NCAA Division I, II, and III Track and Field Hammer Throw Facilities: Compliant with International Safety Standards? Larry W. Judge, Jeffrey C. Petersen,

NCAA Division I, II, and III Track and Field Hammer Throw Facilities: Compliant with

International Safety Standards?

Larry W. Judge, Jeffrey C. Petersen,

Erin Gilreath, and Ryan Yurko

Ball State University

Muncie, IN

Introduction

• The modern hammer throw is an athletic throwing event where the objective is to throw a heavy metal ball attached to a wire and handle.

3

Celtic tradition - the sledge hammer

OXFORD 1872

Evolution of Styles and TechniquesEvolution of Styles and Techniques

4

THE HEEL BALL TECHNIQUE REVOLUTION

Pat RYAN (IRL) the last of the ‘’Irish Wales’’ 57.77m (1913)on grass with suspensions at

each turnPat O’CALLAGHAN (IRL)

56.95m (1933) on concrete and keeping contact with the ground

Karl HEIN (GDR) 58.24m (1938) and coach Sepp CHRISTMANN

developed the heel ball turn technique

Evolution of Styles and TechniquesEvolution of Styles and Techniques

Event Danger

• One aspect of the throwing event that has not changed, however, is the event danger.

• Due primarily to safety concerns the throwing circle is protected by a C-shaped cage for the safety of officials, athletes, coaches and spectators.

Rule Changes

• After several deaths in throwing accidents, there was greater urgency to examine and improve hammer cages (Laurel, Wilson, and Young, 2004).

• In August 2003, the international governing body of track and field the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF), approved rule changes affecting hammer throwing safety cages.

• Changes included increased height of cage and length of gates, reduction of throwing sector to 30 degrees and reducing the cage opening to 7m.

Purpose

• The new specifications have not been adopted in the United States by the NCAA rules committee.

• Are the colleges and universities across the United States putting themselves at risk for a catastrophic accident and ensuing litigation by not adopting the IAAF hammer cage?

• The following study examined current NCAA hammer facilities in relation to safety considerations.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study of hammer throwing facilities at NCAA institutions in the United States:

a) What are the basic characteristics of NCAA hammer facilities across all three divisions?

b) To what degree do NCAA college hammer facilities meet NCAA and IAAF standards?

c) How do the basic hammer facility characteristics relate to facility safety?

Methods

• A 35-item survey instrument was developed to collect data regarding the hammer facilities at NCAA Division I, II & III colleges and universities throughout the United States.

• This survey was formatted for online completion using the InQsit system.

• The universities’ IRB approved all of the procedures

Statistical Analysis• Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, standard

deviation were calculated. 

• Comparison of the means were assessed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey HSD post hoc testing (honestly significant difference) utilized to determine the location of significant differences for multiple category variables. Pearson’s Chi-Square analyses were utilized for Y/N response items.

• All statistical analyses were conducted with the SPSS software version 15.0.

 • Significance for all analyses was established at the .05 level.

Results

• A total of 139 valid responses were obtained with 53.2% DI, 15.1% DII, and 31.3% DIII. This represents a response rate of 19.2%.

• Subjects had a mean coaching experience of 9.6 years (SD = 7.6) with a range of first year coaching up to 39 years of experience.

Facility/Cage Characteristic

All Divisions% Agreement

Division I% Agreement

Division II% Agreement

Division III% Agreement

Dedicated Hammer-Only Facility

45.3% 50.0% 42.8% 38.6%

Hammer Facility Located Inside the Track Oval *

16.8% 26.4% 4.8% 6.8%

Hammer Facility Located on the Campus Grounds

86.2% 85.1% 90.5% 86.0%

Hammer Cage Including Gates

80.1% 87.5% 66.7% 74.4%Cage Meets NCAA Recommendations

69.6% 78.1% 52.4% 63.6%

Cage Meets IAAF Specifications

35.8% 38.0% 30.0% 34.9%

* significant difference between divisions p < .05

Basic Hammer Facility Characteristics

Hammer Cage Manufacturer Summary

All Divisions Division I Division II Division IIIUniversity Personnel

11.2% 12.7% 14.3% 7.1%

Local Company20.1% 11.3% 38.1% 26.2%

Commercial Manufacturer/ Professional Track Contractor

68.7% 76.1% 47.6% 66.7%

*significant chi square between divisions, p = .044

Hammer Cage Installer Summary

All Divisions Division I Division II Division III

University Personnel 38.2% 44.3% 47.6% 22.5%Local Company 22.1% 17.1% 28.6% 27.5%Commercial Manufacturer/ Professional Track Contractor

