Mechanical assessment of artificial turf football pitches: The consequences of no quality certification

Burillo, Pablo; Gallardo, Leonor; Felipe, José Luis; Gallardo, Andrés

doi:10.5897/sre11.1454

Cited by 23 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There was a significant main effect for RSA sprint block (F=11.43, p=0.001, η p 2 = 0.62) with lower performance distance covered registered in the last sprint block compared to the first sprint block on both AT [(rate of decrease =-11±3%, ES=-1.97, 95% CI (-2.94 to -0.83)] and NG [(rate of decrease =-15±4%, ES=-1.66, 95% CI (-2.60 to -0.59)] (Figure 1). In addition, there was a main effect for surface on RSA performance (F=8.34, p=0.03, η p 2 =0.54) with a higher RSA performance on AT compared to NG only during the last three sprint blocks (i.e., [4][5][6] [(p=0.009; ES=0.91, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.79); ES=0.84, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.72) and ES=0.63, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.50), respectively)] (Figure 2). Similarly, a significant betweensurface effect was observed in the total distance covered (t(8)=2.95, p=0.018, ES=1.15, 95% CI 95% (0.16 to 2.04, d=1.12) with higher (+6±2%) distance covered on the AT (Figure 3) compared to NG.…”

Section: Rsa Performance Rpe and Feeling Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 Since this official approval, use of AT has increased exponentially for both training and competition official football games or for training. [6][7][8] Accordingly, this has resulted in an increased increasing number of research studies being have been conducted to assess the influence of playing surface on various technical and physical components of football performance and injury risk. [9][10][11] To date, studies assessing the influence of playing surface type on physical performance abilities have yielded conflicting results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological, and Perceptual Responses to a Repeated-Sprint Ability Test: Natural Grass Versus Artificial Turf

Ammar¹,

Bailey²,

Trabelsi³

et al. 2019

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The effect of playing surface on physical performance during a repeated-sprint ability (RSA) test and the mechanisms for any potential playing-surface-dependent effects on RSA performance are equivocal. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of natural grass (NG) and artificial turf (AT) on physical performance, ratings of perceived exertion, feeling scale, and blood biomarkers related to anaerobic contribution (blood lactate [Lac]), muscle damage (creatine kinase and lactate dehydrogenase), inflammation (C-reactive protein), and immune function (neutrophils [NEU], lymphocytes [LYM], and monocytes) in response to an RSA test. Methods: A total of 9 male professional football players from the same regional team completed 2 sessions of RSA testing (6 × 30 s interspersed with a 35-s recovery) on NG and AT in a randomized order. During the RSA test, total (sum of distances) and peak (highest distance covered in a single repetition) distance covered were determined using a measuring tape, and the decrement in sprinting performance from the first to the last repetition was calculated. Before and after the RSA test, ratings of perceived exertion, feeling scale, and Lac, creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, C-reactive protein, NEU, LYM, and monocytes were recorded in both NG and AT conditions. Results: Although physical performance declined during the RSA blocks on both surfaces (P = .001), the distance covered declined more on NG (15%) than on AT (11%; P = .04; effect size [ES] = −0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.21 to 0.56) with a higher total distance covered (+6% [2%]) on AT (P = .018; ES = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.16 to 2.04). In addition, lower ratings of perceived exertion (P = .04; ES = −0.49; 95% CI, −1.36 to 0.42), Lac, NEU, and LYM (P = .03; ES = −0.80; 95% CI, −1.67 to 0.14; ES = −0.16; 95% CI, −1.03 to 0.72; and ES = −0.94; 95% CI, −1.82 to 0.02, respectively) and more positive feelings (P = .02; ES = 0.81; 95% CI, −0.13 to 1.69) were observed after the RSA test performed on AT than on NG. No differences were observed in the remaining physical and blood markers. Conclusion: These findings suggest that RSA performance is enhanced on AT compared with NG. This effect was accompanied by lower fatigue perception and Lac, NEU, and LYM and a more pleasurable feeling. These observations might have implications for physical performance in intermittent team-sport athletes who train and compete on different playing surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Rsa Performance Rpe and Feeling Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological, and Perceptual Responses to a Repeated-Sprint Ability Test: Natural Grass Versus Artificial Turf

Ammar¹,

Bailey²,

Trabelsi³

et al. 2019

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have provided evidence that the mechanical characteristics of 3G systems and natural turf can be very closely matched (Livesay, Reda, & Nauman, 2006;Martinez, Dura, Gamez, Zamora, & Alcantara, 2004;Villwock, Meyer, Powell, Fouty, & Haut, 2009); however, factors such as maintenance, its rate of use and its configuration are found to be important in modifying the mechanical characteristics of 3G systems (Burillo, Gallardo, Felipe, & Gallardo, 2012). Importantly, when different types of 3G systems and their constitute components are compared, diverse mechanical characteristics have been found (Burillo et al, 2012;Sánchez-Sánchez, Felipe, Burillo, Del Corral, & Gallardo, 2014;Sánchez-Sánchez et al, 2017). For example, one study showed that the inclusion of cushioning underlay in 3G systems increased mechanical shock absorption compared to a no underlay condition (Burillo et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, when different types of 3G systems and their constitute components are compared, diverse mechanical characteristics have been found (Burillo et al, 2012;Sánchez-Sánchez, Felipe, Burillo, Del Corral, & Gallardo, 2014;Sánchez-Sánchez et al, 2017). For example, one study showed that the inclusion of cushioning underlay in 3G systems increased mechanical shock absorption compared to a no underlay condition (Burillo et al, 2012). Consequently, these 3G systems with cushioning underlay would help to meet the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) mechanical requirements (60-70% shock absorption) (Fédération Internationale de Football Association, 2015) and ensure their safety.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of impact moderating movement adaptation when soccer players perform game specific tasks on a third-generation artificial surface without a cushioning underlay

Lozano-Berges

Clansey

Lake

2019

Sports Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study was to investigate how the inclusion of a cushioning underlay in a third-generation artificial turf (3G) affects player biomechanics during soccer-specific tasks. Twelve soccer players (9 males/3 females; 22.6 ± 2.3 y) participated in this study. Mechanical impact testing of each 3G surface; without (3G-NCU) and with cushioning underlay (3G-CU) were conducted. Impact force characteristics, joint kinematics and joint kinetics variables were calculated on each surface condition during a sprint 90°cut (90CUT), a sprint 180°cut (180CUT), a drop jump (DROP) and a sprint with quick deceleration (STOP). For all tasks, greater peak resultant force, peak knee extensor moment and peak ankle dorsi-flexion moment were found in 3G-NCU than 3G-CU (p < 0.05). During 90CUT and STOP, loading rates were higher in 3G-NCU than 3G-CU (p < 0.05). During 180CUT, higher hip, knee and ankle ranges of motion were found in 3G-NCU (p < 0.05). These findings showed that the inclusion of cushioning underlay in 3G reduces impact loading forces and lower limb joint loading in soccer players across game-specific tasks. Overall, players were not attempting to reduce higher lower limb impact loading associated with a lack of surface cushioning underlay.

show abstract

“…Como en el caso del rebote, un jugador también puede tener problemas para controlar un balón si éste se desliza sobre el terreno más rápidamente o con más lentitud de la prevista (Burillo et al, 2012b). De igual modo, un jugador que pasa el balón a un compañero asume que el balón va a deslizarse con una velocidad determinada sobre la superficie, y por tanto golpeará al balón con cierta fuerza en previsión de la velocidad que la pelota adquirirá al deslizarse por la superficie (Alcántara et al, 2009).…”

Section: Rodar Del Balónunclassified

Cuantificación y análisis de situaciones ofensivas en partidos reducidos en fútbol = Quantification and analysis of offensive situations in sided games in soccer

Garcı́a¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanical assessment of artificial turf football pitches: The consequences of no quality certification

Cited by 23 publications

References 23 publications

Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological, and Perceptual Responses to a Repeated-Sprint Ability Test: Natural Grass Versus Artificial Turf

Effects of Playing Surface on Physical, Physiological, and Perceptual Responses to a Repeated-Sprint Ability Test: Natural Grass Versus Artificial Turf

Lack of impact moderating movement adaptation when soccer players perform game specific tasks on a third-generation artificial surface without a cushioning underlay

Cuantificación y análisis de situaciones ofensivas en partidos reducidos en fútbol = Quantification and analysis of offensive situations in sided games in soccer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About