Search

The aim of this study was to determine the criterion validity of the Hawkin Dynamics (HD) wireless dual force platform system for assessing vertical countermovement jump (CMJ) variables, compared with those derived from a Kistler piezoelectric laboratory grade force platform system. During a single testing session, HD force platforms were placed directly on top of 2 adjacent Kistler force platforms to simultaneously collect vertical ground reaction forces produced by 2 male recreational soccer players (age: 29.0 ± 2.8 years, height: 1.79 ± 0.01 m, mass: 85.6 ± 4.7 kg) that performed 25 vertical CMJs each. Sixteen vertical CMJ variables pertaining to jump height (JH), flight time (FT), time-to-take off (TTT), countermovement depth, body weight (BW), propulsive and braking mean, and peak powers, forces, and impulses were compared between systems. Fixed bias was observed for 6 of 16 variables (peak and mean braking power, mean propulsion force, III, FT, and BW), while proportional bias was present for 10 of 16 variables (peak and mean propulsive and braking force, TTT, FT, peak and mean braking power, mean propulsive power, and BW). For all variables regardless of fixed or proportional bias, percentage differences were ≤3.4% between force platform systems, with near perfect to perfect correlations (r or ρ = 0.977-1.000) observed for 15 of 16 variables. The HD dual wireless force platform system can be considered a valid alternative to a piezoelectric laboratory grade force platform system for the collection of vertical CMJ variables, particularly outcome (i.e., JH, reactive strength index modified) and strategy variables (countermovement depth). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate whether providing global positioning system feedback to players between bouts of small-sided games (SSGs) can alter locomotor, physiological, and perceptual responses. Methods: Using a reverse counterbalanced design, 20 male university rugby players received either feedback or no feedback during "off-side" touch rugby SSGs. Eight 5v5, 6 × 4-minute SSGs were played over 4 d. Teams were assigned to a feedback or no-feedback condition (control) each day, with feedback provided during the 2-min between-bouts rest interval. Locomotor, heart rate, and differential rating of perceived exertion of breathlessness and leg-muscle exertion were measured and analyzed using a linear mixed model. Outcomes were reported using effect sizes (ES) and 90% confidence intervals (CI), and then interpreted via magnitude-based decisions. Results: Very likely trivial to unclear differences at all time points were observed in heart rate and differential rating of perceived exertion measures. Possibly to very likely trivial effects were observed between conditions, including total distance (ES = 0.15; 90 CI, −0.03 to 0.34), high-speed distance (ES = −0.07; 90 CI, −0.27 to 0.13), and maximal sprint speed (ES = 0.11; 90% CI, −0.11 to 0.34). All within-bout comparisons showed very likely to unclear differences, apart from possible increases in low-speed distance in bout 2 (ES = 0.23; 90% CI, 0.01 to 0.46) and maximal sprint speed in bout 4 (ES = 0.21; 90% CI, −0.04 to 0.45). Conclusions: In this study, verbal feedback did not alter locomotor, physiological, or perceptual responses in rugby players during SSGs. This may be due to contextual factors (eg, opposition) or the type (ie, distance) or low frequency of feedback provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To quantify the frequencies and timings of rugby union match-play phases (ie, attacking, defending, ball in play [BIP], and ball out of play [BOP]) and then compare the physical characteristics of attacking, defending, and BOP between forwards and backs. Methods: Data were analyzed from 59 male rugby union academy players (259 observations). Each player wore a microtechnology device (OptimEye S5; Catapult, Melbourne, Australia) with video footage analyzed for phase timings and frequencies. Dependent variables were analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model and assessed with magnitude-based inferences and Cohen d effect sizes (ES). Results: Attack, defense, BIP, and BOP times were 12.7 (3.1), 14.7 (2.5), 27.4 (2.9), and 47.4 (4.1) min, respectively. Mean attack (26 [17] s), defense (26 [18] s), and BIP (33 [24] s) phases were shorter than BOP phases (59 [33] s). The relative distance in attacking phases was similar (112.2 [48.4] vs 114.6 [52.3] m·min−1, ES = 0.00 ± 0.23) between forwards and backs but greater in forwards (114.5 [52.7] vs 109.0 [54.8] m·min−1, ES = 0.32 ± 0.23) during defense and greater in backs during BOP (ES = −0.66 ± 0.23). Conclusions: Total time in attack, defense, and therefore BIP was less than BOP. Relative distance was greater in forwards during defense, whereas it was greater in backs during BOP and similar between positions during attack. Players should be exposed to training intensities from in-play phases (ie, attack and defense) rather than whole-match data and practice technical skills during these intensities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose was to investigate the effects of travel on performance in the National Rugby League (NRL). A total of 4,704 observations from 2,352 NRL matches (2007–2019) were analysed. The