Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229 www.elsevier.

com/locate/yptsp

Original research

Position specic rehabilitation for rugby union players. Part I: Empirical movement analysis data
Cliff Eaton a,*, Keith George b
b a Department of Exercise and Sports Science, MMU, Hassall Road, Alsager, Cheshire ST7 2HL, UK Research Institute for Sport and Exercise, Liverpool John Moores University, 15-21 Webster Street, Liverpool L3 2ET, UK

Received 24 March 2005; received in revised form 27 July 2005; accepted 1 August 2005

Abstract Objectives: The purpose of the study was to quantify the positional movement patterns of professional Rugby Union players competing in the English Premiership. Design: A cross sectional design was used. Setting: Field based data collection of one professional rugby union club during six league matches. Participants: An incidental sample of 35 professional rugby players with an age range of 2034 years. Method: Recordings of the positional demands, taken from ten image recognition sensors, were coded for the specied high (HI) and low intensity (LI) tasks. Work-to-rest ratios were also calculated. Statistical assessment used an independent groups one-way ANOVA with posthoc Scheffe test. Results: For all HI and LI activities there were signicant position-related differences (P!0.05). In HI activities there were a range of different post-hoc Scheffe outcomes. The Props sprinted 1G1 time during a game while the Outside Backs sprinted 14G5 times. There were fewer post-hoc differences for the LI activities. For example, the Props jogged 325G26 times and the Outside Backs jogged 339G45 times. There was no signicant position-related difference in the work-to-rest ratios for the quantity of HI and LI activities (PO0.05). There was, however, a signicant positional difference when comparing the work to rest ratio for time spent in HI and LI activities (P!0.05). The Loose Forwards had the least amount of recovery with a work to rest time ratio, in seconds, of 1:7.5 s. The Outside Backs had the most amount of recovery, 1:14.6 s. Conclusions: There were clear positional differences in the quantity and time spent in rugby specic demands. These differences are most obvious in the HI activities of the game and included position-specic differences within both the Forward and Backs units. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Fitness; Work-to-rest ratios; Rugby; Rehabilitation

1. Introduction Physiotherapists involved in the rehabilitation of rugby union players require an understanding of the demands experienced by players of this sport. The different positions in a rugby team each have specic demands and skills (Nicholas, 1997). The initial considerations in devising a rehabilitation programme must, therefore, revolve around

* Corresponding author. Address: Hill Farmhouse, Main Street, Greetham, Rutland LE15 7NJ, UK. Tel./fax: C44 1572 813394. E-mail address: cliff@zzio.fsnet.co.uk (C. Eaton).

1466-853X/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.08.006

the varying positional demands. Consideration should be given to the physical contact, cardio-vascular, muscular power, agility and biomechanical demands of each position. For an understanding of these variables the physiotherapist must have an intimate knowledge of the sport as well as a source of reference for the movement patterns that reect physiological and kinematic demands of rugby union. The only available literature to have assessed movement patterns of Rugby Union players, conducted between 1988 and 2004, pertain primarily to southern hemisphere teams and any British data pre-dates professionalisation of the sport (1996). It is quite clear that the adoption of professionalism has changed Rugby Union in the UK and direct comparisons between northern and southern hemisphere styles of play are often difcult due to tactical and philosophical differences.

C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229

23

A number of further issues raised by available literature would support the rationale for continued collection of empirical movement pattern data. Previous research has used a variety of data collection techniques with the most popular being time-motion analysis, using video recordings, to estimate the distance, time, work/rest ratios and frequencies of match play activities (Docherty, Wenger & Neary, 1988; McClean, 1992; Deutsch, Maw, Jenkins, & Reaburn, 1998; Deutsch, Kearny & Rehrer, 2002). With advances in technical abilities and professionalisation of the game we now have the possibility of utilising multi-camera systems, such as the Prozoneq system. This system enhances the time and motion studies of invasive team sports, such as rugby, by allowing for situations where players are obscured from view. Most studies to date have used a modied movement classication that had been devised for football by Reilly and Thomas (1976) where movements were divided into high intensity (HI) activities and low intensity (LI) activities. The HI activities often included an array of; sprinting, running, tackling, rucking and mauling, lineouts and scrums although individual studies have missed specic components of movement patterns in the game. Deutsch et al. (2002) recorded jumping but not lifting at lineouts, which has become a major role for Prop Forwards, Locks and Loose Forwards in the modern professional game. Furthermore, previous research has chosen not to analyse the Forwards positions individually, opting instead for grouping them as one or in positional groups. For example, Deutsch, Kearney, and Rehrer (1998) grouped Props and Locks together as Front Row Forwards. Within the evolving nature of the game and the corresponding physical development of the players, these positional groups may require reconsideration in the modern game. Also, it is noted that current data for the positional demands of the scrum half are non-existent. On this basis the purpose of the current study was to quantify the positional demands and movement patterns of professional Rugby Union players competing in the English Premiership. The ndings from this study should support the medical teams development of position-specic rehabilitation, for professional Rugby Union players, under pinned by evidence based programmes. The medical teams of professional clubs are under intense pressure for the quick and safe return of an injured player. An evidence based rehabilitation programme should augment clinical interventions to provide a safe and speedy return to competition (Beam, 2002).

