Biomechanical analysis of traction at the shoe-surface interface on third-generation artificial turf

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McGhie ◽  
Gertjan Ettema
2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McGhie ◽  
Gertjan Ettema

Background: Excessive repetitive loads are widely believed to be the cause of overload or overuse injuries. On third-generation artificial turf, impacts have been found to vary with surface and shoe properties. Mechanical devices are considered not representative for measuring impact absorption during athletic movements, and pressure insoles have been shown as inaccurate with regard to magnitude of force. Purpose: To compare impact properties between different third-generation artificial turf systems in combination with various cleat configurations in vivo using force plate technology. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty-two male soccer players (mean ± SD: age, 23.1 ± 2.8 y; height, 1.81 ± 0.1 m; body mass, 77.5 ± 6.0 kg) performed 10 short sprints, 5 straight with a sudden stop and 5 with a 90° cut, over a force plate covered with artificial turf for each combination of 3 turf systems and 3 cleat configurations. Results: During stop sprints, peak impact was significantly higher on a recreational-level turf system than professional-level turf systems with and without an underlying shock pad (3.12 body weight [ W] vs 3.01 W and 3.02 W, respectively). During cut sprints, peak impact was significantly higher with traditional round cleats than with turf cleats and bladed cleats (2.99 W vs 2.84 W and 2.87 W, respectively). Conclusion: The results indicate that both an increase in assumed impact-absorbing surface properties and a larger distribution of shorter cleats produced lower impacts during standardized athletic movements. Regardless, none of the shoe-surface combinations yielded peak impacts of an assumed hazardous magnitude. Clinical Relevance: The study provides information on the extent to which various third-generation artificial turf systems and cleat configurations affect impact force, widely believed to be a causative factor for overload and overuse injuries.


Author(s):  
Gabriel Lozano-Berges ◽  
Ángel Matute-Llorente ◽  
Alejandro Gómez-Bruton ◽  
Alex González-Agüero ◽  
Germán Vicente-Rodríguez ◽  
...  

There are different surfaces on which football is played, but their influence on bone mass accretion still remains unknown. The aims of this study were to compare bone mass accretion between football players and controls, and evaluate the influence of two different playing surfaces on bone accretion. A total of 27 male football players (13.2 ± 0.5 years) and 15 controls (12.6 ± 1.1 years) participated in this study. Football players were classified into two groups according to the surface they trained on: 14 on third-generation artificial turf with elastic layer and 13 on third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer. Bone mineral content and areal bone mineral density were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bone mineral apparent density variables were calculated. Bone geometry and strength of the non-dominant tibia were assessed with peripheral quantitative computed tomography. For both football players and controls, bone variables measured at subtotal body, lumbar spine, legs and tibia ( p < 0.05) significantly increased. Based on the time spent practicing football, the increase in areal bone mineral density for the legs ( p < 0.05) was higher in football players than controls. Moreover, lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density increased more in third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer players in comparison with third-generation artificial turf with elastic layer players ( p < 0.05). Playing football on third-generation artificial turf with elastic layer and third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer seems to positively affect bone mass during growth. After playing for one season on these playing surfaces, football practice on third-generation artificial turf without elastic layer with the lower shock absorption seems to have produced the highest increment in areal bone mineral density at lumbar spine. Thus, football practice on surfaces with lower shock absorption could provide an extra benefit on bone health.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e111368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Sánchez-Sánchez ◽  
Jorge García-Unanue ◽  
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes ◽  
Ana Gallardo ◽  
Pablo Burillo ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
pp. 29-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Meijer ◽  
Jeroen Dethmers ◽  
Hans Savelberg ◽  
Paul Willems ◽  
Bart Wijers

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 3165-3177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Sánchez-Sánchez ◽  
Jorge García-Unanue ◽  
José L. Felipe ◽  
Pedro Jiménez-Reyes ◽  
David Viejo-Romero ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Reilly O’Meagher ◽  
John O’Reilly ◽  
Ajmol Ali

Football (soccer) is traditionally played on natural grass but artificial surfaces are becoming an increasing popular alternative. Understanding how different surfaces affect a player's skill performance has not been examined. This study sought to compare soccer skill performance, using a validated test, on natural grass, third generation (3G) artificial turf, and indoor sprung wooden floor. Following familiarisation, 14 male players (12.7 ± 0.5 years-old, with 6.21 years playing experience) performed the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test (LSPT) on three different surfaces in the following order: indoor, grass and artificial turf. Players were given two practise attempts before the best of two trials were recorded. Movement time was faster on artificial turf (45.1 ± 1.3 s) than natural grass (46.2 ± 1.8 s; p = 0.045), but there was no difference in overall LSPT performance between grass (54.1 ± 4.2 s) and artificial turf (54.0 ± 4.7 s; p = 0.92). Overall LSPT performance was better on indoor surface (50.9 ± 4.6 s) than grass (p = 0.02) and artificial turf (p = 0.02) due to reduced penalty time on the indoor surface (5.5 ± 3.3 s) than grass (7.9 ± 2.9 s; p = 0.001) and artificial turf (8.9 ± 3.9 s; p = 0.003). There is no difference in soccer skill performance between grass and 3G artificial turf. Skill performance on an indoor surface was ∼6% better than both grass and 3G artificial turf due to better ball control and/or accuracy of passing. Our findings will enable comparison of studies using the LSPT on indoor and outdoor (grass or artificial) surfaces.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document