Does a modified rugby scrum engagement process improve the stability of the scrum and minimise the likelihood of scrum collapse?

D Cazzola, E Preatoni, K Stokes, M H England, G Trewartha

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

Abstract

Background Rugby Union scrums which collapse possess a higher injury risk than completed scrums. A mechanically stable scrum should limit the motions which generate uncontrolled and hazardous (non-axial) loading on front row players and minimise the risk of scrum collapse. Objective To compare scrum stability during live contested rugby scrums using two different scrum engagement processes. Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from different playing levels performed live scrums under two engagement processes: CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014), with measurements made via video analysis. Setting Outdoors, natural turf rugby pitches. Participants 27 Rugby teams (i.e. 54 forward packs, n=432 players) from five playing levels – International, Elite, Community, Women and University. Risk factor assessment Scrum engagement process. PreBind differs from CTS for a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and is maintained through the “Set” action. Main outcome measurements Vertical motion of the (i) shoulder and (ii) centre of mass (COM), and (iii) COM variability in the sagittal plane of prop forwards during initial engagement. Results The extent of props' vertical shoulder motion were reduced (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.3–0.5) during engagement in the PreBind process compared with the CTS process. The COM vertical motion tended to be reduced in PreBind process (Cohen's d=0.45).There were also reductions in the variability (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.5–1.0) of the props' COM vertical motion, meaning vertical movements were more controlled during PreBind engagement. The International level had reduced vertical motion characteristics with respect to the Community level. Conclusions Scrum stability improved (moderate effects) in the PreBind engagement process, with props making less extreme postural adjustments during initial engagement. Combined with attenuated peak forces during the engagement process, the PreBind improves the stability of the scrum and should minimise the risk of scrum collapse and subsequent injury.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)577-578
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume48
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2014
EventIOC World Conference on Prevention of Injury and Illness in Sport - Monaco, UK United Kingdom
Duration: 10 Apr 201412 Apr 2014
http://www.ioc-preventionconference.org/2014/

Fingerprint

Football
Touch
Social Adjustment
Wounds and Injuries

Cite this

Does a modified rugby scrum engagement process improve the stability of the scrum and minimise the likelihood of scrum collapse? / Cazzola, D; Preatoni, E; Stokes, K; England, M H; Trewartha, G.

In: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 7, 04.2014, p. 577-578.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

@article{2edfcf55a3d945529835020012c1e6b2,
title = "Does a modified rugby scrum engagement process improve the stability of the scrum and minimise the likelihood of scrum collapse?",
abstract = "Background Rugby Union scrums which collapse possess a higher injury risk than completed scrums. A mechanically stable scrum should limit the motions which generate uncontrolled and hazardous (non-axial) loading on front row players and minimise the risk of scrum collapse. Objective To compare scrum stability during live contested rugby scrums using two different scrum engagement processes. Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from different playing levels performed live scrums under two engagement processes: CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014), with measurements made via video analysis. Setting Outdoors, natural turf rugby pitches. Participants 27 Rugby teams (i.e. 54 forward packs, n=432 players) from five playing levels – International, Elite, Community, Women and University. Risk factor assessment Scrum engagement process. PreBind differs from CTS for a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and is maintained through the “Set” action. Main outcome measurements Vertical motion of the (i) shoulder and (ii) centre of mass (COM), and (iii) COM variability in the sagittal plane of prop forwards during initial engagement. Results The extent of props' vertical shoulder motion were reduced (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.3–0.5) during engagement in the PreBind process compared with the CTS process. The COM vertical motion tended to be reduced in PreBind process (Cohen's d=0.45).There were also reductions in the variability (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.5–1.0) of the props' COM vertical motion, meaning vertical movements were more controlled during PreBind engagement. The International level had reduced vertical motion characteristics with respect to the Community level. Conclusions Scrum stability improved (moderate effects) in the PreBind engagement process, with props making less extreme postural adjustments during initial engagement. Combined with attenuated peak forces during the engagement process, the PreBind improves the stability of the scrum and should minimise the risk of scrum collapse and subsequent injury.",
author = "D Cazzola and E Preatoni and K Stokes and England, {M H} and G Trewartha",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.48",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "577--578",
journal = "British Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0306-3674",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does a modified rugby scrum engagement process improve the stability of the scrum and minimise the likelihood of scrum collapse?

