See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332246624

Using Deceleration to Mitigate Injury Risk in COD

Presentation · December 2018

CITATIONS

1 author:

Richard Clarke
University of Gloucestershire
15 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD - Injury and Performance in Change of Direction Tasks - A Constraints Based Approach View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Clarke on 06 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Using Deceleration to
Mitigate Injury Risk in COD
• The potential link between deceleration, injury risk and COD performance

• What we currently know about deceleration

(Very little)

• Practical Recommendations
ACL is most at risk in the plant step - first 17-50ms of ground contact and 5-30 degrees of
knee flexion (Krosshaug et al., 2007; Koga et al., 2010)
Cadaver studies identify that ligament damage will occur at 125-210 Nm of valgus loading
(Seering et al., 1980)

Vertical GRF shown to be the largest predictor of knee valgus moment, followed by lateral
GRF (Sigward et al., 2016)
 What tasks put the athlete most at risk?
Angle?
Greater angles do result in larger knee
moments and GRF (Besier et al., 2001; Sigward et al.,
2014, 2016)
Greater angles do not result in larger vGRF
(45°, 90°, 135°, 180°(Schreurs et al., 2017)
More deceleration needed? = Braking begins
earlier
(Graham-Smith et al., 2009; Havens and Sigward, 2015)
Approach speed?
Increased approach speed does increase knee loading
during cutting:
2m·s-1 = 0.12 ± 0.17 Nm·kg-1
3m·s-1 = 0.15 ± 0.13 Nm·kg-1 (Vanrenterghem et al., 2012)
5.5-7m·s-1 = Up to 1.2 Nm· kg-1 (Sigward and Powers, 2007)
Increased approach speed does not increase resultant
pGRF or knee flexion moments (Nedergaard et al., 2014)
Braking during the penultimate steps = reduction in
GRF in plant step
(Graham-Smith et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2016)
 Strategy
Athletes manipulate their entry velocity in order to match their impulse
capabilities to the requirements of the task.

Are athletes most at risk when:

They over estimate their capability? AFFORDANCES
They don’t have time to adjust to match their capability? PERCEPTION
They generally lack decelerative capabilities? CAPABILITY
 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT DECELERATION?
The hip acts like a ‘strut’
Unplanned stopping:
Early hamstring activation to
control hip flexion and
early glute activation to
control pelvic rotation (Bishop
et al., 2004)
The knee acts like a
‘dampener’
The ankle acts more like a
‘dampener’ or ‘strut’
(Qiao and Jiondrich, 2016)
Knee is the primary site of force
attenuation
Quadriceps (r2 = 0.28) and
Hamstring (r2 = 0.22) eccentric
strength associated with
deceleration
(Graham-Smith, Rumpf and Jones, 2018)
Key contributors to controlling
passive peak vGRF at initial
contact:
Ankle angle
Knee angle
Knee velocity. (Nyland et al., 1994)
Peak 1 = passive
force from heel Peak 2 Peak 3 Increased approach speed =
strike
• First ‘passive peak’ occurred earlier but no
change in magnitude

• BUT - Munro et al. (1987) reported an increase

in first peak force from 1.6 BW at 3.0 m/s to 2.3
BW at 5.0 m/s.

• Second ‘active peak’ time occurrence didn’t

change but increased magnitude of posterior
GRF

• Greater hip flexion and dorsiflexion?

One foot stop after two steps accel at 3 approach speeds: 2.5, • Knee joint angle was not influenced?
2.75 and 3.0m/s
In Adults: In Children:

More momentum More momentum

associated with associated with
more posterior more posterior
COM position and higher COM

• Shorter steps • Longer steps

over less over more
distance distance

• More • Less posterior

posterior and and higher
lower COM COM
Age: 27.13±3.98 Age: 8.87±1.46
 REVIEW AND PRACTICAL RECCOMENDATIONS
The knee acts as the primary site of force attenuation Problem?

Once the knee’s capacity has been maximized, greater

force attenuation will come from the hip and the ankle Risk?

AFFORDANCES
As athletes develop they need to:
Adapt their affordances to understand their own levels of PERCEPTION
momentum and impulse capabilities

Enhance their ability to lower their COM and distribute CAPABILITY

force across strides
 Performance? – Does the task matter?
Tasks where optimal performance is
MAINTAINING speed as much as
possible but changing running angle =
0-90° cuts
Biggest predictor of performance =
Minimum speed during COD (Hader, Palazzi
and Buchheit, 2015)
Tasks where performance is
determined by rapid DECELERATION
and then RE-ACCELERATION once
changing running angle = 90-180° turns
Faster athletes during the 505 COD test displayed
significantly greater vertical braking force compared
with slower athletes during the 505 (p = 0.02; ES = 1.88)
(Spiteri et al., 2015)
 AFFORDANCES

45° cut with a 180° turn with

5m approach a 20m
approach
Turns of a greater angles have lower entry velocities
(Havens and Sigward, 2015; Hader et al., 2015)
 PERCEPTION
Helsen and Starkes (1999) 84% of performance variation was accounted for by sports-specific
visual capacities
The only generic visual component to contribute (3%) was peripheral vision.
Sudden stop in the next step if signal at least 170ms before heel-strike (normal
walking pace)
+ 30ms with an extra 25% of speed
+ 55ms with an extra 50% of speed
(Bishop et al., 2004)

Able to terminate gait in 1 step if the stimulus occurred at or before 19.8% of gait
cycle.
Later stimuli resulted in 2-step stop patterns.
(Ohm and Hahn, 2016)
PERCEPTION - early enough to allow deceleration required?

Time from perception of the action on screen to the time taken to initiate a response
Training = video with 48 different clips, occluded at ball release or COD plant step - 2 training sessions p/w for
3 weeks, 10 drills per session (15min)

We need a wide range of angles with approach distances, but with sports
specific stimuli
 CAPABILITY

Outcomes:
Tests:
COD Deficit
15m Sprint
Linear Speed
5-0-5
Deceleration Deficit

Deceleration Deficit =
15m sprint finishing in a complete stop at 15m (s)
–
linear 15m sprint (s)
 Summary
Athletes manipulate their entry velocity in order to match their impulse capabilities to the requirements of the task.
The knee acts as the primary site of force attenuation
Once the knee’s capacity has been maximized, greater force attenuation will come from the hip and the ankle

Developing athletes:
Adapt their affordances to understand their own levels of momentum and impulse capabilities
Enhance their ability to lower their COM and distribute force across strides

‘Senior’ athletes:
Develop sports specific perception skills
Isolate components of COD in the testing process

Develop the physical capabilities to perform the movement within high

demand environments
View publication stats