Are we tackle ready? Cross‐sectional video analysis of match tackle characteristics in elite women's Rugby Union
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tackle contest is the most common and most injurious match contact event in rugby and is an indicator of performance. Tackle Ready is World Rugby's tackle technique education program. Limited research has characterized the tackle contest in women's rugby. The purpose of this study is to: (1) identify the match situational characteristics, ball-carrier and tackler technical actions demonstrated in elite women's Rugby Union and (2) to determine the extent to which Tackle Ready recommended tackle techniques were exhibited. Technical characteristics for 1500 tackle events in the 2022-2023 Women's Six Nations Championship were visually assessed according to a predefined coding framework and the Tackle Ready program. Tackles lacked full completion (0.2%) of the 22 coded Tackle Ready techniques with 47% of the recommended techniques demonstrated in each tackle on average (range 15%-98%). A high proportion of tackles involved two defenders (48%), approaching ball-carriers from the side (38%) or oblique angles (39%), in an upright position (30%), and with initial contact made with the arm (51%). Incorrect pre-contact head positioning and head placement upon contact accounted for 50% and 15% of tackles, respectively, and there was a mean of 14 (95% CI 11-18) head and neck contacts to a tackler and 18 (95% CI 14-22) head and neck contacts to a ball-carrier per game. Targeted interventions to encourage adoption of recommended techniques are needed to reduce tackle-related injury risk in women's rugby. This study provides valuable context for future discussion across law enforcement, coach education and gender-specific tackle coaching in the women's game.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".