Hendricks S, Till K, Scantlebury S, Dalton-Barron N, den Hollander S, Gill N, Kemp S, Kilding A, Lambert M, Mackreth P, O'Reilly J, Owen C, Spencer K, Stokes K, Tee J, Tucker R, Vaz L, Weaving D, West S W, Dane K, McKnight F, Jones B
Division of Physiological Sciences and Health Through Physical Activity, Lifestyle and Sport Research Centre, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Eur J Sport Sci. 2025 Aug;25(8):e70003. doi: 10.1002/ejsc.70003.
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.
为了比较在七个比赛级别中，不同类型的擒抱（主动、被动、封堵和抱臂）在不同高度（肩部、躯干中部和腿部）与持球队员接触时擒抱成功的概率（擒抱者阻止持球队员和球向擒抱者的达阵线推进），同时考虑其他擒抱者的情境因素。分析了来自英格兰、新西兰、南非、葡萄牙和美国的七个比赛组（12岁以下[U12]，n = 25场比赛；U14，n = 35；U16，n = 39；18岁业余组，n = 39；18岁精英组，n = 38；成年业余组，n = 40；成年精英组，n = 50）的271场男子英式橄榄球联盟比赛的视频片段（总共51,106次擒抱）。计算了一个以擒抱成功为结果变量，以首次接触点和擒抱类型为解释变量的多层次逻辑回归模型。作为混杂因素纳入模型的情境变量有擒抱方向、擒抱顺序、擒抱中的球员数量和进攻者意图。估计后的边际效应用于计算擒抱类型（主动肩部、封堵、被动肩部和抱臂）与首次接触点（肩部、躯干中部和腿部）之间每种相互作用的擒抱成功概率（以百分比表示）。擒抱成功的概率因擒抱类型和每个年龄组内持球队员被接触的位置而异。在成年级别（精英组和业余组），接触肩部与接触躯干中部相比，擒抱成功的概率没有差异（例如，在成年精英组的主动肩部擒抱中；肩部概率86%，95%置信区间82 - 89，躯干中部概率82%，95%置信区间77 - 86），而在青少年级别，接触肩部的概率高于其他接触点。在不同比赛级别和不同接触高度中，主动肩部擒抱擒抱成功的概率最高，而抱臂擒抱的概率最低（例如，在成年精英组的躯干中部擒抱中，主动概率82%，95%置信区间77 - 86，抱臂概率69%，95%置信区间64 - 75）。教练和从业者可以利用这些信息来改进不同年龄组内的擒抱训练设计和规划，并促进球员发展。