22 players, to play in 15 positions in six Premiership matches. The 15 rugby union positions are made up of seven specialist roles. These roles are Props, Hooker, Locks, Loose Forwards, Scrum Half, Inside Backs and Outside Backs. The remaining seven players act as substitutes to be used for tactical or injury replacements. The recorded data, taken from the substitutes, continued on from the position they replaced. The six matches were played over a 6-month period, all in dry conditions and resulted in ve wins and one loss for the analysed team. All the participants were asked to provide informed and written consent prior to data collection. Permission was attained from Northampton Rugby Football Club for use of their facilities. Ethical approval was granted from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager Campus, UK 2.2. Design A cross sectional design was used where the participants, who played in specic rugby union positions (Independent Variable), were exposed to various sport specic tasks (Dependent Variables). These demands were divided into HI activities or work and LI activities or recovery. The analysis of rugby movements was based on a modication of the classications of Docherty et al. (1988) and more recently Deutsch et al. (2002). The HI were dened as sprinting (O7 m sK1), high speed runs (O5.5 m sK1), runs (O4 m sK1), scrums, rucks and mauls, tackling (tackler or tackled) and lineouts (jumper or lifter). Non-running HI activities were pre-dened on the following basis. Scrums were timed from the point at which the two packs engaged to the break-up, regardless of whether the ball was put in or not. Rucks and mauls were deemed to have started from when a player entered the event and cessation was when either the ball was picked up (in the case of a ruck), the ball came out (loose ball or taken by a player), or when the play was stopped for an infringement. A tackle was timed from the point of rst contact but no data was recorded for either a missed tackle or an assist. Lineouts started from the moment the ball left the throwers hands and ended once the jumper had landed. The classication for LI was jogging (O2 m sK1), walking (O0.5 m sK1) and standing (!0.5 m sK1). 2.3. Equipment Ten, specially designed, image recognition sensors were xed to the roof of the Northampton Saints stadium. The positioning of these cameras ensured that a player could be viewed anywhere on the pitch by three sensors. For reliability, the sensors were calibrated during installation, by measuring the motion of a device at ground level that was travelling at a known speed over a set distance. Calibration of the images allowed for a common co-ordination frame to be used so that a player could be represented as being at a single real world position. This system also resolved some

2. Method 2.1. Subjects An incidental sample of 35 professional rugby players was used, from Northampton RFC, with an age range of 2034 years. The Head Coach independently selected

24

Table 1 MeanGSD of data of high intensity (HI) activities for individual playing positions Demand Variable Props (a) Mean Sprints O 7 m sK1 Quantity (n) Mean distance (m) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Quantity (n) Mean distance (m) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Quantity (n) Mean distance (m) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Mean duration (s) Quantity (n) Relative time % Mean duration (s) Quantity (n) Relative time % Quantity tackler Quantity tackled Time spent (s) Relative time % Quantity jumper Quantity lifter Time spent (s) Relative time % Time (s) Quantity (n) Mean duration (s) Relative time % 1 5.7 0.7 0.02 11 7.5 SD 1 4.5 0.6 0.01 3 1.1 defg efg efg efg cdefg cf f cdefg bef cde Hooker (b) Mean 3 8.3 1.1 0.06 24 7.8 1.3 0.67 148 7.6 1.7 4.53 5.8 29 3.04 3.2 49 2.81 8 7 25.0 0.45 0 2 SD 1 1.8 fg g Lock (c) Mean 3 8.8 1.2 0.08 28 9.7 SD 2 3.7 0.5 0.05 5 1.0 fg g g fg aefg a Loose (d) Mean 6 9.1 1.2 0.13 38 9.4 1.6 1.09 130 8.1 1.8 4.23 5.8 27 2.91 3.2 48 2.79 13 8 35.9 0.66 2 4 SD 3 2.2 afg g Scrum half (e) Mean 9 12.8 SD 4 3.6 a a a ag abcd Inside back (f) Mean 12 13.4 SD 5 4.0 abcd a a abcd abcd a a abcd a Outside back (g) Mean 14 15.2 2.0 0.51 46 9.5 SD 5 3.7 0.5 0.19 9 0.9 abcd abcd abcd abcde abc

