You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Consensus statement
Consensus on a video analysis framework of descriptors and definitions by the Rugby Union Video Analysis Consensus group
Free
  1. Sharief Hendricks1,2,3,4,
  2. Kevin Till2,3,5,6,
  3. Steve den Hollander1,
  4. Trevor N Savage7,8,9,
  5. Simon P Roberts10,
  6. Gregory Tierney11,
  7. Nicholas Burger1,
  8. Hamish Kerr12,
  9. Simon Kemp13,14,
  10. Matthew Cross15,
  11. Jon Patricios16,17,
  12. Andrew J McKune18,19,
  13. Mark Bennet20,
  14. Andy Rock21,
  15. Keith A Stokes10,13,
  16. Alex Ross22,
  17. Clint Readhead1,23,
  18. Kenneth L Quarrie24,
  19. Ross Tucker25,
  20. Ben Jones1,2,3,5,6,26,27
  1. 1 Division of Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Department of Human Biology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
  2. 2 Institute for Sport, Physical Activity and Leisure, Centre for Sport Performance, School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University – Headingley Campus, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  3. 3 Carnegie Applied Rugby Research (CARR) Centre, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom
  4. 4 Health, Physical Activity, Lifestyle and Sport Research Centre, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
  5. 5 Yorkshire Carnegie Rugby Union Football Club, Leeds, UK
  6. 6 Leeds Rhinos RLFC, Leeds, United Kingdom
  7. 7 Griffith Centre of Biomedical and Rehabilitation Engineering (GCORE), Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  8. 8 School of Allied Health Sciences, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
  9. 9 Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Kölling Institute of Medical Research, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  10. 10 Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK
  11. 11 School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
  12. 12 Division Sports Medicine, Department Medicine, Albany, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY, United States
  13. 13 Medical Services, Rugby Football Union, London, United Kingdom
  14. 14 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
  15. 15 Premiership Rugby, London, UK
  16. 16 Waterfall Sports Orthopaedic Surgery, Netcare Waterfall Hospital, Midrand, South Africa
  17. 17 Wits Institute for Sport and Health (WISH), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
  18. 18 Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Science, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  19. 19 Biokinetics, Exercise and Leisure Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
  20. 20 Russia Rugby Federation, Moscow, Russia
  21. 21 Bath Rugby, Bath, United Kingdom
  22. 22 Union Argentina de Rugby, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  23. 23 Medical Department, South Africa Rugby Union, Cape Town, South Africa
  24. 24 High Performance, New Zealand Rugby, Wellington, New Zealand
  25. 25 World Rugby, Dublin, Ireland
  26. 26 School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
  27. 27 England Performance Unit, The Rugby Football League, Leeds, United Kingdom
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sharief Hendricks, Human Biology, University of Cape Town, Division of Exercise and Sports Medicine, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa; sharief.hendricks01{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Using an expert consensus-based approach, a rugby union Video Analysis Consensus (RUVAC) group was formed to develop a framework for video analysis research in rugby union. The aim of the framework is to improve the consistency of video analysis work in rugby union and help enhance the overall quality of future research in the sport. To reach consensus, a systematic review and Delphi method study design was used. After a systematic search of the literature, 17 articles were used to develop the final framework that described and defined key actions and events in rugby union (rugby). Thereafter, a group of researchers and practitioners with experience and expertise in rugby video analysis formed the RUVAC group. Each member of the group examined the framework of descriptors and definitions and rated their level of agreement on a 5-point agreement Likert scale (1: strongly disagree; 2: disagree; 3: neither agree or disagree; 4: agree; 5: strongly agree). The mean rating of agreement on the five-point scale (1: strongly disagree; 5: strongly agree) was 4.6 (4.3–4.9), 4.6 (4.4–4.9), 4.7 (4.5–4.9), 4.8 (4.6–5.0) and 4.8 (4.6–5.0) for the tackle, ruck, scrum, line-out and maul, respectively. The RUVAC group recommends using this consensus as the starting framework when conducting rugby video analysis research. Which variables to use (if not all) depends on the objectives of the study. Furthermore, the intention of this consensus is to help integrate video data with other data (eg, injury surveillance).

  • consensus
  • contact sports
  • injury prevention
  • performance
  • Rugby

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101293

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @Sharief_H, @KTConditioning, @steve_dh1, @drsimonkemp, @jonpatricios, @Rock_Andy1, @drkeithstokes, @kenquarrie, @23benjones

    • Contributors SH drafted the manuscript, and all other authors provided input to prepare the manuscript for publication. SdH conducted the literature search for the review.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement No data are available.