S. Hendricks, K. Till, S. Scantlebury, N. Dalton-Barron, S. den Hollander, N. Gill, S. Kemp, A. Kilding, M. Lambert, P. Mackreth, J. O’Reilly, C. Owen, K. Spencer, K. Stokes, J. Tee, R. Tucker, L. Vaz, D. Weaving, S. W. West, K. Dane, F. McKnight, B. Jones
{"title":"Tackle Height and Tackle Success—An Analysis of 52,204 Tackle Events","authors":"S. Hendricks, K. Till, S. Scantlebury, N. Dalton-Barron, S. den Hollander, N. Gill, S. Kemp, A. Kilding, M. Lambert, P. Mackreth, J. O’Reilly, C. Owen, K. Spencer, K. Stokes, J. Tee, R. Tucker, L. Vaz, D. Weaving, S. W. West, K. Dane, F. McKnight, B. Jones","doi":"10.1002/ejsc.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>To compare the probability of tackle success (the tackler preventing the ball-carrier and ball from progressing towards the tackler try-line) when contacting the ball-carrier at different heights (shoulder, mid-torso and legs) for different types of tackles (active, passive, smother and arm) while accounting for other tackler situational factors within seven playing levels. Video footage of 271 male rugby union matches were analysed across seven playing groups (Under [U] 12, <i>n</i> = 25 matches; U14, <i>n</i> = 35; U16, <i>n</i> = 39; U18 Amateur <i>n</i> = 39; U18 Elite <i>n</i> = 38; Senior Amateur, <i>n</i> = 40 and Senior Elite, <i>n</i> = 50) across England, New Zealand, South Africa, Portugal and USA (a total of 51,106 tackles). A multi-level logistic regression model with tackle success as the outcome variable and first point of contact and type of tackle as the explanatory variables were computed. Included in the model as cofounders were the situational variables tackle direction, tackle sequence, number of players in the tackle and attacker intention. Post-estimation marginal effects were used to calculate the probabilities (expressed as a percentage %) of tackle success for each interaction between tackle type (active shoulder, smother, passive shoulder and arm) and the first point of contact (shoulder, mid-torso and legs). The probability of tackle success in relation to where the ball-carrier is contacted varied by tackle type and within each age group. The probabilities (Pr) for contacting the shoulder versus mid-torso at the senior levels (elite and amateur) did not differ in relation to tackle success (for instance, for active shoulder tackles within senior elite; shoulder Pr 86% 95% CI 82–89 and mid-torso Pr 82% 95% CI 77–86), whereas at the junior levels, contacting the shoulder had a higher probability than other points of contact. Active shoulder tackles had the highest probability of tackle success across the different playing levels across the different contact heights, whereas arm tackles had the lowest probability (for instance, for mid-torso tackles within senior elite, active Pr 82% 95% CI 77–86 vs. arm Pr 69% 95% CI 64–75). Coaches and practitioners can use this information to improve tackle training design and planning within the different age groups and facilitate player development.</p>","PeriodicalId":93999,"journal":{"name":"European journal of sport science","volume":"25 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsc.70003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of sport science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsc.70003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
To compare the probability of tackle success (the tackler preventing the ball-carrier and ball from progressing towards the tackler try-line) when contacting the ball-carrier at different heights (shoulder, mid-torso and legs) for different types of tackles (active, passive, smother and arm) while accounting for other tackler situational factors within seven playing levels. Video footage of 271 male rugby union matches were analysed across seven playing groups (Under [U] 12, n = 25 matches; U14, n = 35; U16, n = 39; U18 Amateur n = 39; U18 Elite n = 38; Senior Amateur, n = 40 and Senior Elite, n = 50) across England, New Zealand, South Africa, Portugal and USA (a total of 51,106 tackles). A multi-level logistic regression model with tackle success as the outcome variable and first point of contact and type of tackle as the explanatory variables were computed. Included in the model as cofounders were the situational variables tackle direction, tackle sequence, number of players in the tackle and attacker intention. Post-estimation marginal effects were used to calculate the probabilities (expressed as a percentage %) of tackle success for each interaction between tackle type (active shoulder, smother, passive shoulder and arm) and the first point of contact (shoulder, mid-torso and legs). The probability of tackle success in relation to where the ball-carrier is contacted varied by tackle type and within each age group. The probabilities (Pr) for contacting the shoulder versus mid-torso at the senior levels (elite and amateur) did not differ in relation to tackle success (for instance, for active shoulder tackles within senior elite; shoulder Pr 86% 95% CI 82–89 and mid-torso Pr 82% 95% CI 77–86), whereas at the junior levels, contacting the shoulder had a higher probability than other points of contact. Active shoulder tackles had the highest probability of tackle success across the different playing levels across the different contact heights, whereas arm tackles had the lowest probability (for instance, for mid-torso tackles within senior elite, active Pr 82% 95% CI 77–86 vs. arm Pr 69% 95% CI 64–75). Coaches and practitioners can use this information to improve tackle training design and planning within the different age groups and facilitate player development.