High speed runs O5.5 m sK1

0.2 g 0.03 fg 5 efg 4.1 0.7 0.17 efg 16 a 0.5 0.1 0.57 0.4 6 0.66 0.6 10 0.72 4 4 7.0 0.12 0 3

0.3 g 0.59 fg 12 aefg 1.2 0.2 0.30 aef 21 0.6 a 0.1 0.58 0.4 7 0.7 0.6 13 0.75 6 5 14.1 0.24 3 3

1.7 0.4 0.26 0.11 55 13 9.9 1.4 1.7 0.2 1.67 0.43 160 17 8.5 0.6 1.8 5.25 0.1 0.24

1.8 0.5 0.38 0.19 51 12 9.7 0.9 1.6 0.1 1.52 0.40 136 17 7.8 0.8 1.7 4.21 0.2 0.62

RunsO 4 m sK1

1.2 0.2 0.25 0.07 102 43 7.1 0.9 1.6 0.2 2.8 0.60 5.9 0.4 29 6 3.00 0.64 4.1 1.6 38 12 2.66 0.82 8 4 5 3 21.2 6.2 0.38 0.12 0 0 11 4

1.6 0.2 0.80 0.16 131 10 8.2 0.7 1.8 0.2 4.22 0.31 5.8 0.5 29 6 2.99 0.63 3.5 0.5 49 19 2.95 0.89 11 3 4 2 25.9 6.4 0.47 0.11 8 3 2 1

aefg a

abcd ag a

1.5 0.1 1.31 0.32 120 17 7.8 0.7 1.7 3.68 0.1 0.56

abc e

C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229

bcdefg

ae

ae

acdfg

ae

Scrums

Rucks and mauls Tackling

f efg efg

efg efg

efg efg

efg efg g afg afg c a

d cd bcd

Lineouts

c a

abd a

3.7 15 0.99 11 9 33.8 0.62 0.0 0.3

0.4 5 0.40 4 4 9.7 0.19 0.0 0.8

abcd abcd

3.6 15 1.01 9 5 24.4 0.45

0.8 9 0.59 4 3 6.8 0.12

abcd abcd

d d

2.89 13 0.67 6 5 18.7 0.34

0.7 6 0.31 3 3 6.7 0.12

a abcd abcd d d de

Total HI

21.3 8.0 0.39 0.19 505.8 64.2 206 46 2.5 0.3 9.16 1.29

bd cdg

3.0 5.5 ac 0.05 0.08 619.8 118.9 fg 265 23 2.3 0.3 11.16 2.12

18.0 5.5 0.33 0.12 654.7 64.0 262 24 2.5 0.2 11.82 1.26

b aefg

11.4 5.5 a 0.21 0.10 649.4 117.4 aefg 275 44 2.4 0.2 12.01 1.60

0.67

1.63 cd 410.7 59.1 228 31 1.8 0.2 7.58 1.06 bcd 354.7 45.7 203 24 1.5 0.7 6.50 0.86 abcd

484.7 19.6 259 26 1.9 0.2 8.79 0.28

Matching letters (a,b,c,d,e,f,g) denote a signicant difference between playing positions with matching letters. Av, average; SD, standard deviation; n, number; m, metres; s, seconds.

