The effect of a pre-bind engagement technique on the biomechanical characteristics of rugby scrummaging across multiple playing levels

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

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstract

Abstract

Abstract
Background The Rugby Union scrum has evolved into a highly dynamic activity, particularly during engagement. Although catastrophic spinal injuries in rugby are extremely rare, approximately 40% of these are associated with the scrum. Repeated scrum engagement may also contribute to premature chronic degeneration of the cervical spine in rugby players.

Objective To compare the biomechanical stresses experienced by rugby forward players during live contested scrummaging under different scrum engagement processes, taking into account different playing standards.

Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from five different playing levels performed live scrums under three engagement processes: 1) CTPE (Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage, 2011–2012); 2) CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and 3) PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014). Measures were made via body-worn sensors and 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 The three engagement processes. PreBind differs from CTS/CTPE with a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and maintained through the “Set” action.

Main outcome measurements Biomechanical stresses (force, acceleration) and kinematics (engagement speed, joints angles) characterising the scrum motion.

Results The PreBind process reduced biomechanical stresses by 15–25% with respect to both CTPE and CTS during the engagement phase without reducing force during the sustained push phase. For front row players, peak cervical acceleration was reduced from 8.2 g (CTPE) and 7.9 g (CTS) to 6.8 g (PreBind), and peak compression forces decreased from 8.4 kN (CTPE) and 8.3 kN (CTS) to 6.3 kN (PreBind). Players' movements/postures did not differ significantly between engagement processes. The mixed design ANOVA did not evidence any significant interaction effect (engagement type-playing level) in any variable.

Conclusions The PreBind process reduced the mechanical stresses on front row players and may lead to safer conditions without affecting performance.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)578
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume48
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2014
EventIOC World Confernce on Prevention of Injury and Illness in Sport - Monaco, Monaco
Duration: 10 Apr 201412 May 2014

Fingerprint

Football
Touch
Spinal Injuries
Mechanical Stress
Posture
Biomechanical Phenomena
Analysis of Variance
Spine
Joints

Cite this

@article{99b73d6c9c084d8aa15b3c5f0028dfa2,
title = "The effect of a pre-bind engagement technique on the biomechanical characteristics of rugby scrummaging across multiple playing levels",
abstract = "AbstractBackground The Rugby Union scrum has evolved into a highly dynamic activity, particularly during engagement. Although catastrophic spinal injuries in rugby are extremely rare, approximately 40{\%} of these are associated with the scrum. Repeated scrum engagement may also contribute to premature chronic degeneration of the cervical spine in rugby players.Objective To compare the biomechanical stresses experienced by rugby forward players during live contested scrummaging under different scrum engagement processes, taking into account different playing standards.Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from five different playing levels performed live scrums under three engagement processes: 1) CTPE (Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage, 2011–2012); 2) CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and 3) PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014). Measures were made via body-worn sensors and 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 The three engagement processes. PreBind differs from CTS/CTPE with a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and maintained through the “Set” action.Main outcome measurements Biomechanical stresses (force, acceleration) and kinematics (engagement speed, joints angles) characterising the scrum motion.Results The PreBind process reduced biomechanical stresses by 15–25{\%} with respect to both CTPE and CTS during the engagement phase without reducing force during the sustained push phase. For front row players, peak cervical acceleration was reduced from 8.2 g (CTPE) and 7.9 g (CTS) to 6.8 g (PreBind), and peak compression forces decreased from 8.4 kN (CTPE) and 8.3 kN (CTS) to 6.3 kN (PreBind). Players' movements/postures did not differ significantly between engagement processes. The mixed design ANOVA did not evidence any significant interaction effect (engagement type-playing level) in any variable.Conclusions The PreBind process reduced the mechanical stresses on front row players and may lead to safer conditions without affecting performance.",
author = "D Cazzola and E Preatoni and K Stokes and England, {M H} and G Trewartha",
year = "2014",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.49",
language = "English",
volume = "48",
pages = "578",
journal = "British Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0306-3674",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of a pre-bind engagement technique on the biomechanical characteristics of rugby scrummaging across multiple playing levels

