Are girls contact-ready? Video analysis of tackle training practices in adolescent girls rugby union

Abstract

As most rugby injuries occur during tackles, understanding how contact skills are delivered in practice is critical for informing best practice and policy. World Rugby's contact load guidance and the Tackle Ready and Contact Confident tackle training (TT) programmes are recommended for progressive contact preparation. Within a coach TT education workshop initiative, this study aimed to characterise TT practices and adoption of World Rugby-recommended components in girls rugby. In this cross-sectional study, 251 practice sessions from 33 teams were analysed using a 10-item framework. Activities were classified as controlled contact (restrained) or full contact (unrestrained). Mixed-effects models were used to examine associations between age categories, TT workshop attendance, and contact exposure or programme adoption. Eighty-five percent of teams had at least one coach who had attended a workshop. Controlled contact activities occurred in 76.5% of sessions (median 14.7 min, Q1,Q3: 2.8,24.2). Full contact was infrequent (9.2%, median 0 min, Q1,Q3: 0,0). Coach workshop exposure was associated with greater controlled contact minutes (+9.08 min, p = 0.004) but no difference in full contact. Tackle Ready phases were observed in 70.9% of practices and Contact Confident in 68.5%, with only 2.8% of sessions incorporating all Contact Confident groups. Contact was predominantly delivered through isolated formats without equipment. Findings suggest selective TT adoption following workshop exposure, with lower odds of Contact Confident uptake (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.09,1.00) and higher odds of Tackle Ready adoption (OR = 2.42, 95%CI: 0.85,6.90) for coaches exposed to TT workshop. Tailored support is needed to promote balanced and progressive contact training in rugby.

Introduction

Girl's participation in rugby union (henceforth “rugby”) is increasing globally alongside a rapidly evolving performance landscape.^1,2 As a collision sport, rugby exposes players to a complex and fast-paced contact environment that requires the development of technical skills such as tackling, ball carrying, and rucking. ³ Positive defensive performances and technical contact proficiency, particularly in the tackle, are major contributors to both match success and player safety.^4,5 Adolescent girls rugby reportedly has among the highest concussion rates in team sports, with tackling responsible for approximately 70% of all injuries. ⁶ More broadly, tackle events account for the greatest injury burden in rugby (615 days absence per 1000 player hours),^7,8 reinforcing the importance of understanding how contact skills are delivered and developed during practice.

Within women and girls rugby, additional challenges may exist during ball carrying and tackle situations. In high school girls rugby, head-to-ground contact following tackles accounted for 100% of suspected concussions in ball-carriers and 31% of concussions in tacklers, ⁹ potentially linked to uncontrolled whiplash movements during landing. ¹⁰ This may be compounded by women and girls often later entry into the sport, fewer opportunities to accumulate contact exposure, and constrained access to coaching resources, resulting in a relatively low training age in contact situations.^11,12 For example, among Canadian high school players (mean age 16.6 years), 43% reported no previous rugby experience and 88% had less than one year of participation. ¹³ Safe and proficient tackle technique is heavily dependent on coach-led practices, with coaches playing a central role in shaping skill acquisition and safety behaviours.^11,14 In response, World Rugby has introduced coach tackle training (TT) education initiatives (e.g., Tackle Ready ¹⁵ and Contact Confident ¹⁶ ) alongside contact load guidance. ¹⁷ These coach education initiatives aim to promote progressive and technically focused approaches to safe tackle skill acquisition within contact practices. However, despite widespread dissemination of these initiatives (online platforms, translated materials, video content, in-person coach workshops), there is limited evidence describing how they are adopted. ¹⁸ Self-reported data indicate that coaches and healthcare professionals generally perceive tackle practice guidelines as important and useful, yet adoption varies considerably, highlighting a persistent gap between perceived value and translation into applied practice in rugby settings. ¹⁹

Despite growing participation, research examining how tackle practices are delivered in adolescent girls rugby remains limited.^18,20 Existing studies have largely relied on coach self-reported practice data, which are vulnerable to recall and social desirability bias and may misrepresent contact exposure or activity classification.^21,22 Video analysis offers an objective method to characterise tackle practices, enabling detailed assessment of the activities used, the focus, the structure, format, and the intensity level of contact involved (e.g., controlled versus full contact). Therefore, in the context of a coach TT education workshop initiative in girl's rugby, this study aimed to characterise TT practices using video analysis, with emphasis on the type, structure, duration, contact level, and adoption of World Rugby-recommended components.

