The physical demands of elite English rugby union

Abstract

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.

Movement and impact characteristics of South African professional rugby union players

“…[3] A number of researchers have endeavoured to quantify the physical demands of rugby union through video-based time-motion analysis (TMA). [1,2,[4][5][6] These studies all agree that the majority of time is spent engaged in low-intensity activities for all positions, but that the nature of physical exertion differs across position groups. Researchers have previously determined that backs spend more time in low-intensity activity than forwards, [6] but also that backs spend more time sprinting than forwards.…”

“…[1,2,[4][5][6] These studies all agree that the majority of time is spent engaged in low-intensity activities for all positions, but that the nature of physical exertion differs across position groups. Researchers have previously determined that backs spend more time in low-intensity activity than forwards, [6] but also that backs spend more time sprinting than forwards. [1] When divided into four positional groups (front row forwards, back row forwards, inside backs and outside backs), back row forwards were shown to spend the greatest amount of time engaged in high-intensity activity, while inside backs covered the most total distance.…”

“…[1] When divided into four positional groups (front row forwards, back row forwards, inside backs and outside backs), back row forwards were shown to spend the greatest amount of time engaged in high-intensity activity, while inside backs covered the most total distance. [6] Rugby union has evolved rapidly owing to intermittent law changes making it necessary to continuously re-evaluate game demands. [7] While video TMA has provided a great deal of valuable information to researchers, its practical application is somewhat limited considering the time required for coding movement events and subjectivity in the categorisation of locomotive events.…”

Physical Demands of Representative Match-Play in Adolescent Rugby Union

“…Rugby union is an intermittent contact sport including high-intensity movements (e.g., sprinting, jumping and tackling), combined with low-intensity actions (e.g., walking and jogging) (10,38). The locomotive demands of senior professional players have recently been quantified using global positioning systems (GPS) technology (4,5,30).…”

Untitled

“…Front row forwards encounter high levels of static exertion where the intensity rather than the quantity of scrummaging has been suggested to cause transient neuromuscular fatigue [19], which is likely to reduce subsequent performance and may be a predisposing factor for injury [1]. To date, research has focused on determining scrum force of front row forwards and its impact on engagement technique and injury occurrence [9,16], but there is a paucity of research investigating the effect of possible fatigue from repetitive scrummaging.…”