Tackle characteristics and suspected concussion: recommendations to improve high school girls’ rugby tackle safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the association between tackle characteristics and suspected concussion among Canadian high school girls' rugby union players. Methods: A case-control video-analysis study was used to examine the association between a priori tackle characteristics (eg, type, height, head position) and suspected concussion. For every concussive tackle event, six non-concussive tackle events were matched for game and team. Penalised logistic regression was used to estimate ORs with 95% CIs for concussion given tackle characteristics. Results: 33 concussive tackle events, including 38 concussions, were identified. 20 were ball carrier concussions (53%). 261 (228 non-concussive, 33 concussive) tackle events, including 632 individual tackler and ball carrier instances, were coded. All ball carrier head contact intensity types were associated with concussion compared with no head contact. A trip tackle type (OR: 4.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 15.61), illegal tackle type (OR: 4.41, 95% CI 2.67 to 7.29), deceleration (OR: 14.03, 95% CI 4.65 to 42.30) and no change of speed (OR: 18.81, 95% CI 10.04 to 35.24) increased concussion odds for ball carriers. A tap (OR: 10.64, 95% CI 2.00 to 56.62) and trip tackle type (OR: 5.91, 95% CI 3.18 to 10.99), two (OR: 3.38, 95% CI 1.13 to 10.07) or three (OR: 13.91, 95% CI 1.74 to 111.53) tacklers within the event, and a head-down position (OR: 40.54, 95% CI 27.78 to 59.18) increased concussion odds for tacklers. Higher tackler contact on ball carrier (tackle height) increased concussion odds for ball carrier (reference: knee-to-upper-leg; waist-to-sternum OR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.80; sternum-to-armpit OR: 5.65, 95% CI 1.40 to 22.87) and tacklers (sternum-to-armpit OR: 4.20, 95% CI 1.26 to 14.03). Conclusion: Numerous tackle characteristics were associated with ball carrier and tackler concussion. This is the first study to identify tackle height on ball carrier as a risk factor for concussion in girls' rugby. Future directions should consider tackle training programmes and lower tackle height as potential concussion prevention solutions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".