The application of prophylactic knee bracing in relation to selected proprioceptive and fitness and skill parameters in first league South African rugby players
| dc.contributor.advisor | Coetsee, M.F. | |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Davies, S.E.H. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kruger, Theodore Hendrik | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-01-12T08:22:33Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-01-12T08:22:33Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2001 | |
| dc.description | Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science (Human Movement Science) in the Faculty of Science and Agriculture at the University of Zululand, South Africa, 2001. | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | In rugby and other sports involving rapid change in direction and physical contact, there has been a high incidence of knee injuries in match situations as well as in training sessions. Ample literature is available on the effect of braces for the prevention and recurrence of injuries. However, due to different research fields/subjects (American football, soccer and baseball) and methodologies, results are not always applicable to rugby union. The primary focus of the present study was to evaluate selected parameters important in modem rugby, and the effect of prophylactic knee bracing on speed, agility, strength, proprioception and economy of running. These parameters all play an important role in performance on the rugby field. The questions addressed are: are any of these parameters affected by wearing a prophylactic knee brace, and could forwards and backs be affected differently. Thirty subjects aged 21 - 30 with the mean age of 24,33 ± 4,98 years volunteered to participate in this study. Subjects were evaluated with respect to their anthropometric, proprioceptive, fitness and skill responses. The data were statistically analyzed by a one way ANOVA for significant differences in the following: braced and non-braced conditions for the combined group, backs and forwards separately. An independent t-test was employed to analyse the difference between backs and forwards. Both, p<0.05 and p<0.01 level of probability are indicated, although p<0.05 was the criteria for refuting the null hypothesis. Anthropometric results illustrated that forwards and backs were significantly (p<0.01) different in their stature, mass, bodyfat, upper thigh girths and significantly (p<0.05) different in their above knee and calf girth and the mid thigh calf ratios (MTCR). Fitness and skill responses indicated that speed was insignificantly (p>0.05) influenced with prophylactic bracing for combined subjects, forwards and backs. However, speed was slower with bracing, but the difference was insignificant (p>0.05). Forwards' speed results were slower than results of the backs but-the speed difference between forwards and backs illustrated an insignificant (p>0.05) difference for both variables (braced and non-braced conditions). Agility performance was insignificantly (p>0.05) decreased with brace application for the combined group, forwards and the backs. Forwards' agility performance was significantly (p<0.05) worse than backline players' performance in both variables, braced and non-braced conditions. Proprioception responses indicate that proprioceptive ability improved significantly (p<0.01) with prophylactic bracing for combined subjects and backs, however the forwards' performance also increased with bracing, but the increase was only significant at (p<0.05). Forwards' proprioceptive results in both conditions were worse than results of the backs, and the difference illustrated to be significant (p<0.01) for both variables. For strength, prophylactic bracing illustrated no significant influence on flexion and extension of the knee (p>0.05) for the combined group, backs or forwards. However, a significant (p<0.01) difference was found between backs and forwards in peak strength (Nm) but not in relative strength (Nm ■ kg"1). Economy of running performance for the combined subjects was not significantly (p>0.05) influenced for levels 1-8, but was significantly (p<0.05) influenced in level 9. Backline players illustrated an significant difference from levels 5-9 and the forwards only a significant difference (p<0.05) at level 9 with brace application. In conclusion the major two questions of the present study is to investigate if rugby players should use prophylactic knee bracing to prevent or reduce injuries to the knee, and will the brace affect forwards differently from backline players. From the results one could conclude in saying that bracing would not hamper performance on the rugby field significantly. But one should remember that each rugby player has a unique morphological composition and therefore one would suggest that rugby players evaluate or compare the involving factors, and experiment with prophylactic braces. The individual should, after reading the arguments, be in a better position to make an informed decision whether to use prophylactic braces or not. | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | University of Zululand | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10530/982 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.subject | Knee bracing; | en_US |
| dc.subject | Rugby players | en_US |
| dc.title | The application of prophylactic knee bracing in relation to selected proprioceptive and fitness and skill parameters in first league South African rugby players | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |
Files
Original bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- The application of prophylactic knee bracing in relation to selected proprioceptive & fitness. TH Kruger.pdf
- Size:
- 12.17 MB
- Format:
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Description:
License bundle
1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
- Name:
- license.txt
- Size:
- 1.71 KB
- Format:
- Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
- Description: