Tackle Height and Tackle Success—An Analysis of 52,204 Tackle Events

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,&nbsp;K. Till,&nbsp;S. Scantlebury,&nbsp;N. Dalton-Barron,&nbsp;S. den Hollander,&nbsp;N. Gill,&nbsp;S. Kemp,&nbsp;A. Kilding,&nbsp;M. Lambert,&nbsp;P. Mackreth,&nbsp;J. O’Reilly,&nbsp;C. Owen,&nbsp;K. Spencer,&nbsp;K. Stokes,&nbsp;J. Tee,&nbsp;R. Tucker,&nbsp;L. Vaz,&nbsp;D. Weaving,&nbsp;S. W. West,&nbsp;K. Dane,&nbsp;F. McKnight,&nbsp;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.

铲球高度与铲球成功率——52204次铲球事件分析
比较不同铲球类型(主动、被动、窒息和手臂)在不同高度(肩部、躯干和腿部)接触持球者时,铲球成功的概率(铲球者阻止持球者和球向铲球者试线移动),同时考虑其他铲球者在七个比赛级别内的情况因素。271个男子橄榄球联盟比赛的视频片段被分析了七个比赛组(Under [U] 12, n = 25;U14, n = 35;U16, n = 39;U18业余n = 39;U18 Elite n = 38;高级业余选手,n = 40和高级精英,n = 50)穿越英格兰,新西兰,南非,葡萄牙和美国(总共51,106次铲球)。以铲球成功率为结果变量,以第一接触点和铲球类型为解释变量,建立了多层次逻辑回归模型。在模型中,情境变量包括铲球方向、铲球顺序、参与铲球的球员数量和攻击者意图。后估计边际效应用于计算铲球类型(主动肩部,窒息,被动肩部和手臂)与第一个接触点(肩部,躯干中部和腿部)之间每次相互作用的铲球成功概率(以百分比%表示)。铲球成功的概率与持球者接触的位置有关,因铲球类型和每个年龄组而异。在高级水平(精英和业余)中,接触肩部与躯干中部的概率(Pr)在铲球成功率方面没有差异(例如,在高级精英中,主动铲球肩部;肩部Pr 86% 95% CI 82-89和躯干中部Pr 82% 95% CI 77-86),而在初级水平,接触肩部的概率高于其他接触点。在不同的比赛水平和不同的接触高度上,肩部抢断的成功率最高,而手臂抢断的成功率最低(例如,在高级精英中,躯干抢断的成功率为82%,95% CI为77-86,手臂抢断的成功率为69%,95% CI为64-75)。教练和从业者可以利用这些信息来改进不同年龄组的铲球训练设计和计划,促进球员的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信