Prolonged restricted training, fixture congestion and player rotation: What the COVID-19 pandemic taught us about injury risk in professional collision sport.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID19-induced suspension of the 2019-20 professional England rugby union season resulted in players being exposed to an extended restricted training period, coupled with a congested match schedule once competition resumed. We assessed the impact of these changes on match and training injuries in the final 20-weeks of the season following competition resumption. DESIGN: Epidemiological study. METHODS: The 2019-20 season was compared to the previous three seasons (2016-19). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the mean incidence, severity and burden of training and match injuries in 2019-20 compared to 2016-19 period mean. The 2019-20 post-suspension mean match injury rate [77/1000 h (95%CIs [confidence intervals]: 67-89)] was comparable to the 2019-20 pre-suspension [93/1000 h (95%CIs: 85-101)] and significantly lower than the 2016-19 equivalent post-suspension period [97/1000 h (95CIs: 90-104) IRR [incidence rate ratio] 0.8 p=0.002]. In the 2019-20 season, there was a significantly higher rate of training injury post-suspension in comparison to pre-suspension [3.8/1000 h (95CIs: 3.3-4.4) vs 2.7/1000 h (95% CIs: 2.5-3.1) IRR 1.4 p=0.005]. There was no significant difference in the overall incidence, severity or burden of injuries sustained in fixtures with shorter (<6 days) turnarounds but there was a significantly higher burden of soft tissue injuries. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to assess the effect of restricted training on injury risk in collision sports. Players were at an increased risk of training injury when returning from the suspension, but 10-weeks of preparatory training meant the incidence of match injury was not higher when competition resumed.

The sensitivity of the Fatigue and Fitness Test for Teams (FFITT) to measure the demands of a rugby match.

Regular monitoring of players in a team can be a challenge because it is time consuming, expensive and impractical. The Fatigue and Fitness Test for Teams (FFITT) was developed to satisfy the demands of a practical monitoring protocol for frequent use in team sports. This study aimed to quantify the sensitivity of the FFITT and assess the practicality of implementing the FFITT in a rugby team. The FFITT was completed before and after three university 1st XV rugby union matches. The FFITT was sensitive to the demands of a rugby match in some individuals. Grouped results (n = 22 players) revealed a significant reduction in HRR60s of 7 beats post-match 3 (P = 0.002; ES = 0.52), which is greater than the 5 beats which constitute a meaningful change in fatigue and fitness. A significant reduction in SLJ of 11 cm was also observed post-match 3 (P = 0.04; ES = 0.69), which is less than the meaningful change (13 cm). On an individual level, meaningful changes occurred in SLJ distance in nine players, in HRR60s in 14 players and in both HRR60s and SLJ in three players. Descriptive analysis of the RTT-Q revealed that players experienced increased muscle soreness and reduced readiness-to-train post-match 1 and post-match 2. The FFITT could be successfully completed by the squad in 8 min during their warm-up. The FFITT satisfies both scientific principles and the coach's demands of a practical monitoring protocol for frequent use in the team sports setting.

The Fatigue and Fitness Test for Teams (FFITT): A practical option for monitoring athletes in a team as individuals.

We developed the Fatigue and Fitness Test for Teams (FFITT) to address the challenges of monitoring players in a team simultaneously. The test, which takes 8 min for the entire team, incorporates subjective measures of well-being (RTT-Q), and objective measures of the autonomic system (HRR60s) and neuromuscular function (SLJ). The aim of this study was to present the rationale for the FFITT as a novel athlete monitoring protocol and to measure the reliability of each component of the test. The internal consistency of the RTT-Q questions ranged from α = 0.69-0.92. All questions had an α > 0.83, with one exception of question 'Rate the well-being/stress your school/university/work is causing you to feel' which had an α = 0.69. The reliability of the HRR60s and SLJ was high (R = 0.92, and 0.91 respectively). The absolute typical error of measurement (TEM) of the SLJ was 8 cm and HRR60s was 3 beats. When expressed relatively the CVTEM of HRR60s was 8.4% and SLJ was 3.0%. Based on the TEM the HRR60s and SLJ could detect medium and large changes in fatigue and fitness. In absolute terms this equates to more than 5 bpm (HRR60s) and more than 13 cm (SLJ). The FFITT has the potential to satisfy both scientific principles and the coach's demands of a practical monitoring protocol for frequent use in a team.

Monitoring Rugby Players for Fitness and Fatigue: What Do Coaches Want?

PURPOSE: The advantages of monitoring players in a team are well documented. However, barriers associated with lack of resources and time prevent teams from implementing systematic monitoring programs. This study aimed to identify (1) the methods rugby teams use to monitor the training load and associated response to the training load and (2) prerequisites of a monitoring protocol that are scientifically suitable and practically applicable for monitoring fitness and fatigue of rugby players. METHODS: Coaches and support staff working with varying levels of rugby union were invited to complete an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 55 respondents, 96% indicated that although they regarded monitoring the training load and training-load response as important, there is no monitoring protocol that is cost-effective, time efficient, and nonaversive to the players. Respondents measured several variables when monitoring and incorporated more subjective than objective measures. Respondents (41%) indicated that they would like a protocol that is time efficient (5-10 min) and provides immediate feedback on players who identify as fatigued (50%). For coaches to have confidence in the information provided by the protocol, it needs to meet basic clinimetric principles of reliability and validity. The technical and biological error in the measurement needs to be known so that meaningful changes in fatigue and fitness can be distinguished from natural variations in the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Prerequisites of an ideal monitoring protocol for rugby players were identified. It follows that a monitoring protocol that fulfills these prerequisites should satisfy both scientific principles and the coach's demands.