The current case study attempted to document the contemporary demands of elite rugby union. Players (n = 2) were tracked continuously during a competitive team selection game using Global Positioning System (GPS) software. Data revealed that players covered on average 6,953 m during play (83 minutes). Of this distance, 37% (2,800 m) was spent standing and walking, 27% (1,900 m) jogging, 10% (700 m) cruising, 14% (990 m) striding, 5% (320 m) high-intensity running, and 6% (420 m) sprinting. Greater running distances were observed for both players (6.7% back; 10% forward) in the second half of the game. Positional data revealed that the back performed a greater number of sprints (>20 km·h-1) than the forward (34 vs. 19) during the game. Conversely, the forward entered the lower speed zone (6-12 km·h-1) on a greater number of occasions than the back (315 vs. 229) but spent less time standing and walking (66.5 vs. 77.8%). Players were found to perform 87 moderate-intensity runs (>14 km·h-1) covering an average distance of 19.7 m (SD = 14.6). Average distances of 15.3 m (back) and 17.3 m (forward) were recorded for each sprint burst (>20 km·h-1), respectively. Players exercised at ~80 to 85% [latin capital V with dot above]o2max during the course of the game with a mean heart rate of 172 b·min-1 (~88% HRmax). This corresponded to an estimated energy expenditure of 6.9 and 8.2 MJ, back and forward, respectively. The current study provides insight into the intense and physical nature of elite rugby using �on the field� assessment of physical exertion. Future use of this technology may help practitioners in design and implementation of individual position-specific training programs with appropriate management of player exercise load.

An Evaluation of the Physiological Demands of Elite Rugby Union Using Global Positioning System Tracking Software

Background
Rugby Union has one of the highest reported incidences of match injuries amongst all professional team sports. The majority of research within this field has focused on elite male cohorts; in this study we present the first meta-analytic review of these data.

/pdf/a-meta-analysis-of-injuries-in-senior-men-s-professional-526kvh81b6.pdf

A meta-analysis of injuries in senior men’s professional rugby union

The physical demands of Super 14 rugby union

An athletic profile should encompass the physiological, biomechanical, anthropometric and performance measures pertinent to the athlete’s sport and discipline. The measurement systems and procedures used to create these profiles are constantly evolving and becoming more precise and practical. This is a review of strength and ballistic assessment methodologies used in sport, a critique of current maximum strength [one-repetition maximum (1RM) and isometric strength] and ballistic performance (bench throw and jump capabilities) assessments for the purpose of informing practitioners and evolving current assessment methodologies. The reliability of the various maximum strength and ballistic assessment methodologies were reported in the form of intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficient of variation (%CV). Mean percent differences $$ \left( {M_{\text{diff}} = \left[ {\frac{{{\mid }X_{{{\text{method}}1}} - X_{{{\text{method}}2}} {\mid }}}{{(X_{{{\text{method}}1}} + X_{{{\text{method}}2}} )}}} \right] \times 100} \right) $$
 and effect size (ES = [X
 method2 − X
 method1] ÷ SDmethod1) calculations were used to assess the magnitude and spread of methodological differences for a given performance measure of the included studies. Studies were grouped and compared according to their respective performance measure and movement pattern. The various measurement systems (e.g. force plates, position transducers, accelerometers, jump mats, optical motion sensors and jump-and-reach apparatuses) and assessment procedures (i.e. warm-up strategies, loading schemes and rest periods) currently used to assess maximum isometric squat and mid-thigh pull strength (ICC > 0.95; CV   0.91; CV   0.82; CV < 6.5 %) were deemed highly reliable. The measurement systems and assessment procedures employed to assess maximum isometric strength [M
 Diff = 2–71 %; effect size (ES) = 0.13–4.37], 1RM strength (M
 Diff = 1–58 %; ES = 0.01–5.43), vertical jump capabilities (M
 Diff = 2–57 %; ES = 0.02–4.67) and bench throw capabilities (M
 Diff = 7–27 %; ES = 0.49–2.77) varied greatly, producing trivial to very large effects on these respective measures. Recreational to highly trained athletes produced maximum isometric squat and mid-thigh pull forces of 1,000–4,000 N; and 1RM bench press, back squat and power clean values of 80–180 kg, 100–260 kg and 70–140 kg, respectively. Mean and peak power production across the various loads (body mass to 60 % 1RM) were between 300 and 1,500 W during the bench throw and between 1,500 and 9,000 W during the vertical jump. The large variations in maximum strength and power can be attributed to the wide range in physical characteristics between different sports and athletic disciplines, training and chronological age as well as the different measurement systems of the included studies. The reliability and validity outcomes suggest that a number of measurement systems and testing procedures can be implemented to accurately assess maximum strength and ballistic performance in recreational and elite athletes, alike. However, the reader needs to be cognisant of the inherent differences between measurement systems, as selection will inevitably affect the outcome measure. The strength and conditioning practitioner should also carefully consider the benefits and limitations of the different measurement systems, testing apparatuses, attachment sites, movement patterns (e.g. direction of movement, contraction type, depth), loading parameters (e.g. no load, single load, absolute load, relative load, incremental loading), warm-up strategies, inter-trial rest periods, dependent variables of interest (i.e. mean, peak and rate dependent variables) and data collection and processing techniques (i.e. sampling frequency, filtering and smoothing options).

A brief review of strength and ballistic assessment methodologies in sport

The purpose of this investigation was to quantify the movement characteristics of elite rugby union players during competitive play and identify whether position-related differences exist. Ninety-eight elite players from eight English Premiership Clubs were tracked using global positioning systems (GPS) during 44 competitive matches throughout the 2010/2011 season. Player positions were defined as: (1) Backs or Forwards; (2) Front, Second and Back Rows, Scrum Half, Inside and Outside Backs; (3) 15 individual positions (numbers 1–15). Analysis revealed the game is predominantly played at low speeds with little distance covered ‘sprinting’ by either the Backs (50 ± 76 m) or the Forwards (37 ± 64 m). The Backs travelled greater (P <  0.05) absolute and relative distances than the Forwards. The Scrum Half covered the greatest total distance during a match (7098 ± 778 m) and the Front Row the least (5158 ± 200 m). The Back Row covered the greatest distances at ‘sprinting’ speeds, particularly the numb...

The movement characteristics of English Premiership rugby union players

The aim of this study was to assess the physical demands of elite English rugby union match-play. Player movements were captured by five distributed video cameras and then reconstructed on a two-dimensional plane representing the pitch. Movements based on speeds were categorized as standing, walking, jogging, and medium-intensity running (low-intensity activity), and high-intensity running, sprinting, and static exertion (scrummaging, rucking, mauling, and tackling) (high-intensity activity). Position groups were defined as forwards (tight and loose) and backs (inside and outside). Backs travelled more total distance than forwards (6127 m, s = 724 vs. 5581 m, s = 692; P < 0.05) and greater distances in walking (2351 m, s = 287 vs. 1928 m, s = 2342; P < 0.001) and high-intensity running (448 m, s = 149 vs. 298 m, s = 107; P < 0.05). Forwards performed more high-intensity activity than backs (9:09 min:s, s = 1:39 vs. 3:04 min:s, s = 1:01; P < 0.001), which was attributable to more time spent in sta...

/pdf/the-physical-demands-of-elite-english-rugby-union-1z8pfuemj1.pdf

Joe El-Abd

Papers

The physical demands of elite English rugby union