+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sanctioning of Illegal and Dangerous Ruck Cleanouts During the 2018 Super Rugby Competition


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Rugby is a high contact sport that results in many injuries. The majority of injuries at senior elite levels result from contact phases during match-play. It is estimated that 10% of all match injuries are associated with the ruck in professional and community rugby. Surveillance of legal and illegal ruck cleanouts and the sanctions imposed by the on-field referees will help identify whether referees are actually enforcing the law according to the laws of the game, which will consequently contribute to the creation and implementation of further injury prevention strategies. Players should play the game in accordance with the laws of the game and be mindful of their own safety and that of others. Coaches and trainers of the game have the responsibility to ensure that players are prepared in a manner that comply with the World Rugby (WR) laws of the game and safe practices. Laws and law amendments are fundamental to the development of sport and introduced for a variety of reasons. The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of sanctioning of illegal and dangerous ruck cleanouts during the 2018 Super Rugby competition by using Nacsport Basic+ video software; 120 round robin matches from the 2018 Super Rugby competition were coded and analyzed. The analysis of the intra reliability showed an almost perfect (>0.95) agreement between all the performance indicators. In total, 22,281 ruck cleanouts were coded of which 9% ( n = 2111) were illegal ruck cleanouts and 93% were not sanctioned by the referees; 57% (1087 out of 1953) of the illegal ruck cleanouts not sanctioned by the referees were deemed dangerous. The majority of dangerous illegal ruck cleanouts not sanctioned by the referees were “ shoulder charge” (88%, n = 280), “ neck roll” (86%, n = 100), and “contact above the shoulder” (81%, n = 201). To aid injury prevention efforts in rugby, future research studies should investigate why on-field referees are not sanctioning all illegal and dangerous ruck cleanouts according to WR Laws of the Game.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Contact events in rugby union and their propensity to cause injury.

          The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of contact events in professional rugby union matches and to assess their propensity to cause injury. The study was a two-season (2003/2004 and 2005/2006) prospective cohort design. It included 645 professional rugby union players from 13 English Premiership rugby union clubs. The main outcome measures were: incidence of match contact events (events per game); incidence (injuries per 1000 player-hours and per 1000 contact events), risk (days lost per 1000 player-hours and per 1000 contact events) and diagnosis of injury; referee's decision. Risk factors were player-player contact, position on pitch and period of play. Tackles (221.0 events/game) and rucks (142.5 events/game) were the most common events and mauls (13.6%) and scrums (12.6%) the most penalised. Tackles (701.6 days/1000 player-hours) were responsible for the greatest loss of time but scrums (213.2 days lost/1000 events) and collisions (199.8 days lost/1000 events) presented the highest risk per event. Tackles were the game event responsible for the highest number of injuries and the greatest loss of time in rugby union because they were by far the most common contact event. Collisions were 70% more likely to result in an injury than a tackle and scrums carried a 60% greater risk of injury than a tackle. The relative propensities for contact events to cause injury were rated as: lineout--very low; ruck--low; maul and tackle--average; collision and scrum--high.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Injury risks associated with tackling in rugby union.

            To examine factors associated with tackles in rugby union and to assess their impact on the risk of injury. Two-season (2003/2004 and 2005/2006) prospective cohort design with video analysis. 13 English Premiership clubs. 645 players. RR (95% CI) calculated by comparing the frequency of occurrence of risk factors in a cohort of players injured during tackles with their frequency of occurrence in tackles in general play. Playing position; player's speed, impact force, head position, head/neck flexion and body region struck in the tackle; sequence, direction and type of tackle; and location and type of injury. High-speed going into the tackle, high impact force, collisions and contact with a player's head/neck were identified as significant (p<0.01) risk factors for ball carriers (BCs) and tacklers. Midfield backs were significantly (p<0.01) more prone to injury when tackling than other players. Relatively few tacklers were penalised by referees for collision tackles (general play: 2.0%; injured players: 3.3%) and tackles above the line of the shoulder (general play: 5.9%; injured players: 16.7%). Advice in national and international injury prevention programmes for reducing the risk of injury in tackles is strongly supported by the results obtained from this study. These programmes should be reviewed, however, to provide specific advice for each type of tackle. Stricter implementation of the Laws of Rugby relating to collisions and tackles above the line of the shoulder may reduce the number of head/neck injuries sustained by BCs.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              BokSmart - implementing a National Rugby Safety Programme.


                Author and article information

                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                05 April 2019
                : 10
                : 803
                [1] 1Department of Sports Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University , Stellenbosch, South Africa
                [2] 2Department for Health, University of Bath , Bath, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Miguel-Angel Gomez-Ruano, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain

                Reviewed by: Nimai Parmar, Middlesex University, United Kingdom; Riaan Schoeman, University of the Free State, South Africa

                *Correspondence: Wilbur Kraak, kjw@ 123456sun.ac.za

                This article was submitted to Movement Science and Sport Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Copyright © 2019 Kraak, Bam, Kruger, Henderson, Josias and Stokes.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                : 10 January 2019
                : 25 March 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 31, Pages: 8, Words: 0
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                injury prevention,ruck cleanouts,sanctioning,dangerous play,referees,attack,defense


                Comment on this article