C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229

25

of the problems of occlusion, which is when one player obscures another. An end on camera was included to aid spatial separation between the players as they lined up across the width of the pitch. The cameras shutter speed was ten frames per second. Calculation of time was made by frequency of frames; therefore, times could be calculated with an accuracy of one tenth of a second. 2.4. Procedure The recorded data was then coded for the specied tasks by Prozoneq. Prozoneq is a professional company, which codes the position and activity of each player on video footage. Their work, to date, has primarily been with Premiership football clubs providing positional analysis of both the players and the ball. Recently they have developed their technology for the analysis of rugby union. The England R.F.U. and Northampton R.F.C. both currently use the Prozoneq system. The information provided by Prozoneq included the frequency, distance and time spent, at ve-minute intervals, for all the HI and LI described. This data was available for all the involved players, including the substitutes, for the full duration of a match including all stoppage and injury time. Data was collected for stoppage times because even when the ball is out of play the players are moving into position or standing, which are LI activities. These LI activities had to be included as they affect the work to rest ratios, calculated for each player, as validated by McClean (1992). The data from the whole game, for each veminute period, was transferred to an in-house computer programme. This programme calculated the means and standard deviations for the frequencies (n), average distances (m), average duration (s), and relative times (%) spent on all activities. Totals were then made for the frequency and times of HI and LI activities. Calculations were also made of the work to rest ratios for each activity. It was not possible to report measurement error as there were no means to perform repeat analysis of the same players in the same match. An attempt was made to source such data from Prozoneq but they were not forthcoming. 2.5. Data analysis Data were collated for the whole match for the comparison of HI and LI activities by player position. Descriptive ndings (Frequency, mean, SD) were then tabulated. For the statistical assessment of position-specic movement patterns independent groups one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffe test was adopted due to the continuous (ratio) nature of the dependent variables. A statistical package (Statsoft, Tulsa, USA) was used for data analysis and the signicance level was set at PZ0.05.

3. Results A comparison of the average distance (m), frequency (n), average time (s), and the relative match time (%), for all HI activities by playing position is displayed in Table 1. The data for LI activities and work to rest ratios are seen in Table 2. The selection of tables was made to allow every variable between every position to be compared in one place. An example of the comparison of the mean sprinting distance (m) for all positions is shown in Fig. 1. 3.1. HI activities The overall pattern, apart from lineouts and scrums, which had little or no Back position involvement and similar Forward position involvement, was signicant positionrelated differences (P!0.05) with a range of different posthoc Scheffe outcomes. 3.1.1. HI Sprinting (O7.0 m sK1) The Outside Backs performed the largest number of sprints (14G5), over the longest average distance (15.2G 3.7 m) whilst the Props engaged in the smallest number (1 G 1) over a much shorter distance (5.7 G 4.5 m). Individual position differences were mirrored when comparing the Forwards and the Backs as units. The relative match time spent sprinting was small for all positions. The Outside Backs spent the most relative match time, sprinting for 0.51G0.19% of the total time. 3.1.2. HI high speed runs (O5.5 m sK1) The Props, once again, completed the smallest number of this high speed runs (11G3) with the Scrum Halves completing the highest number of this activity (55G13) over an average distance of 9.9G1.4 m. These individual position differences were mirrored when comparing the Forwards and the Backs as units. 3.1.3. HI runs (O4.0 m sK1) Most positions completed a high frequency of this HI (e.g. Props 102G43 and Scrum Halves 160G17). The average distance ranged from 7.7G0.9 m for the Props to 8.5G0.6 m for the Scrum Halves. Of all the HI activities the most relative match time was spent running at this speed (e.g. Scrum Halves spent 5.25G0.24% of their matches in this HI activity). The statistical analysis between the Forward and the Backs did not demonstrate a signicant difference for this HI activity (PO0.05). 3.1.4. HI scrums Only the Forwards compete in the scrums. The average quantity recorded for a match was 29G6 with an average duration of 5.8G0.5 s. All positions competed in the same number for the same duration, except for the Loose Forwards (27G7) who were occasionally replaced, by a specialist position, in the event of a player being sent off.

