Search

Background Two basic baseball sliding techniques, feet-first and head-first, are taught at all levels of play. Because of the risk for injury to the upper extremities and the cervical spine during head-first sliding, it is potentially more dangerous than feet-first sliding. There is an assumption among coaches that head-first sliding is more aggressive and faster, but there has been no scientific study to prove this claim. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine which technique provides a faster slide into the base. Study Design Controlled field study. Methods A total of 60 players ranging from Little League to college level was analyzed. Each athlete was evaluated three times from a standing start at first base to either a head-first or feet-first touch of second base. Each athlete was also timed in a 40-yard sprint and his or her preferred sliding technique was recorded. Results We found no statistically significant difference in speed between head-first and feet-first sliding at all levels of play in this study.

Protecting the cervical spine in situations of axial com pressive loading is indeed complex. Results from a number of crash simulations suggest that the mecha nisms of head impact causing brain damage and those causing neck injury are different. The idea that neck injuries can be predicted from results of helmet drop tests or that the helmet is capable of providing protec tion to the cervical spine is unsupported. In head-first collisions causing axial compressive loading, the cushioning properties of the helmet alone would dictate the maximum force on the neck if both the head and neck were rigid. Since the head and neck are not rigid and appear to be as stiff or less stiff than the helmet, the cushioning influence of the helmet is minimized, so the forces experienced by the neck are dictated largely by its own properties. The helmet does not have a large influence. To be effective, the helmet would have to be much less stiff than it is at present and would have to maintain this low stiffness under very large loads. These conditions would be difficult to achieve without making the helmet disproportionately larger than it is now.