39.7% 38.6% 23.8% 50.0%

Hammer Facility Mean Safety Ratings for 2-Item Factors

*significant difference in means within the factor, p > .05

Category

Yes ResponseMean Value

(+/- SD)

No ResponseMean Value

(+/- SD)Hammer Only Throwing Facility 2.02 (+/- 1.04) 2.37 (+/- 1.28)Cage Inside the Track Oval 1.96 (+/- 1.02) 2.24 (+/- 1.19)Cage On-Campus 2.24 (+/- 1.17) 2.00 (+/- 1.33)Cage Gates Present * 1.88 (+/- 0.87) 3.41 (+/- 1.42)Gates Properly Positioned in Practice * 1.81 (+/- 0.91) 2.86 (+/- 1.25)Cage Maintained Properly * 1.71 (+/- 0.73) 3.49 (+/- 1.12)Landing Area Security in Practice * 1.96 (+/- 1.06) 3.19 (+/- 1.27)Landing Area Security in Competition * 1.96 (+/- 1.01) 2.63 (+/- 1.25)Practice Accident in the Past 2.46 (+/- 0.78) 2.13 (+/- 1.18)Competition Accident in the Past 2.43 (+/- 1.13) 2.16 (+/- 1.15)Cage Meets NCAA Specs * 1.75 (+/- 0.80) 3.55 (+/- 1.22)Cage Meets IAAF Specs * 1.52 (+/- 0.74) 2.55 (+/- 1.17)

Mean Safety Ratings According to Hammer Cage Gate Height

4.60*

3.50

2.181.96

1.43*

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Less than 10’ - 0”

10’-1” to 15-0”

15’-1” to 20’-0”

20’-1” to 25’ - 0”

25’-1” to 30’-0”

mean value(s)

mean value(s)

Discussion

• In the United States there has been some reluctance by NCAA colleges and universities to adopt the new IAAF standards for safety.

• A total of 69.6% participants in the study reported that they were in compliance with the NCAA minimum recommendations but only 35.8% also met the IAAF standards.

NCAA vs. IAAF Specs

NCAA Cage IAAF Cage

Opening 8 m 7 m

Length of Gates 2.74 - 2.9 m 3.2 m

Height of Side Panels

6.15 – 8 m 10 m

Standards vs. Guidelines

• Standards vs. Guidelines. It is important to distinguish between standards and guidelines because each term has different legal implications

• Standard: a required procedure that probably reflects a legal duty or obligation for standard of care. (must)

• Guideline: a recommended operating procedure formulated and developed to further enhance the quality of services provided. (should)

Standard of Care

• This standard of care is almost universally based upon a commonly accepted standard rather than local or state practice.

• 83° danger zone for the pre-2004 cage design.

• The danger zone for the new IAAF cage is approximately 53°.

Comparison

• NCAA Cage • IAAF Cage

Accidents Involving the Hammer Throw

• Rucker v Regents of the University of California

• An errant throw by a hammer thrower resulted in Mr. Rucker, a triple jumper on the team, being struck in the head and sustaining permanent brain damage.

• University of California was forced to pay a settlement for $2.25 million.

IAAF Practice Area

NCAA Practice Area

Maintenance Issues

• 22.1% of coaches reported that it took at least 4 days for a repair request to be completed.

• Coaches indicated that their facility was the safest when maintenance requests were handled in a day or less.

• Utilizing a hammer facility for practice or competition that is not properly maintained is an unnecessary risk.

Coaches Perceptions of Safety

• The analysis of the coaches’ overall perception of hammer facility safety revealed that factors like the height of the gates, the manufacturer of the cage and response time to maintenance issues significantly impacted safety ratings.

• This conclusion is consistent with the IAAF recommendations

Recommendations

• The new IAAF hammer cage design has helped reduce the risk of hammers landing in areas dangerous to participants, officials, coaches and spectators.

• The NCAA colleges and universities may be putting themselves at risk by not exercising a standard of care for facility construction that is consistent with IAAF guidelines.

• The NCAA may have to examine their present facility requirements to determine the best way of improving the safety of the cage to match the new design adopted by the IAAF.

29

QuestionsQuestions

• Larry Judge• lwjudge@bsu.edu• Jeffrey Petersen• jcpetersen@bsu.edu• Erin Gilreath• egilreath@bsu.edu• Ryan Yurko• rryurko@bsu.edu

Thank You!