AU - Cazzola, D

AU - Preatoni, E

AU - Stokes, K

AU - England, M H

AU - Trewartha, G

PY - 2014/4

Y1 - 2014/4

N2 - AbstractBackground The Rugby Union scrum has evolved into a highly dynamic activity, particularly during engagement. Although catastrophic spinal injuries in rugby are extremely rare, approximately 40% of these are associated with the scrum. Repeated scrum engagement may also contribute to premature chronic degeneration of the cervical spine in rugby players.Objective To compare the biomechanical stresses experienced by rugby forward players during live contested scrummaging under different scrum engagement processes, taking into account different playing standards.Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from five different playing levels performed live scrums under three engagement processes: 1) CTPE (Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage, 2011–2012); 2) CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and 3) PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014). Measures were made via body-worn sensors and 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 The three engagement processes. PreBind differs from CTS/CTPE with a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and maintained through the “Set” action.Main outcome measurements Biomechanical stresses (force, acceleration) and kinematics (engagement speed, joints angles) characterising the scrum motion.Results The PreBind process reduced biomechanical stresses by 15–25% with respect to both CTPE and CTS during the engagement phase without reducing force during the sustained push phase. For front row players, peak cervical acceleration was reduced from 8.2 g (CTPE) and 7.9 g (CTS) to 6.8 g (PreBind), and peak compression forces decreased from 8.4 kN (CTPE) and 8.3 kN (CTS) to 6.3 kN (PreBind). Players' movements/postures did not differ significantly between engagement processes. The mixed design ANOVA did not evidence any significant interaction effect (engagement type-playing level) in any variable.Conclusions The PreBind process reduced the mechanical stresses on front row players and may lead to safer conditions without affecting performance.

AB - AbstractBackground The Rugby Union scrum has evolved into a highly dynamic activity, particularly during engagement. Although catastrophic spinal injuries in rugby are extremely rare, approximately 40% of these are associated with the scrum. Repeated scrum engagement may also contribute to premature chronic degeneration of the cervical spine in rugby players.Objective To compare the biomechanical stresses experienced by rugby forward players during live contested scrummaging under different scrum engagement processes, taking into account different playing standards.Design A cross-sectional design, where teams from five different playing levels performed live scrums under three engagement processes: 1) CTPE (Crouch-Touch-Pause-Engage, 2011–2012); 2) CTS (Crouch-Touch-Set, 2012–2013); and 3) PreBind (Crouch-Bind-Set, 2013–2014). Measures were made via body-worn sensors and 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 The three engagement processes. PreBind differs from CTS/CTPE with a legal bind that is taken at the “Bind” call and maintained through the “Set” action.Main outcome measurements Biomechanical stresses (force, acceleration) and kinematics (engagement speed, joints angles) characterising the scrum motion.Results The PreBind process reduced biomechanical stresses by 15–25% with respect to both CTPE and CTS during the engagement phase without reducing force during the sustained push phase. For front row players, peak cervical acceleration was reduced from 8.2 g (CTPE) and 7.9 g (CTS) to 6.8 g (PreBind), and peak compression forces decreased from 8.4 kN (CTPE) and 8.3 kN (CTS) to 6.3 kN (PreBind). Players' movements/postures did not differ significantly between engagement processes. The mixed design ANOVA did not evidence any significant interaction effect (engagement type-playing level) in any variable.Conclusions The PreBind process reduced the mechanical stresses on front row players and may lead to safer conditions without affecting performance.

UR - http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/48/7/578.1.abstract

UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.49

U2 - 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.49

DO - 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093494.49

M3 - Meeting abstract

VL - 48

SP - 578

JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0306-3674

IS - 7

ER -