A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria.

David Drake, Rodney Kennedy, Matthew Godfrey, Simon MacLead, Amy Davis, Matt Maguire

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

63 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Introduction: Agility performance tests can be limited by the requirement for force plates, timing gates and expensive camera systems (Correia et al., 2012; Green, Blake, & Caulfield, 2011) making application into rehabilitation programs practically challenging. The aims of this study were to assess the reliability of a field based 1v1 agility test encompassing perceptualaction performance that could be replicated in applied settings. A secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the 1v1 agility test with a range of physical performance tests including the commonly used Y step test (Paul, Gabbett, & Nassis, 2016). Methods: Twenty-eight male rugby union players volunteered (Mean ± SD age 19.3 ± 2.2 years, age range 18 e 24, weight 96.5 ± 13.3 kg). Participants were randomly assigned to attack or defensive roles (1v1 agility test)within a simulated rugby evasion task (Brault et al., 2012). A previously utilized agility performance score (Young & Murray, 2016) was modified to assess agility performance. Two independent investigators reviewed video recordings (side and behind attacking player) to score attack and defensive performance. Each participant completed 10 agility trials. Results: Cohens Kappa statistic showed inter-rater reliability of agility scoring was almost perfect .861 (CI .816 to .917). Attacking agility had a large significant relationship with Y step performance (r =-.577, p = .001), single leg repeat hop (r = .570, p = .002) and body mass (r = -.537, p = .003). Defensive agility had a large significant relationship with CMJ flight time:contraction time ratio (r = .580, p = .001) and CMJ concentric duration (r = -.656, p = .000). Conclusion: Findings show the Y step test shared 33% of common variance with 1v1 attack and 5% with defensive agility performance. Low commonality is likely due to significantly greater frontal and transverse plane movement during agility compared to change of direction tests (Green et al., 2011). It is recommended that the 1v1 agility test be considered as part of return to play criteria in team sports players to assess attacking and defensive agility performance
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)ee20
JournalPhysical Therapy in Sport
Volume28
Early online date26 Oct 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 26 Oct 2017

Bibliographical note

Optimal Loading in Sport, The Second World Congress of Sports Physical Therapy, 6th-7th October 2017 – Titanic Belfast.
Reference text: 1. Brault, S., Bideau, B., Kulpa, R., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Detecting deception
in movement: the case of the side-step in rugby. PLoS ONE, (7).
2. Correia, V., Araujo, D., Cummins, A., & Craig, C. M. (2012). Perceiving and
acting upon spaces in a VR rugby task: expertise effects in affordance
detection and task achievement. Journal of Sport & Exercise Pyschology,
(34), 305-321.
3. Green, B. S., Blake, C., & Caulfield, B. M. (2011). A comparison of cutting
technique performance in rugby union players. Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research, 25 (10), 2668-2680.
4. Paul, D. J., Gabbett, T. J., & Nassis, G. P. (2016). Agility in Team Sports:
Testing, Training and Factors Affecting Performance. Sports Medicine, (46),
421-442.
5. Young, W. B., & Murray, M. P. (2017). Reliability of a field test of
defending and attacking agility in Australian football and relationships to
reactive strength. Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31 (2), 509-
516.

Keywords

  • agility
  • rehabilitation
  • rugby union
  • perception

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A step towards a field based agility test in team sports. A perspective on return to play criteria.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this