26

C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229

3.1.5. HI rucks and mauls The Forwards completed a signicantly larger number of rucks and mauls than the Backs (P!0.001) with the Hookers completing the most (49G10) and the Outside Backs the least (13G6). This was reected in relative match time data with the Locks spending 2.95G0.89% of their time in rucks and mauls whilst with the Scrum Halves this dropped to 0.67G0.31%. 3.1.6. HI tackling All positions were involved in both tackling and being tackled with the frequency of being tackled not signicantly different between positions (PZ0.792). The Scrum Half was the most often tackled position (9G4) followed closely by the Loose Forwards (8G5). There was, however, a signicant difference in the frequency of tackling between positions (PZ0.006) with the Loose Forwards completing most tackles (13G6). 3.1.7. HI lineouts As with the scrums it was essentially only the Forwards who competed in the lineouts as either lifters or jumpers. Not surprisingly, given role differentiation, the Props performed the greatest number of lifts (11G4) while the Locks completed the highest number of jumps (8G3) per game. 3.1.8. Total HI activities Loose Forwards were engaged in the most HI activities (275G44) for the longest relative match time (12.01G 1.60%). Conversely, the Outside Backs performed the least number of HI activities (203G24) reective of a relative match time of only 6.5G0.86%. This pattern was reected in a comparison of Forward versus Back positions. On average the Forwards spent 10.2G4.2 min (frequency 253G46) engaged in all HI activities, compared to the Backs who spent 6.62G1.10 min (frequency 222G33, P! 0.05). 3.2. LI activities The overall pattern was signicant position-related differences (P!0.05) with a range of different post-hoc Scheffe outcomes. Although the general statistical outcome (ANOVA) was similar in LI and HI activity there were fewer post-hoc differences for the LI activities (see Table 2). 3.2.1. LI jogging (O2.0 m sK1) The biggest quantity of jogs was performed by Hookers (403G32) with the smallest number performed by Props (325G26). Despite performing the smallest quantity of jogs the Props jogged over the longest average distance (8.5G 1.2 m) while the Outside Backs average distance (6.4G 0.6 m) was the lowest.

3.2.2. LI walking (!2.0 m sK1) Walking was the most frequent LI activity engaged in by all players. The Outside Backs performed the smallest incidence of walks (464G55) and the Locks the most (598G20). Contrarily, the Outside Backs walked the furthest with an average distance of 7.5G1.1 m, compared to the Locks whose average distance was 4.2G0.7 m. 3.2.3. Standing (!0.50 m sK1) The Outside Backs stood the smallest number of times (207G37) with the Hookers standing most frequently (324G39). All the Backs positions (213G38) stood less frequently than the Forwards (310G37). 3.2.4. Total LI activities The Loose Forwards spent the least time involved in LI activities (4723G395 s) with the Outside Backs spending the most time (5107G210 s). However, the Outside Backs engaged in the fewest number of LI activities (1015G111), while the Hookers were involved in the most (1313G91). These ndings were supported when comparing Forwards and Backs for frequency of LI activities. 3.3. Work-to-rest ratios The work-to-rest ratio was calculated for quantity and time. There was no signicant difference in the quantity of work to rest ratios (PZ0.894) between positions. There was, however, a signicant positional difference when comparing the work-to-rest ratio for time (P!0.05). The Forwards had a mean time ratio of 1:8.3G1.8 s compared with the Backs whose ratio was 1:13.0G2.4 s. Of these the Loose Forwards had the least recovery time (7.5G1.3 s) and the Outside Backs had the most (14.6G2.0 s).

4. Discussion The most important nding of this study was that there were clear positional differences in the quantity and time spent in rugby specic demands for the current English Premiership rugby players. These differences are most obvious in the HI activities of the game and included position-specic differences within both the Forward and Backs units. To compare to previous research it is often pertinent to reect on Forwards versus Backs differences as well as those from individual positions. The results demonstrated that the Forwards were involved in a greater number of HI activities, and for more time, than were the Backs. This nding supports those of Deutsch et al. (2002). Both studies demonstrated that the Forwards spend around ten minutes of every game engaged in HI activities. The Forwards increased involvement in these activities was attributed to their having more involvement in demands such as scrums, rucks, mauls, and lineouts. Within these demands individual

