The effect of planning time on penultimate and ultimate step kinematics and subsequent knee moments during sidestepping

Abstract

Frontal plane postures during the ultimate step of sidestepping are linked to increased anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. However, there is a lack of research detailing the kinematic strategies present in the penultimate step. This study, therefore, investigated penultimate and ultimate step kinematics of planned sidestepping (pSS) and unplanned sidestepping (upSS) to further understand the effect of planning time on known ultimate step kinematic and kinetic differences.Sixty male amateur Australian Rules football players performed three trials of straight-line running (RUN), pSS, and upSS in a randomized order. Mediolateral foot placement and three-dimensional joint kinematics for the knee, pelvis, and trunk were measured at final foot contact of the penultimate step and initial foot contact of the ultimate step. Peak knee moments were measured during the weight acceptance phase of the ultimate step. In pSS, at the penultimate step final foot contact, the support foot was placed across the midline of the center of mass, in the frontal plane, contralateral to the sidestep direction. Greater trunk lateral flexion toward the sidestep direction and greater negative pelvic lateral tilt were observed in pSS compared with upSS and RUN. Differences between pSS and upSS frontal plane kinematics at penultimate step final foot contact suggest preparatory reorientation strategies are likely constrained by the amount of planning time available. As there are clear differences in preparatory kinematics, we recommend that planning time be considered when training and assessing sidestepping maneuvers and planned and unplanned maneuvers not be treated as interchangeable skills.

Development of a Cutting Technique Modification Training Program and Evaluation of its Effects on Movement Quality and Cutting Performance in Male Adolescent American Football Players

“…Pre-planned COD scenarios occur in American football (e.g., a wide receiver running a slant route), albeit to a much lesser extent than unplanned COD scenarios in which athletes must continuously respond to opponents, teammates, and the ball [ 79 , 152 ]. The time to plan and prepare for an appropriate movement response is scarce when the movement is performed in reaction to or in anticipation of a stimulus compared with movements planned in advance [ 38 , 69 , 143 , 153 , 154 ]. As a result, divergent cutting kinematics and mechanics have been observed between preplanned and unplanned movement scenarios [ 37 , 69 , 151 , 155 , 156 ].…”

“…The time to plan and prepare for an appropriate movement response is scarce when the movement is performed in reaction to or in anticipation of a stimulus compared with movements planned in advance [ 38 , 69 , 143 , 153 , 154 ]. As a result, divergent cutting kinematics and mechanics have been observed between preplanned and unplanned movement scenarios [ 37 , 69 , 151 , 155 , 156 ]. Noncontact ACL injuries were often sustained during unplanned sidestepping maneuvers [ 37 , 157 ], which might be explained by higher knee joint loads occurring during unplanned conditions [ 38 , 153 ].…”

“…The cutting assessment was used to determine COD performance (time) of the sidestep technique [ 68 ] and to evaluate cutting movement quality (regarding ACL injury risk potential). The sidestep technique was chosen because it is one of the more common techniques in multidirectional invasion sports [ 2 , 5 , 69 , 70 ]. Cutting angles of 45° are probably more representative of most cutting scenarios in American football, whereas sharper cutting angles increase the risk of injury because of the increased load on the knee joint [ 71 , 72 ], with a 90° cutting angle posing the greatest risk [ 73 ].…”

“…The tests were performed indoors on artificial turf. techniques in multidirectional invasion sports [2,5,69,70]. Cutting angles of 45° are probably more representative of most cutting scenarios in American football, whereas sharper cutting angles increase the risk of injury because of the increased load on the knee joint [71,72], with a 90° cutting angle posing the greatest risk [73].…”