Stephen L Aita, Emily Z Holding, Richard P Bolander, Kelsea Marshall, Curt Oberg, Benjamin Schuler, Michael Derosier, Eugene F Teevens, Jonathan D Lichtenstein
{"title":"大学橄榄球比赛中抢断特征、球员位置和头部接触风险的关系。","authors":"Stephen L Aita, Emily Z Holding, Richard P Bolander, Kelsea Marshall, Curt Oberg, Benjamin Schuler, Michael Derosier, Eugene F Teevens, Jonathan D Lichtenstein","doi":"10.4085/1062-6050-0669.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Sport-related concussion is a common injury among National Collegiate Athletic Association football athletes. Beginning with the 2016 season, Ivy League Conference coaches voted to ban player- on-player tackling from all in-season practices. BLINDED have enforced a no-tackle approach in practices since 2010.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the association between tackling technique and head contact risk, and compare base rates of techniques used in the 2016 season between an Ivy League team with a longstanding no- tackle practice policy vs. the rest of the league.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Ivy League College Football Conference.</p><p><strong>Patients or other participants: </strong>Two-hundred-thirty-seven Ivy League defensive football players that participated in the 2016 season.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure(s): </strong>Tackles (N=3,701) across 237 Ivy League defensive football players in the 2016 season were coded based on predetermined classifications, which were combined to create unique tackle combinations/techniques. Associations among tackling techniques, head impact risk, and team (BLINIDED vs. other Ivy League teams) were evaluated using logistic regression, yielding odds ratios (OR) for head contact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-risk tackle characteristics for head contact during a tackle were neutral neck position (OR=0.1), back contact area (OR=0.3), pursuing momentum (OR=0.5), and quarterback sack momentum (OR=0.3). Low-risk tackle techniques were high-back-neutral (OR=0.1), low-back-neutral (OR=0.2), and medium-back-neutral (OR=0.1). High-risk tackle characteristics were flexion (OR=14.2) and extension (OR=3.8) neck positioning, front contact (OR=2.2), blowup (OR=2.5), and cut (OR=3.0). High-risk tackle techniques included low-side-flexion (OR=4.9), low-front-flexion (OR=9.9), medium-side-flexion (OR=15.5), and medium-front-flexion (OR=11.4). Relative to BLINDED, other teams demonstrated higher odds of using high-risk techniques (low-side-flexion OR=3.5; low-front-flexion OR=3.9; medium- side-flexion OR=6.3; medium-front-flexion OR=2.3) and reduced odds of using low-risk tackle combinations (high-side-neutral OR=0.4; high-back-neutral OR=0.6; medium-side-neutral OR=0.8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tackling techniques are associated with head contact risk, and by extension, player safety. BLINDED, who have a longstanding policy of practicing without player-on-player tackling, showed reduced use of high-risk tackling techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":54875,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Athletic Training","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations of Tackling Characteristics, Player Position, and Head Contact Risk During Game Play in College Football.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen L Aita, Emily Z Holding, Richard P Bolander, Kelsea Marshall, Curt Oberg, Benjamin Schuler, Michael Derosier, Eugene F Teevens, Jonathan D Lichtenstein\",\"doi\":\"10.4085/1062-6050-0669.24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Sport-related concussion is a common injury among National Collegiate Athletic Association football athletes. Beginning with the 2016 season, Ivy League Conference coaches voted to ban player- on-player tackling from all in-season practices. BLINDED have enforced a no-tackle approach in practices since 2010.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine the association between tackling technique and head contact risk, and compare base rates of techniques used in the 2016 season between an Ivy League team with a longstanding no- tackle practice policy vs. the rest of the league.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Ivy League College Football Conference.</p><p><strong>Patients or other participants: </strong>Two-hundred-thirty-seven Ivy League defensive football players that participated in the 2016 season.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure(s): </strong>Tackles (N=3,701) across 237 Ivy League defensive football players in the 2016 season were coded based on predetermined classifications, which were combined to create unique tackle combinations/techniques. Associations among tackling techniques, head impact risk, and team (BLINIDED vs. other Ivy League teams) were evaluated using logistic regression, yielding odds ratios (OR) for head contact.