effect of travel on match outcome (i.e., win/loss) was analysed using a generalized linear mixed model, and the points difference using a linear mixed model. For every 1,000 km travelled in the NRL, the estimated probability of winning a match was reduced by −2.7% [−5.7 to 0.3%] and the estimated points difference by −1.1 [−2.0 to −0.2] points. In relation to every 1,000 km travelled, the 2007–2009 seasons had the greatest reduction in the likelihood of winning a match (−2.7% [−4.7 to −0.6%]), with the 2018–2019 seasons having the greatest likelihood (1.1% [−1.2 to 3.3%]). Regarding inter-state travel, teams from the state of Queensland had the greatest reduction in the likelihood of winning a match while the team from the state of Victoria had the greatest likelihood, although there were no clear differences between states. These data suggest that travel has impacted performance in NRL matches although this effect has reduced over time. These findings are useful for practitioners that prepare athletes in sports where frequent short-haul travel is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To quantify and compare the maximum running intensities during rugby union match-play. Running intensity was quantified using micro-technology devices (S5 Optimeye, Catapult) from 202 players during 24 matches (472 observations). Instantaneous speed was used to calculate relative distance (m·min−1) using a 0.1 s rolling mean for different time durations (15 and 30 s and 1, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, and 10 min). Data were analysed using a linear mixed-model and assessed with magnitude-based inferences and effect sizes (ES). Running intensity for consecutive durations (e.g., 15 s vs. 30 s, 30 s vs. 1 min, etc.) decreased as time increased (ES = 0.48-2.80). Running intensity was lower in forwards than backs during all durations (−0.74 ±0.21 to −1.19 ±0.21). Running intensity for the second row and back row positions was greater than the front row players at all durations (−0.58 ±0.38 to −1.18 ±0.29). Running intensity for scrum halves was greater (0.46 ±0.43 to 0.86 ±0.39) than inside and outside backs for all durations besides 15 and 30 s. Front rowers and scrum halves were markedly different from other sub-positional groups and should be conditioned appropriately. Coaches working in academy rugby can use this information to appropriately overload the intensity of running, specific to time durations and positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim was to compare the physical characteristics of under-18 academy and schoolboy rugby union competition by position (forwards and backs). Using a microsensor unit, match characteristics were recorded in 66 players. Locomotor characteristics were assessed by maximum sprint speed (MSS) and total, walking, jogging, striding and sprinting distances. The slow component (<2 m · s-1) of PlayerLoadTM (PLslow), which is the accumulated accelerations from the three axes of movement, was analysed as a measure of low-speed activity (e.g., rucking). A linear mixed-model was assessed with magnitude-based inferences. Academy forwards and backs almost certainly and very likely covered greater total distance than school forwards and backs. Academy players from both positions were also very likely to cover greater jogging distances. Academy backs were very likely to accumulate greater PLslow and the academy forwards a likely greater sprinting distance than school players in their respective positions. The MSS, total, walking and sprinting distances were greater in backs (likely-almost certainly), while forwards accumulated greater PLslow (almost certainly) and jogging distance (very likely). The results suggest that academy-standard rugby better prepares players to progress to senior competition compared to schoolboy rugby. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to compare the physical and movement demands between training and matchplay in schoolboy and academy adolescent rugby union (RU) players. Sixty-one adolescent male RU players (mean ± SD; age 17.0 ± 0.7 years) were recruited from four teams representing school and regional academy standards. Players were categorised into four groups based on playing standard and position: schoolboy forwards (n = 15), schoolboy backs (n = 15), academy forwards (n = 16) and academy backs (n = 15). Global positioning system and accelerometry measures were obtained from training and matchplay to assess within-group differences between conditions. Maximum data were analysed from 79 match files across 8 matches (1.3 ± 0.5 matches per participant) and 152 training files across 15 training sessions (2.5 ± 0.5 training sessions per participant). Schoolboy forwards were underprepared for low-intensity activities experienced during match-play, with schoolboy backs underprepared for all movement demands. Academy forwards were exposed to similar physical demands in training to matches, with academy backs similar to or exceeding values for all measured variables. Schoolboy players were underprepared for many key, position-specific aspects of match-play, which could place them at greater risk of injury and hinder performance, unlike academy players who were better prepared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]