Table 2 MeanGSD data of low intensity (LI) activities and work/rest ratios for individual playing positions Demand Variable Props (a) Mean Jogging O2 m sK1 Quantity (n) Mean distance (m) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Quantity (n) Mean distance (m) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Quantity (n) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Time (s) Quantity (n) Mean duration (s) Relative time % Ratio 1:x Ratio 1:x Period (s) Period (s) 325 8.49 3.06 17.89 550 4.49 5.12 50.74 303 4.05 22.27 5036 SD 26 1.17 cdefg 0.25 bcdefg 1.50 dg 44 0.52 fg 0.51 g 4.79 fg 37 0.66 5.09 248 fg Hooker (b) Mean 403 7.52 2.55 18.48 503 3.19 3.53 45.72 324 3.56 20.75 4940 SD 32 0.50 0.16 a 1.68 dg 246 1.57 efg 1.74 efg 2.80 efg 39 1.38 7.79 323 fg Lock (c) Mean 367 7.37 2.53 16.70 598 4.21 4.61 47.98 317 4.14 23.49 4891 SD 28 0.64 a 0.22 a 1.74 g 152 0.73 fg 0.75 fg 4.08 efg 42 0.72 4.10 g 214 fg Loose (d) Mean 358 6.60 2.31 15.31 551 4.42 4.81 48.93 306 4.24 24.24 4723 SD 57 0.63 a 0.23 a 1.80 ab 83 0.34 fg 0.42 fg 4.20 efg 33 0.96 6.34 fg 395 g fg Scrum half (e) Mean 385 6.66 2.29 15.94 535 5.45 5.84 56.28 267 3.92 18.97 5026 SD 44 0.64 a 0.20 a 1.95 49 0.62 bg 0.62 bg 2.80 bcd 32 0.61 3.53 140 g Inside back (f) Mean 368 6.75 2.39 16.12 509 6.09 6.23 57.72 244 4.19 18.58 5008 SD 56 0.76 a 0.23 a 2.15 65 0.84 abcd 0.77 bcdg 2.22 abcd 25 0.84 1.96 d 196 abcd Outside back (g) Mean 339 6.43 2.67 14.00 464 7.52 7.41 61.92 207 4.54 17.16 5107 SD 45 0.64 a 0.20 a 1.57 abc 55 C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229 1.13 abcdef 1.28 abcdef 3.70 abcd 37 0.57 3.46 cd 210 d abcde

Walking !2 m sK1

Standing !0.5 m sK1

Total LI

1178 82 g 4.29 0.20 g 89.70 5.92 10.13 2.50 25.33 4.34 fg 1.10 cdef 1.61 cdfg

1313 91 g 3.77 0.31 fg 88.83 4.98 8.28 2.32 19.21 2.12 fg 0.48 2.05 fg

1246 90 g 3.94 0.21 fg 88.18 4.79 7.55 2.50 18.88 1.26 fg 0.55 a 0.96 afg

1215 150 g 3.91 0.30 fg 87.99 4.46 7.48 2.35 17.58 1.60 fg 0.44 a 1.29 aefg

1186 102 4.26 0.35 g 91.21 4.59 10.38 1.89 19.62 0.28 0.14 a 0.36 dg

1121 127 4.52 0.48 bcdg 92.42 4.99 12.45 1.81 22.53 1.06 abcd 0.71 a 1.94 abcdg

1015 111 abcd 5.09 0.60 abcdef 93.50 0.86 abcd 5.04 14.63 1.46 21.36 0.63 1.99 abcdef

Wk/rest quantity Wk/rest time Mean work Mean rest

Matching letters (a,b,c,d,e,f,g) denote a signicant difference between playing positions with matching letters. Av, average; SD, standard deviation; n, number; m, metres; s, seconds.

27

28

C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229

Fig. 1. Comparison of the mean sprinting distance (m) for all positions.

playing positions were shown to have varying amounts of involvement. For example, the Props engaged in three times the number of lineout lifts than any other position. In contrast the Locks, who have in previous studies been grouped together with Props (Docherty et al., 1988; Deutsch et al., 1998, 2002), completed four times the number of lineout jumps than any other position. Other differences in the frequency and time spent in HI activities for individual Forward positions support the value of separate consideration, rather than positional groupings, when devising rehabilitation or tness programmes. This suggestion is bolstered when detailed examination is made of the HI activities of a Scrum Half, which illustrate the unique demands of this position. The Scrum Half demonstrated signicant differences compared to the other positions, notably in high-speed runs, runs, rucks and mauls. These ndings add weight to the earlier statements that a Scrum Half cannot be considered as either a Forward or a Back (Deutsch et al., 1998). The Forwards have been referred to as the ball winners and the Backs as ball carriers (Nicholas, 1997). Data for the frequency of running demands placed on the Backs somewhat supports this although the forwards were engaged in some HI running activities (sometimes with the ball). The Outside Backs performed the most sprints and over the longest average distance whereas the Scrum Halves completed the most number of high speed runs and runs. It was noted that the HI activity of running was required in both the attacking and defensive roles of the Backs as they are required to assume the furthest positions in a defensive line, if there is a breakdown in play. The slower forwards are either involved in the ensuing ruck or maul, or ll in the nearest positions in the defensive line. The implications of this study for designing a rehabilitation or tness programme are clear. The programme design must allow for the varying position specic demands of each playing position. The forwards spent a lot of their match time engaged in physical HI activities, which lasted on average 2.4G0.2 s. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on developing upper body strength and lower limb power preferably in a sport specic manner over such repetitive durations. Consideration should also be given to the specialist tasks of certain Forwards, such as the Props

