Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author: Cloe Cummins x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Cloe Cummins and Rhonda Orr


To investigate the impact forces of collision events during both attack and defense in elite rugby league match play and to compare the collision profiles between playing positions.


26 elite rugby league players.


Player collisions were recorded using an integrated accelerometer in global positioning system units (SPI-Pro X, GPSports). Impact forces of collisions in attack (hit-ups) and defense (tackles) were analyzed from 359 files from outside backs (n = 78), adjustables (n = 97), wide-running forwards (n = 136), and hit-up forwards (n = 48) over 1 National Rugby League season.


Hit-up forwards were involved in 0.8 collisions/min, significantly more than all other positional groups (wide-running forwards P = .050, adjustables P = .042, and outside backs P = .000). Outside backs experienced 25% fewer collisions per minute than hit-up forwards. Hit-up forwards experienced a collision within the 2 highest classifications of force (≥10 g) every 2.5 min of match play compared with 1 every 5 and 9 min for adjustables and outside backs, respectively. Hit-up forwards performed 0.5 tackles per minute of match play, 5 times that of outside backs (ES = 1.90; 95% CI [0.26,3.16]), and 0.2 hit-ups per minute of match play, twice as many as adjustables.


During a rugby league match, players are exposed to a significant number of collision events. Positional differences exist, with hit-up and wide-running forwards experiencing greater collision events than adjustables and outside backs. Although these results may be unique to the individual team’s defensive- and attacking-play strategies, they are indicative of the significant collision profiles in professional rugby league.

Restricted access

Cloe Cummins, Blake McLean, Mark Halaki and Rhonda Orr


To quantify the external training loads of positional groups in preseason training drills.


Thirty-three elite rugby league players were categorized into 1 of 4 positional groups: outside backs (n = 9), adjustables (n = 9), wide-running forwards (n = 9), and hit-up forwards (n = 6). Data for 8 preseason weeks were collected using microtechnology devices. Training drills were classified based on drill focus: speed and agility, conditioning, and generic and positional skills.


Total, high-speed, and very-high-speed distance decreased across the preseason in speed and agility (moderate, small, and small, respectively), conditioning (large, large, and small) and generic skills (large, large, and large). The duration of speed and generic skills also decreased (77% and 48%, respectively). This was matched by a concomitant increase in total distance (small), high-speed running (small), very-high-speed running (moderate), and 2-dimensional (2D) BodyLoad (small) demands in positional skills. In positional skills, hit-up forwards (1240 ± 386 m) completed less very-high-speed running than outside backs (2570 ± 1331 m) and adjustables (2121 ± 1163 m). Hit-up forwards (674 ± 253 AU) experienced greater 2D BodyLoad demands than outside backs (432 ± 230 AU, P = .034). In positional drills, hit-up forwards experienced greater relative 2D BodyLoad demands than outside backs (P = .015). Conversely, outside backs experienced greater relative high- (P = .007) and very-high-speed-running (P < .001) demands than hit-up forwards.


Significant differences were observed in training loads between positional groups during positional skills but not in speed and agility, conditioning, and generic skills. This work also highlights the importance of different external-load parameters to adequately quantify workload across different positional groups.

Restricted access

Blake D. McLean, Cloe Cummins, Greta Conlan, Grant Duthie and Aaron J. Coutts

Purpose: To determine the relationship between drill type and accelerometer-derived loads during various team-sport activities and examine the influence of unit fitting on these loads. Methods: Sixteen rugby league players were fitted with microtechnology devices in either manufacturer vests or playing jerseys before completing standardized running, agility, and tackling drills. Two-dimensional (2D) and 3-dimensional (3D) accelerometer loads (BodyLoad™) per kilometer were compared across drills and fittings (ie, vest and jersey). Results: When fitted in a vest, 2D BodyLoad was higher during tackling (21.5 [14.8] AU/km) than during running (9.5 [2.5] AU/km) and agility (10.3 [2.7] AU/km). Jersey fitting resulted in more than 2-fold higher BodyLoad during running (2D = 9.5 [2.7] vs 29.3 [14.8] AU/km, 3D = 48.5 [14.8] vs 111.5 [45.4] AU/km) and agility (2D = 10.3 [2.7] vs 21.0 [8.1] AU/km, 3D = 40.4 [13.6] vs 77.7 [26.8] AU/km) compared with a vest fitting. Jersey fitting also produced higher BodyLoad during tackling drills (2D = 21.5 [14.8] vs 27.8 [18.6] AU/km, 3D = 42.0 [21.4] vs 63.2 [33.1] AU/km). Conclusions: This study provides evidence supporting the construct validity of 2D BodyLoad for assessing collision/tackling load in rugby league training drills. Conversely, the large values obtained from 3D BodyLoad (which includes the vertical load vector) appear to mask small increases in load during tackling drills, rendering 3D BodyLoad insensitive to changes in contact load. Unit fitting has a large influence on accumulated accelerometer loads during all drills, which is likely related to greater incidental unit movement when units are fitted in jerseys. Therefore, it is recommended that athletes wear microtechnology units in manufacturer-provided vests to provide valid and reliable information.

Restricted access

Jonathon J.S. Weakley, Dale B. Read, Hugh H.K. Fullagar, Carlos Ramirez-Lopez, Ben Jones, Cloe Cummins and John A. Sampson

Purpose: To investigate whether providing global positioning system feedback to players between bouts of small-sided games (SSGs) can alter locomotor, physiological, and perceptual responses. Methods: Using a reverse counterbalanced design, 20 male university rugby players received either feedback or no feedback during “off-side” touch rugby SSGs. Eight 5v5, 6 × 4-minute SSGs were played over 4 d. Teams were assigned to a feedback or no-feedback condition (control) each day, with feedback provided during the 2-min between-bouts rest interval. Locomotor, heart rate, and differential rating of perceived exertion of breathlessness and leg-muscle exertion were measured and analyzed using a linear mixed model. Outcomes were reported using effect sizes (ES) and 90% confidence intervals (CI), and then interpreted via magnitude-based decisions. Results: Very likely trivial to unclear differences at all time points were observed in heart rate and differential rating of perceived exertion measures. Possibly to very likely trivial effects were observed between conditions, including total distance (ES = 0.15; 90 CI, −0.03 to 0.34), high-speed distance (ES = −0.07; 90 CI, −0.27 to 0.13), and maximal sprint speed (ES = 0.11; 90% CI, −0.11 to 0.34). All within-bout comparisons showed very likely to unclear differences, apart from possible increases in low-speed distance in bout 2 (ES = 0.23; 90% CI, 0.01 to 0.46) and maximal sprint speed in bout 4 (ES = 0.21; 90% CI, −0.04 to 0.45). Conclusions: In this study, verbal feedback did not alter locomotor, physiological, or perceptual responses in rugby players during SSGs. This may be due to contextual factors (eg, opposition) or the type (ie, distance) or low frequency of feedback provided.