University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2012 BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES OF TWO COMMON FOOTBALL MOVEMENT TASKS IN STUDDED AND NON-STUDDED SHOE CONDITIONS ON INFILLED SYNTHETIC TURF Elizabeth Anne Brock University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Sports Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brock, Elizabeth Anne, "BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES OF TWO COMMON FOOTBALL MOVEMENT TASKS IN STUDDED AND NON-STUDDED SHOE CONDITIONS ON INFILLED SYNTHETIC TURF. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2012. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1245 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Elizabeth Anne Brock entitled "BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES OF TWO COMMON FOOTBALL MOVEMENT TASKS IN STUDDED AND NON- STUDDED SHOE CONDITIONS ON INFILLED SYNTHETIC TURF." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Kinesiology. Songning Zhang, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Clare E. Milner, Jim T. Brosnan, John C. Sorochan Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) i BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES OF TWO COMMON FOOTBALL MOVEMENT TASKS IN STUDDED AND NON-STUDDED SHOE CONDITIONS ON INFILLED SYNTHETIC TURF A Thesis Presented for the Master of Science Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Elizabeth Anne Brock August 2012 ii Acknowledgements I would like express my gratitude and appreciation to my masters committee, especially Dr. Zhang. I have looked to every one of my committee members for guidance and support throughout this process and I would not be where I am today without their help. Dr. Zhang has helped me with everything from cutting turf out of the ground to skyping me from China the week before my proposal. Throughout the whole process you have been nothing but respectful of my opinions and ideas and for that I’m thankful. I would also like to thank my friends and family for their unwavering support throughout this project. The survival grocery care packages from my mom have probably kept me alive during the weeks I could not find time to go to the store. Thanks Mom! I also want to thank Lexie for her help throughout data collection and analysis. I really appreciate you helping me put down turf on Friday nights, only to spend the rest of your weekend helping me collect and clean up the lab. Thanks for everything! iii Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine kinematic and kinetic differences in three shoe conditions (traditional football shoes with natural and synthetic turf studs and a neutral running shoe) during two common football movements (a 180° cut and a land- cut movement) on infilled synthetic turf. Fourteen recreational male football players performed five trials in all three shoe conditions for a 180° cut as well as a land-cut maneuver. The kinematic and kinetic variables were analyzed with a 3 x 2 (shoe x movement) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA, p<0.05). Peak free moment was significantly greater for the land-cut trials (p<0.001). Vertical GRFs were significantly greater for the land-cut trials (p<0.001). A cleat x movement interaction was seen for time to vertical impact GRF (p=0.048). A cleat main effect was found for time to vertical impact between natural turf cleat and synthetic turf cleat (p=0.019). Vertical loading rate was significantly greater in land-cut trials. Peak medial GRFs showed a significant cleat x movement interaction (p=0.002). The results from this study suggest that land-cut movement elicit greater vertical GRF and vertical impact loadings rates. The running shoe had significantly less dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) than the synthetic turf studs. A significant cleat main effect was found for peak eversion velocity (p=0.005). Post hoc comparisons showed that it was significantly smaller in shoe than that natural turf stud (p=0.016) and synthetic turf stud (p=0.002). In general, there was a lack of differences between the shoe conditions for GRFs and kinematic variables. For the 180° cut movement, natural turf studs produced lowest peak medial GRF compared to the synthetic turf studs and the shoe. The results from this study suggest that land-cut movement elicit greater vertical GRF and vertical impact loadings iv rates. In general, there was a lack of differences of GRFs and kinematic variables between the shoe conditions. For the 180° cut movement, natural turf studs produced lowest peak medial GRF compared to the synthetic turf studs and the shoe. Overall, increased GRFs, especially in combination with rapid change of direction and deceleration may increase the chance of injury. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................................ii Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 Statement of Problem .......................................................................................................... 7 Significance of Study ........................................................................................................... 7 Limitations ............................................................................................................................. 8 Delimitations .......................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 11 Injury Mechanisms ............................................................................................................. 11 Synthetic Surfaces ............................................................................................................. 14 Football Shoe Classifications ........................................................................................... 21 Shoe-Surface Interaction and the Risk of Injury ............................................................ 27 Kinetics of Landing, Pivoting and Cutting Movements ................................................. 34 vi Landing: ............................................................................................................................... 36 Cutting: ................................................................................................................................. 38 Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 42 Methods ................................................................................................................................... 42 Participants .......................................................................................................................... 42 Equipment ................................................................................................................................ 43 Protocol .................................................................................................................................... 46 Data Processing and Analysis .............................................................................................. 52 Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 53 Biomechanical Differences Among Single-leg Landing and Cutting Movements in Two Football Studs on Infilled Synthetic Turf ..................................................................................................... 53 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 53 Methods ..................................................................................................................................