Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: The present study aimed to compare the knee joint kinematics during a countermovement jump (CMJ) among different sports surfaces in male soccer players.Methods: The study included 20 male soccer players (age, 21.8 ± 2.0 years). Kinematic data were collected using a motion-capture system that included 6 infrared cameras at a sampling rate of 200 Hz. The participants performed CMJ with the hands placed on the waist. The surfaces included natural grass, artificial grass, sand, and a rubber indoor surface prepared in the laboratory.Results: There was no difference in knee joint angle flexion during the countermovement of the jump phase and eccentric phase after the jump (EPAJ) (landing) among the 4 surfaces (P = 0.115 and P = 0.073, respectively). There was a significant difference in the knee joint angle velocity during the countermovement phase and concentric phase of the jump (CPJ) among the 4 surfaces (P = 0.006 and P = 0.001, respectively). However, there was no difference in the knee joint angle velocity during the landing phase among the 4 surfaces (P = 0.134). There was a significant difference in jump height among the 4 surfaces (P = 0.001).Conclusion: Sports surfaces can influence the knee joint angular velocity and jump height, but might not affect the knee joint angular displacement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arianasab et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: