天堂视频

Introduction:

Classification in WR is largely dependent on the physical assessment of trunk and arm function. Currently, players are classified into one of 7 categories ranging from 0.5 (most impaired) to 3.5 (least impaired) at 0.5 increments. Scores between 0 and 1.5 represent trunk function. Both arms are scored between 0.5 and 3.5 and then averaged to provide an “arm score,” which is added to the “trunk score” to give an overall classification.

The influence of WR classification on both physical and technical aspects of performance has been investigated during competition. Yet, these studies have only considered the overall classification, with players typically allocated into low- (≤1.5) and high-point (≥2.0) groups and have failed to consider the individual contribution of trunk and arm impairments toward performance.

Methods:

Thirty-one highly trained WR players were grouped according to their trunk (no trunk [NT]; some trunk [T] function) and arm impairments (poor, moderate, and good arm function).

Teams competed in 5 matches over 5 days. Individual activity profiles and technical data relating to ball handling activities were monitored during all matches using player tracking technology and video analysis, respectively. Data were collected during every instance that a player was on court.

Main findings:

• Trunk impairment explained some of the variance in physical (10.6–23.5%) and technical (16.2– 33.0%) performance.
• T covered more distance, had more possession, scored more goals, and received and made more passes yet spent less time at low speeds and performed fewer inbounds than NT.
• Arm impairment explained some of the variance in all physical (16.7–47.0%) and the majority of technical (13.1–53.3%) performance measures.
• Moderate and good arm function covered more distance, reached higher peak speeds, spent more time in higher speed zones, scored more goals, had more possession, and received and made more passes, with a higher percentage of 1-handed and long passes, than poor arm function.
• Good arm function received more passes and made a higher percentage of 1-handed passes and defensive blocks than moderate arm function.
• Arm impairment affects a greater number of physical and technical measures of performance specific to WR than trunk impairment during competition.
• Having active finger function (good arm function) yielded no further improvements in physical performance but positively influenced a small number of technical skills.

Reference:

Mason BS, Altmann VC, Goosey-Tolfrey VL. Understanding the Impact of Trunk and Arm Impairments on Wheelchair Rugby Performance During Competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2019 May 1;14(5):612-619. DOI: 

Image credit: © Paralympics GB