English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Current occupational health and safety legislation requires the professional rugby union to comply with the mandate to protect employees against occupational diseases and injuries due to workplace hazards and risks, including ergonomic/human risk factors.[1] Rugby union-related incidence and risk of injury varies from acute catastrophic/traumatic to chronic degenerative, and severity is dependent on playing position, location, magnitude/load and mechanism of injury.[2-13] The incidence of catastrophic spinal injuries and traumatic brain injuries, such as concussion and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, are potentially hazardous to a player’s career and livelihood in rugby union. The performance of the trunk muscles are not only important to athletic performance in rugby union, but in the prevention of catastrophic injuries to the spine and traumatic brain injuries as experienced on head impact at engagement of the scrum, the collapsing or “popping out” of the scrum or tackle.[2] The evaluation of physical performance’s ability against matching imposed physical demands provides a systematic evidence base to assess match readiness and to modify player development pathways to efficient and safe participation in competitive rugby. Professional and novice players of rugby union require a high level of skill, physical tolerance and resistance to fatigue to repeatedly, safely and effectively engage in the match.[2] It is important to understand the physical demands of rugby union[2] with its various implications for coaching, sports medicine, vocational training and occupational health and safety. Research limitations in measuring magnitude/load include inconsistency in the units of measurement with little or no consensus in conformity, biomechanical studies attempting to reproduce the aggressive and physical nature of rugby union, and failure to match the imposed physical demands.[2-6, 15, 18, 20-23] The function of the trunk muscle extensors and flexors are to perform and maintain the position of the joints or body posture, provide joint stability, body manoeuvring, locomotive movements through isolated or coupled muscle performance, and to protect the spine against lumbar mechanical stress from excessive forces. Significant muscle activity is required to constrain spinal motion in an oppressing environment.[3] Muscle balance implies a harmony and synergy between different muscles all working towards the common goal of efficient, effective functional movement. The game of rugby union is dynamic and involves players constantly making postural changes in the match to adapt to game situations. This influences the activation patterns of the trunk muscles in various ways and is dependent upon whether the players are positioned upright, crouching or bending forward in a ruck, maul or scrum, tackling, their speed of movement, and gravity. The trunk extensors (TE) and trunk flexors (TF) function during scrummaging is to oppose impact forces, sustain forward movement, maintain and adjust body position and prevent excessive forward flexion or extension, where the scrum will either collapse or “pop out”. Hendricks[2] identified that between 2008-2012, the scrum phase accounted for 33% of all catastrophic injuries, reporting 58% as occurring on impact at engagement, 37% from a collapsed scrum and 5% from “popping out”. The acute and chronic front row spinal injury burden of the scrum by region is presented as occurring in the Background: To protect the lumbar spine from excessive forces, rugby union players need to demonstrate the work ability of the trunk extensors and flexors to meet the physical demands. Aim: To measure and evaluate whether rugby union players were able to meet the imposed physical work demand, considering limitations, tolerances and resistance to fatigue, using isokinetic dynamometry for trunk extensors (TE) and trunk flexors (TF). Methods: Fifty-five male players, between the ages of 18 and 23 years, participated in the study. All participants completed a PAR-Q (pre-activity risk) questionnaire before the isokinetic testing. Their height was between 1.80 ± 0.67 m and body mass was 86.0 ± 17.5 kg. Participants were subjected to a newly designed protocol using the Biodex Isokinetic System 3 Dynamometer, called the Rugby Union Physical Work Evaluation (RUPWE). Results: There was a significant difference between the forwards’ trunk extensor peak torque to body weight 488% ± 119% and the trunk flexor peak torque to body weight 289% ± 73%. Furthermore, there was a large effect size between trunk extensor and trunk flexor muscle performance for the forwards (d =2.0) and backs (d =1.9) for peak torque to body weight. Spearman’s rank-order correlations (rs) showed a moderate negative correlation for the forwards between trunk extensor peak torque to body weight and time to peak torque, (rs = -0.4; p=0.018). There is a strong negative correlation for the backs between trunk extensor peak torque to body weight and time to peak torque, (rs = -0.6; p=0.003). Conclusion: The physical work evaluation protocol can be used as a screening tool for rugby players as it measures the extensive mechanical load placed on the lumbar region. This has the potential to evaluate their athletic performance for the demands of tackling and scrumming.

The The Isokinetic Rugby Union Physical Work Evaluation (RUPWE) protocol: Can Rugby Union Players meet the physical work demands of the game?