Article Text

PDF
113
VIDEO ANALYSIS OF CONTACT TECHNIQUE DURING HEAD COLLISIONS IN RUGBY UNION
  1. Sharief Hendricks1,2,
  2. Demi Davidow2,
  3. Wayne Viljoen2,4,
  4. Nicholas Burger2,
  5. Mike Lambert2,3,
  6. Clint Readhead2,4,
  7. James Brown2,3,
  8. Ben Jones1,5,
  9. Ken Quarrie6
  1. 1Leeds Beckett University, Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Health, Leeds, United Kingdom
  2. 2University of Cape Town, Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Cape Town, South Africa
  3. 3VU University, Department of Public & Occupational Health and the EMGO Institute Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4South African Rugby Union, Cape Town, South Africa
  5. 5Yorkshire Carnegie Rugby Union Football Club, Leeds, United Kingdom
  6. 6New Zealand Rugby Union, Wellington, New Zealand

    Abstract

    Background Rugby union is characterised by frequent and dynamic collisions. Players typically aim to avoid direct contact to the head due to its potential for serious head injury. However, head collisions still occur – possibly due to players either being unaware of the impending contact, or executing poor technique during, or prior to contact.

    Objective Video analysis of contact technique and head collisions in rugby union.

    Design Retrospective video analysis.

    Setting Professional rugby union players.

    Participants Video footage of 211 contact events.

    Assessment of Risk Factors Contact characteristics and contact technique for attackers and defenders during head collisions. Attackers and defenders were categorized into higher and lower risk roles depending on which had the higher potential for injury.

    Main Outcome Measurements Contact descriptors and contact proficiency scores

    Results Eighty-four percent of head collisions occurred during the tackle, followed by aerial collisions (10%), and rucks (6%). Eighty-two percent of collisions occurred with an opponent. Higher risk players were aware of the impending contact 70% of the time. Mean contact proficiency score (arbitrary units; AU) in front-on tackled ball-carriers was 6.4±3.2 and 8.2±3.2 AU for ball carriers at higher and lower injury risk, respectively (p≤0.01, effect size=0.6, moderate). The mean contact proficiency score in front-on tackle tacklers was 9.8±3.7 and 9.2±3.5 AU for tacklers at higher and lower injury risk, respectively (p>0.05, ES=0.2, small).

    Conclusions The tackle event accounted for most head collisions. Most players were aware of the impending contact. Higher injury risk ball-carriers in front-on tackles scored relatively low in proficiency compared to lower injury risk ball-carriers. For contact proficiency score, each technical criterion was equally weighted. Failure to execute specific criteria (e.g. head up and forward) may increase the risk of head collisions compared to other criteria (e.g. fending). Future studies on contact techniques should weight technical criteria more appropriately.

    • Injury

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.