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Low-risk tackle characteristics for head contact during a tackle were neutral neck position (OR=0.1), back contact area (OR=0.3), pursuing momentum (OR=0.5), and quarterback sack momentum (OR=0.3). Low-risk tackle techniques were high-back-neutral (OR=0.1), low-back-neutral (OR=0.2), and medium-back-neutral (OR=0.1). High-risk tackle characteristics were flexion (OR=14.2) and extension (OR=3.8) neck positioning, front contact (OR=2.2), blowup (OR=2.5), and cut (OR=3.0). High-risk tackle techniques included low-side-flexion (OR=4.9), low-front-flexion (OR=9.9), medium-side-flexion (OR=15.5), and medium-front-flexion (OR=11.4). Relative to BLINDED, other teams demonstrated higher odds of using high-risk techniques (low-side-flexion OR=3.5; low-front-flexion OR=3.9; medium- side-flexion OR=6.3; medium-front-flexion OR=2.3) and reduced odds of using low-risk tackle combinations (high-side-neutral OR=0.4; high-back-neutral OR=0.6; medium-side-neutral OR=0.8).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Tackling techniques are associated with head contact risk, and by extension, player safety. BLINDED, who have a longstanding policy of practicing without player-on-player tackling, showed reduced use of high-risk tackling techniques.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54875,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Athletic Training\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Athletic Training\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0669.24\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SPORT SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Athletic Training","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0669.24","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:运动相关脑震荡是美国大学体育协会足球运动员中常见的损伤。从2016赛季开始,常青藤联盟的教练们投票禁止在所有赛季训练中进行球员之间的抢断。自2010年以来,blind在实践中实施了无铲球方法。目的:研究铲球技术与头部接触风险之间的关系,并比较长期实行无铲球训练政策的常青藤联盟球队与联盟其他球队在2016赛季使用的技术的基本比率。设计:横断面研究。地点:常青藤联盟大学橄榄球大会。患者或其他参与者:237名常青藤联盟防守足球运动员参加了2016赛季。主要结果测量:237名常青藤联盟防守球员在2016赛季的抢断(N= 3701)是根据预先确定的分类进行编码的,这些分类结合起来形成独特的抢断组合/技术。利用逻辑回归对铲球技术、头部碰撞风险和团队(盲组与其他常青藤联盟球队)之间的关联进行了评估,得出了头部接触的优势比(OR)。结果:铲球过程中头部接触的低风险铲球特征是颈部中性位置(OR=0.1)、背部接触区域(OR=0.3)、追逐动量(OR=0.5)和四分卫袋动量(OR=0.3)。低风险铲球技术为高背中立(OR=0.1)、低背中立(OR=0.2)和中背中立(OR=0.1)。高风险铲球特征为颈部弯曲(OR=14.2)和伸直(OR=3.8)、颈部定位、正面接触(OR=2.2)、吹起(OR=2.5)和割伤(OR=3.0)。高风险铲球技术包括低侧屈(OR=4.9)、低前屈(OR=9.9)、中侧屈(OR=15.5)和中前屈(OR=11.4)。与blind相比,其他团队使用高风险技术的几率更高(低侧屈曲OR=3.5;low-front-flexion OR = 3.9;中侧屈OR=6.3;中度前屈或=2.3)和使用低风险铲球组合的几率降低(高位中立或=0.4;high-back-neutral OR = 0.6;medium-side-neutral或= 0.8)。结论:铲球技术与头部接触风险有关,进而影响到球员的安全。长期以来,在没有球员对球员抢断的情况下进行训练的blind显示,高风险抢断技术的使用减少了。
Associations of Tackling Characteristics, Player Position, and Head Contact Risk During Game Play in College Football.
Context: Sport-related concussion is a common injury among National Collegiate Athletic Association football athletes. Beginning with the 2016 season, Ivy League Conference coaches voted to ban player- on-player tackling from all in-season practices. BLINDED have enforced a no-tackle approach in practices since 2010.
Objective: To examine the association between tackling technique and head contact risk, and compare base rates of techniques used in the 2016 season between an Ivy League team with a longstanding no- tackle practice policy vs. the rest of the league.
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: Ivy League College Football Conference.
Patients or other participants: Two-hundred-thirty-seven Ivy League defensive football players that participated in the 2016 season.
Main outcome measure(s): Tackles (N=3,701) across 237 Ivy League defensive football players in the 2016 season were coded based on predetermined classifications, which were combined to create unique tackle combinations/techniques. Associations among tackling techniques, head impact risk, and team (BLINIDED vs. other Ivy League teams) were evaluated using logistic regression, yielding odds ratios (OR) for head contact.
Results: Low-risk tackle characteristics for head contact during a tackle were neutral neck position (OR=0.1), back contact area (OR=0.3), pursuing momentum (OR=0.5), and quarterback sack momentum (OR=0.3). Low-risk tackle techniques were high-back-neutral (OR=0.1), low-back-neutral (OR=0.2), and medium-back-neutral (OR=0.1). High-risk tackle characteristics were flexion (OR=14.2) and extension (OR=3.8) neck positioning, front contact (OR=2.2), blowup (OR=2.5), and cut (OR=3.0). High-risk tackle techniques included low-side-flexion (OR=4.9), low-front-flexion (OR=9.9), medium-side-flexion (OR=15.5), and medium-front-flexion (OR=11.4). Relative to BLINDED, other teams demonstrated higher odds of using high-risk techniques (low-side-flexion OR=3.5; low-front-flexion OR=3.9; medium- side-flexion OR=6.3; medium-front-flexion OR=2.3) and reduced odds of using low-risk tackle combinations (high-side-neutral OR=0.4; high-back-neutral OR=0.6; medium-side-neutral OR=0.8).
Conclusions: Tackling techniques are associated with head contact risk, and by extension, player safety. BLINDED, who have a longstanding policy of practicing without player-on-player tackling, showed reduced use of high-risk tackling techniques.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Journal of Athletic Training is to enhance communication among professionals interested in the quality of health care for the physically active through education and research in prevention, evaluation, management and rehabilitation of injuries.
The Journal of Athletic Training offers research you can use in daily practice. It keeps you abreast of scientific advancements that ultimately define professional standards of care - something you can''t be without if you''re responsible for the well-being of patients.