AU - Cazzola, D

AU - Preatoni, E

AU - Stokes, K

AU - England, M H

AU - Trewartha, G

PY - 2014/4

Y1 - 2014/4

N2 - Background Rugby Union scrums which collapse possess a higher injury risk than completed scrums. A mechanically stable scrum should limit the motions which generate uncontrolled and hazardous (non-axial) loading on front row players and minimise the risk of scrum collapse. Objective To compare scrum stability during live contested rugby scrums using two different scrum engagement processes. Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from different playing levels performed live scrums under two engagement processes: CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014), with measurements made via video analysis. Setting Outdoors, natural turf rugby pitches. Participants 27 Rugby teams (i.e. 54 forward packs, n=432 players) from five playing levels – International, Elite, Community, Women and University. Risk factor assessment Scrum engagement process. PreBind differs from CTS for a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and is maintained through the “Set” action. Main outcome measurements Vertical motion of the (i) shoulder and (ii) centre of mass (COM), and (iii) COM variability in the sagittal plane of prop forwards during initial engagement. Results The extent of props' vertical shoulder motion were reduced (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.3–0.5) during engagement in the PreBind process compared with the CTS process. The COM vertical motion tended to be reduced in PreBind process (Cohen's d=0.45).There were also reductions in the variability (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.5–1.0) of the props' COM vertical motion, meaning vertical movements were more controlled during PreBind engagement. The International level had reduced vertical motion characteristics with respect to the Community level. Conclusions Scrum stability improved (moderate effects) in the PreBind engagement process, with props making less extreme postural adjustments during initial engagement. Combined with attenuated peak forces during the engagement process, the PreBind improves the stability of the scrum and should minimise the risk of scrum collapse and subsequent injury.

AB - Background Rugby Union scrums which collapse possess a higher injury risk than completed scrums. A mechanically stable scrum should limit the motions which generate uncontrolled and hazardous (non-axial) loading on front row players and minimise the risk of scrum collapse. Objective To compare scrum stability during live contested rugby scrums using two different scrum engagement processes. Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from different playing levels performed live scrums under two engagement processes: CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014), with measurements made via video analysis. Setting Outdoors, natural turf rugby pitches. Participants 27 Rugby teams (i.e. 54 forward packs, n=432 players) from five playing levels – International, Elite, Community, Women and University. Risk factor assessment Scrum engagement process. PreBind differs from CTS for a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and is maintained through the “Set” action. Main outcome measurements Vertical motion of the (i) shoulder and (ii) centre of mass (COM), and (iii) COM variability in the sagittal plane of prop forwards during initial engagement. Results The extent of props' vertical shoulder motion were reduced (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.3–0.5) during engagement in the PreBind process compared with the CTS process. The COM vertical motion tended to be reduced in PreBind process (Cohen's d=0.45).There were also reductions in the variability (P<.05, Cohen's d=0.5–1.0) of the props' COM vertical motion, meaning vertical movements were more controlled during PreBind engagement. The International level had reduced vertical motion characteristics with respect to the Community level. Conclusions Scrum stability improved (moderate effects) in the PreBind engagement process, with props making less extreme postural adjustments during initial engagement. Combined with attenuated peak forces during the engagement process, the PreBind improves the stability of the scrum and should minimise the risk of scrum collapse and subsequent injury.

UR - http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/7/577.2.abstract

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.48

U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.48

DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.48

M3 - Meeting abstract

VL - 48

SP - 577

EP - 578

JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0306-3674

IS - 7

ER -