In Divisions II and III, the respective Management Councils also must support the Championships Committees' approval. Those two bodies met in October.

The Division III Management Council endorsed the immediate change to the landing-pad size. The Division II Council also agreed to the larger size, strongly encouraging implementing the new rules in the 2002-03 season, but delaying mandatory compliance until the 2003-04 indoor season.

"Certainly, the Council had no disagreement with providing a safer environment for student-athletes participating in the pole vault," said Mike Marcil, commissioner of the North Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and Management Council chair at the time. "However, the academic year had already started and most, if not all, institutions had completed their budgeting cycles. The Council did not believe it was appropriate to force the expenditure on schools at that point."

The Division II Presidents Council subsequently overturned the Management Council's action and approved the Championships Committee's recommendation, citing student-athlete health and safety as being of utmost importance.

While the final result of all the votes was exactly what the track and field committee wanted, the meeting schedules of the various groups left institutions with a limited amount of time to comply with the new rules and the NCAA communications staff behind schedule on the publishing of the 2003 rules book. It also put manufacturers in a difficult position to fill last-minute orders placed by NCAA schools.

Case for separation

Since the track and field committee currently has both championships administration and rules-making responsibilities, it is logical that it meets after each year's outdoor championships. The 2003 Division I national meet will be June 11-14. In order to give Division I committee members a chance to return to their institutions and tend to their duties after the championships, a late June date is the earliest possible time for the committee meeting.

If a separate track and field rules committee was established, it could meet in late winter or early spring each year. That would allow for rules proposals needing governance approval to be addressed during those groups' June and July sessions.

A track and field rules committee would not be as large as the existing 28-person group (12 from Division I and eight each from Divisions II and III).

"With 28 members, you can expect that some of them are much more interested in the championships portion of the committee work than the rules, and vice versa," said John Kane, chair of the track and field committee and senior associate athletics director at Boston College. "Forming two committees, and placing persons on them that are especially interested in their respective duties, could enhance the sport even more."

Of course, there are several advantages to the current rules-making process. Many of the proposals for rules changes each year are developed after situations that occur at the division outdoor championships.

"A rules committee that meets in March or April would not have the benefit of knowing what took place during most of the outdoor season, let alone the championships," said Margaret Simmons, secretary-rules editor of the track and field committee and assistant athletics director at Murray State University. Simmons added that she always reviews coaches' appeals of officials' decisions from the Division I indoor and outdoor championships to determine if the rules involved need to be reviewed.

Challenges to overcome

Track and field committee members attend their division's cross country and indoor and outdoor track and field championships each year. Simmons believes this is a benefit to the rules-making process that may be lost with a switch to a rules-only committee.

"All of the persons who vote on rules proposals witness the rules in action at the national championships and other meets they attend during the year," Simmons said. "That is a valuable asset when the time comes to deliberate adding new rules or changing existing ones. In addition, coaches will trust you, and the decisions you make, if they see you actively involved at meets.

"If coaches and administrators on a separate rules committee do not have athletes that qualify for the NCAA meets, they may not go unless their expenses are covered."

Indeed, the expense issue is one that will need to be addressed in any serious discussion of establishing another committee. "The governance groups would expect substantial rationale in support of adding a rules committee," said Bridget Belgiovine, associate chief of staff for Division III.

Simmons also cautions against cutting back on the size of any rules-making group. "Track and field is unique in that it actually is many sports wrapped up in one, plus cross country has its own intricacies," she said.

"With nearly 30 persons, there are usually committee members who have expertise in each discipline (sprints, distance, jumps, throws and cross country). That might be difficult to achieve with a group that is half that size."

Kane plans on having a discussion with the full committee at this year's annual meeting. "I believe it will be beneficial to hear what others think of the idea of a separate rules committee. We may determine that the current system is the best, or we may pursue it.

"Either way, I think it's a discussion worth having."