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 static exertion (7:56 min:s, s=1:56 vs. 1:18 min:s, s=0:30; P<0.001), although backs spent more time in high-intensity running (0:52 min:s, s=0:19 vs. 1:19 min:s, s=0:26; P=0.004). Players travelled a greater distance in the first 10 min compared with 50-60 and 70-80 min, but there was no difference in the amount of high-intensity activity performed during consecutive 10-min periods during match-play. These results show the differing physical demands between forwards and backs with no evident deterioration in high-intensity activity performed during match-play.

ObjectivesUsing a prospective cohort study design, to establish the incidence and nature of time-loss injuries in English community rugby and to assess the differences between different playing levels.SettingEnglish community rugby clubs.ParticipantsInjury information for 4635 matches was collected during seasons 2009/2010 (46 clubs), 2010/2011(67 clubs) and 2011/2012 (76 clubs). Clubs were subdivided into groups A (semiprofessional), B (amateur) and C (recreational) for analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAny injury resulting in 8 days or greater absence from match play was reported by injury management staff at the clubs. The primary outcome measure was injury incidence (per 1000 player match-hours) and the secondary outcome measure was severity (ie, days absence).ResultsOverall match injury incidence was 16.9 injuries per 1000 player match-hours. Incidence was higher for group A (21.7; 95% CI 19.8 to 23.6) compared with group B (16.6; 95% CI 15.2 to 17.9) and C (14.2; 95% CI 13.0 to 15.5, both p<0.001). The mean time-loss was 7.6 weeks absence, with knee and shoulder injuries the most severe with mean absences of 11.6 and 9.3 weeks, respectively. Half of all injuries occurred to the lower limb, with knee and ankle joint/ligament injuries the most common diagnoses. Shoulder joint/ligament injuries were the most common and severe upper limb injuries. Contact events accounted for 80% of all injuries and tackles accounted for 50%. Running was the most common non-contact injury event, of which 56% were hamstring injuries.ConclusionsMore time-loss injuries occur at higher levels of community rugby. Injury prevention strategies should focus on good technique in the tackle and conditioning exercises for the knee, ankle, hamstrings and shoulder.

BackgroundExercise programmes aimed at reducing injury have been shown to be efficacious for some non-collision sports, but evidence in adult men’s collision sports such as rugby union is lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of a movement control injury prevention exercise programme for reducing match injuries in adult men’s community rugby union players.Methods856 clubs were invited to participate in this prospective cluster randomised (single-blind) controlled trial where clubs were the unit of randomisation. 81 volunteered and were randomly assigned (intervention/control). A 42-week exercise programme was followed throughout the season. The control programme reflected ‘normal practice’ exercises, whereas the intervention focused on proprioception, balance, cutting, landing and resistance exercises.Outcome measures were match injury incidence and burden for: (1) all ≥8 days time-loss injuries and (2) targeted (lower limb, shoulder, head and neck, excluding fractures and lacerations) ≥8 days time-loss injuries.ResultsPoisson regression identified no clear effects on overall injury outcomes. A likely beneficial difference in targeted injury incidence (rate ratio (RR), 90% CI=0.6, 0.4 to 1.0) was identified, with a 40% reduction in lower-limb incidence (RR, 90% CI=0.6, 0.4 to 1.0) and a 60% reduction in concussion incidence (RR, 90% CI=0.4, 0.2 to 0.7) in the intervention group. Comparison between arms for clubs with highest compliance (≥median compliance) demonstrated very likely beneficial 60% reductions in targeted injury incidence (RR, 90% CI=0.4, 0.2 to 0.8) and targeted injury burden (RR, 90% CI=0.4, 0.2 to 0.7).ConclusionsThe movement control injury prevention programme resulted in likely beneficial reductions in lower-limb injuries and concussion. Higher intervention compliance was associated with reduced targeted injury incidence and burden.

Using an expert consensus-based approach, a rugby union Video Analysis Consensus (RUVAC) group was formed to develop a framework for video analysis research in rugby union. The aim of the framework is to improve the consistency of video analysis work in rugby union and help enhance the overall quality of future research in the sport. To reach consensus, a systematic review and Delphi method study design was used. After a systematic search of the literature, 17 articles were used to develop the final framework that described and defined key actions and events in rugby union (rugby). Thereafter, a group of researchers and practitioners with experience and expertise in rugby video analysis formed the RUVAC group. Each member of the group examined the framework of descriptors and definitions and rated their level of agreement on a 5-point agreement Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neither agree or disagree; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree). The mean rating of agreement on the five-point scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) was 4.6 (4.3–4.9), 4.6 (4.4–4.9), 4.7 (4.5–4.9), 4.8 (4.6–5.0) and 4.8 (4.6–5.0) for the tackle, ruck, scrum, line-out and maul, respectively. The RUVAC group recommends using this consensus as the starting framework when conducting rugby video analysis research. Which variables to use (if not all) depends on the objectives of the study. Furthermore, the intention of this consensus is to help integrate video data with other data (eg, injury surveillance).

ObjectivesMost concussions in rugby union occur during tackles. We investigated whether legislating to lower maximum tackle height would change tackle behaviour, and reduce concussion incidence rate.MethodsIn a single group intervention, 12 elite men’s teams played in two competitions during the 2019/2020 season. The Championship (control, 90 games) retained standard Laws of Rugby for the tackle; the Championship Cup (intervention, 36 games) used revised laws—the maximum tackle height was lowered from the line of the shoulders on the ball carrier to the line of the armpits. Videos of tackles were analysed for ball carrier and tackler behaviour. Injury data were collected using standardised methods.ResultsIn the intervention setting, there was a significantly lower proportion of tackles; (1) in which ball carriers (rate ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86) and tacklers (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.84) were upright, (2) in which the tackler’s initial contact was to the ball carrier’s head or neck (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84) and (3) in which initial contact was above the line of the ball carrier’s armpit (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88). Concussion incidence rate did not differ between conditions (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.01). Unexpectedly, compared with the control setting, tacklers in the intervention setting were themselves concussed at a higher rate as measured by; (1) incidence (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.45) and (2) concussions per 1000 tackles (2.09, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.80) than in the control setting.ConclusionsLegislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the intervention setting—who were aiming to tackle lower—suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the control setting.