INTRODUCTION: Tackle injuries have the highest injury incidence, may cause the greatest number of days lost (severity) and carry a high injury burden. Moderate and severe injuries may have financial, psychological and team performance implications. Video analysis is a useful tool to understand injury mechanism during competition. This information can be used to develop effective injury prevention strategies. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyse tackler and ball-carrier injury mechanisms during moderate and severe contact injuries in professional rugby union from 2014 to 2018. METHODS: Injury surveillance was conducted during The Currie Cup (South Africa`s annual premier domestic competition) between 2014 and 2018 as part of the SA Rugby Injury and Illness Surveillance and Prevention Project (SARIISPP). Using the SARIISPP injury surveillance data, video footage of injuries with a `moderate` and `severe` severity (=8days` time loss) were identified. Player-matched and team-matched non-injury events were also identified as controls. A total of 579 total injuries occurred over the four-year period, with 237 injuries recorded as `moderate` and `severe` (=8 days` time lost). One-hundred and eight (n=108) of these injuries were clearly identifiable on the video footage. Of the 108 injuries, 87 injuries were tackle-related. A total of 965 non-injury tackles were analysed as controls. Injured and non-injured tacklers and ball-carriers were coded for pre-contact, contact, post-contact, and contextual variables. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the relative risk ratio (RR) for an injury or non-injury outcome based on the observed characteristics. RESULTS: Ball-carriers were less likely to be injured when they made contact at `high` intensity compared to `medium` intensity (own control RR = 0.14, 95% CI, 0.05 - 0.38, p < 0.05; team control RR = 0.14, 95% CI, 0.05 - 0.39, p < 0.05). Tacklers had a higher risk of injury when their body position before contact was `medium` (own control RR = 3.02 [95% CI, 1.18 - 7.74], p < 0.05; team control RR = 2.52 [95% CI, 1.04 - 6.13]; p = 0.041) or `upright` (own control RR = 4.56, 95% CI, 1.31 - 15.90, p < 0.05; team control RR = 3.40, 95% CI, 1.01 -11.43; p < 0.05) compared to a `low` body position. Tacklers were less likely to be injured when they approached the ball-carrier at a `fast` speed (own control RR = 0.21 [95% CI, 0.06 - 0.75], p < 0.05; team control RR = 0.27 [95% CI, 0.08 - 0.93]; p < 0.05), and contacted the ball-carrier at the arm (own control RR = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.04 - 0.52], p < 0.05; team control RR = 0.22 [95% CI, 0.06 - 0.75]; p < 0.05) or hip (own control RR = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.02 - 0.53], p < 0.05; team control RR = 0.18 [95% CI, 0.04 - 0.81]; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that attempts to reduce speed into contact and contact intensity may not be worthwhile injury prevention strategies. Rather, rugby stakeholders should focus injury prevention efforts on player tackle technique and conditioning.
© Copyright 2022 27th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (ECSS), Sevilla, 30. Aug - 2. Sep 2022. Julkaistu Tekijä Faculty of Sport Science - Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Kaikki oikeudet pidätetään. / Kääntänyt https://www.DeepL.com/Translator