and Locks, who have specic roles in a lineout. Conversely, the Backs spent a lot of their HI activity time in fast running tasks. These include up to 14G5 full sprints over an average distance of 15.2G3.7 m. Although not demonstrated by this study it was clear that the Backs performed sudden changes of direction during these runs. The implication being that a rehabilitation or tness programme for these players should be biased towards this demand (Deutsch et al., 1998). All playing positions were involved in tackling, whether it was being tackled or making tackles. Although the total game time spent on this activity is relatively small (0.47G 0.19%) it is arguably the most intensive of all of the HI activities undertaken. Therefore, it should be ensured that a player is able to cope with this demand before commencing or returning to competition. Rehabilitation and tness programmes will also need to replicate the work/rest ratios to achieve specicity. The work to rest ratio was shown to vary between positions for both quantity and time. Knowledge of the time spent in LI activities, classied as recovery periods by Docherty et al. (1988) is useful when calculating the amount of recovery time to allow between HI activities. For example, for a Loose Forward a HI activity may be followed by LI activities lasting for 17 s, compared to a Prop who requires 25 s of recovery activities. The aim of the current study was to quantify the movement patterns of individual playing positions in the English Premiership. The study has gone part way to providing this information however some limitations of this study are worthy of note to prompt on-going data collection. Whilst Backs were split by position (Scrum half, Inside and Outside Backs) this is not a full positional differentiation. The Inside Backs comprise of an Inside and Outside Centre, while the Outside Backs are the two Wingers and the Full Back. As differences were found between these positional groups and other positions, these positions should be considered individually in future studies. The study did not analyse any changes of direction associated with running. This was a signicant omission and would require consideration when devising a rehabilitation or tness programme. Generalising the ndings of this study may be questioned due to the small sample size, the number of games analysed, and the assessment of only one club but this had obvious logistical implications. It is hoped that this issue will be addressed in a subsequent study. By using the information provided by this study, progressive combinations of exercises can be made to simulate the playing demands of any position. The simulation of positional demands could be achieved by combining various HI demands, such as sprinting and tackling, with LI demands, like jogging and walking. Using the information provided in the current study, the frequency, average distance, average duration and work/rest ratios can be assigned to subject a player to the demands they will encounter on return to competition (Beam, 2002).

C. Eaton, K. George / Physical Therapy in Sport 7 (2006) 2229

29

Acknowledgements The authors state that there are no conicts of interests to disclose, including any nancial or personal relationships with other people or organisations, which could inappropriately inuence their work.

References
Beam, J. W. (2002). Rehabilitation including sport specic functional progressions for the competitive athlete. Journal of Body Work and Movement Therapies, 6(4), 205219.

Deutsch, M. U., Kearney, G. A., & Rehrer, N. J. (2002). A comparison of competition work rates in elite club and Super 12 rugby. In T. Reilly, et al. (Ed.), Science and football IV (pp. 160166). London: Routledge. Deutsch, M. U., Maw, G. J., Jenkins, D., & Reaburn, P. (1998). Heart rate, blood lactate and kinematic data of elite colts (under-19) rugby union players during competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 561570. Docherty, D., Wenger, H. A., & Neary, P. (1988). Time motion analysis related to the physiological demands of rugby. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 14, 269277. McClean, D. A. (1992). Analysis of the physical demands of international rugby union. Journal of Sports Science, 10, 285296. Nicholas, C. W. (1997). Anthropometric and physiological characteristics of rugby union football players. Sports Medicine, 23(6), 376396. Reilly, T., & Thomas, V. (1976). A motion analysis of work rate in different positional roles in professional football match. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 2, 8797.