Publisher's Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.
Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications 2009
Corrections to Rule Book: Page 28, Rule 4-5-10, add "trial" to the end of the first sentence.
Corrections to Case Book: Page 43, Situation 4.5.8H, RULING, In Ruling, delete A1 and replace with A2 is disqualified.
SITUATION 1: In the 4x800-meter relay, A1 has completed his/her leg of the race and is still on the infield where permitted. A2 is running down the final straightaway toward the exchange zone. A1 begins to run alongside A2 for several meters shouting encouragement and keeping pace with A2. At the completion of the race, the referee disqualifies A2 and consequently the relay team under Rule 4-5-8b. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: It is considered an unfair act when a competitor receives assistance by a teammate not in the race, in this case pacing. Once A1 completed his/her leg of the relay, A1 must not provide assistance through pacing.
SITUATION 2: During a cross country meet, about two-thirds through the race, A1 is several meters ahead of one of his/her teammates. A1 slows and drops back with the teammate and runs in the pack to give encouragement. A1 then speeds up and continues on in the race. A coach from Team B wants the referee to disqualify A1 for pacing his/her teammate. RULING: Protest denied. COMMENT: It is considered an unfair act when a competitor receives any assistance from any other person including pacing by a teammate not in the race. In this situation, A1 is in the race and his/her actions are not considered to be unfair. This same interpretation would be applied in a multiple lap race if a teammate is lapped and the passing teammate slows and gives encouragement. In all cases, if interference occurs, the resulting penalty would be disqualification.
SITUATION 3: The pole vault event judge notices while A1 is warming up that a tennis ball has been placed on the bottom of the pole. The event judge brings this to the attention of the field referee. The coach of A1 is called to the event venue site and confirms the tennis ball was placed on the pole after inspection. The coach is told the tennis ball must be removed in order for the pole to be legal and used in warm-ups and competition and such changes to the pole after inspection should not take place. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: The event judge used preventive officiating in this situation. The pole would have been considered to have been altered by placing a tennis ball on the end. Consequently, the pole would not be legal.
SITUATION 4: Following each trial in the high jump, A1 goes to the bleachers and views a video of his/her attempt that has been recorded by the vaulter's parent. The event judge observes this reoccurring action by A1 and confirms that the vaulter is viewing his/her performance. A1 is disqualified. RULING: Correct procedure. COMMENT: It is considered an unfair act when a competitor receives assistance from any other person, which includes viewing a videotape or any other visual reproduction of the competitor's performance prior to the completion of the competition. It may be helpful for coaches to remind athletes and parents the rule applies regardless of who might be providing the visual reproduction of a competitor's performance before competition is completed.
SITUATION 5: A vaulter for Team B is not satisfied with his/her approach and pulls up to stop. In so doing, the pole is planted in the box and as the vaulter stops, the momentum causes him/her to leave the ground and return. The vaulter returns to the starting end of the runway and restarts the approach. The vaulter clears the bar and completes the attempt within the allowed 1½ minutes. RULING: Legal.
SITUATION 6: A high jumper while attempting to clear the cross bar is going over the bar with no touch. However, his/her foot a) has incidental contact with the front of the pit or b) has contact with the top of the pit. The competitor in both cases continues over the bar without dislodging the bar. RULING: In a), the event judge rules a successful attempt. In b), the event judge rules an unsuccessful attempt. Correct procedure. COMMENT: A competitor having incidental contact with the front of the pit that does not provide an aid to the jumper would not constitute a foul. If the contact results in aiding the competitor, a foul shall be called. When a competitor contacts the top of the pit, this would be considered an aid and result in an unsuccessful attempt.