Materials and methods

Study design

This cross-sectional video analysis study was conducted as a sub-study of a larger multi-site prospective cohort examining the effectiveness of a multifaceted tackle-training (TT) concussion prevention strategy in Canadian adolescent girls and varsity women's rugby. The strategy included World Rugby-led coach TT education workshops outlining the Contact Confident and Tackle Ready programs.^15,16 A total of nine in-person provincial workshops were delivered (three in April 2024 and six between January and March 2025), each consisting of a 3-h coach education session delivered by Rugby Canada and World Rugby coach educators across Quebec and Alberta. Attendance ranged from 10 to 25 coaches per workshop. The workshops incorporated education on tackle-related injury mechanisms in girls rugby, demonstration of TT activities and progressions, and opportunities for practice.

Video data were collected prospectively, and the present analysis employed a cross-sectional design to objectively identify and label tackle-related training practices during the 2025 competitive season. High school practice sessions were video-recorded during the spring season (March–June 2025). Age-grade club practice sessions were recorded during the summer season (June–September 2025). Institutional ethics approval was obtained from the University of Calgary Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board (REB-18-2107) and the Research Ethics Board for Rehabilitation and Social Integration at the Integrated University Health and Social Services Centre of the National-Capital (MP-13-2020-1837).

Video collection of practice data

A total of 251 practice sessions from the 2025 high school and age-grade club rugby seasons in Alberta and Quebec were prospectively video-recorded. One practice was dropped from the analysis as it was a practice that included a 60-min exhibition game for player trials. As part of the larger pan-Canadian research program SHRed Concussions (Surveillance in High School and Community Sport to Reduce Concussions and their Consequences), ²³ research personnel visited participating teams on a weekly basis throughout the competitive season and attended one practice session per team per week, where feasible.

Age-grade club teams typically trained twice per week. High school teams trained approximately three to four days per week, with both settings involving one match per week. Since high school teams practice more frequently, they were asked to self-select and permit filming of the practice session they anticipated would involve the greatest amount of contact for that week. All available club practice sessions were captured. All sessions were conducted during pre- and in-season. High school teams comprised players aged approximately 15–18 years and were classified as U18 for analysis. Age-grade club teams were drawn from U13, U16, and U18 levels, with some clubs combining U16 and U18 squads due to player availability. Coaches were aware that practice sessions were being filmed and no measures were implemented to mitigate potential hawthorne effects (i.e., behavioural modification in response to awareness of being observed). ²⁴ No instructions or prompts were provided to coaches to alter practice content or structure, and all teams were provided access to their recorded practice footage following filming.

Each practice session was recorded using a single fixed camera positioned to capture the full practice area. Filming captured the entire session, including warm-up, full practice and cool-down phases. Dartfish software (Dartfish Ltd, Switzerland) was used for video playback and tagging. The software allowed for variable playback speeds and systematic tagging of practice activities, with all coded data exported to an Excel database for analysis.

Practice coding and variables

All included practice sessions were coded using a predefined template designed to capture tackle-related practice characteristics by seven coders with previous experience in rugby research and playing rugby or other collision sports. Coding focused on activities aligned with Contact Confident ¹⁶ and Tackle Ready programmes, ¹⁵ including the type of activity, equipment used, format, contact intensity (controlled contact vs full contact), ¹⁷ and the duration of each activity. In total, 10 descriptors were coded for each session.

The 10 practice descriptors were adapted from World Rugby's contact load guidelines, ¹⁷ Tackle Ready, ¹⁵ and Contact Confident resources. ¹⁶ The Tackle Ready programme was developed through knowledge user engagement with elite rugby coaches and educators and emphasised progressive, technically focused tackle skill development. ¹⁵ The contact load guidelines ¹⁷ and Contact Confident ¹⁶ were co-produced resources informed by current evidence, expert groups, and applied practice in rugby.^25,26

In the present study, to ensure the coding template reflected real-life coaching terminology and practice, informal consultation was conducted with coaches (n = 2) and players (n = 2) from various settings. Knowledge users were selected based on the first author's (KD) professional network. The knowledge users evaluated the relevance and validity of the coding template. A full description of the coded descriptors, classifications and operational definitions is provided in Supplemental Table 1.

Reliability

Inter-coder reliability was assessed for the 10 practice contact descriptor variables across five randomly selected practices, each independently coded by seven coders. Inter-coder reliability was evaluated using percentage agreement to facilitate comparison with existing video-analysis reliability literature. A median of 80% agreement between the coders and the gold-standard coder (KD) across the 10 practice contact descriptors was required to meet reliability. ⁹ Any discrepancies in variables were resolved through discussion between coders, followed by recoding of the same practices. Before disagreements were resolved, median percentage agreement across seven coders was 95% (range: 86%–100%).

Statistical analysis

The primary outcomes of interest were time spent in controlled contact (minutes), full contact (minutes), contact confident adoption (yes/no), and tackle ready adoption (yes/no). To examine potential seasonal variation, practice sessions were categorised into early, mid, and late season phases by dividing the period between the first and last recorded sessions within each setting and age category into three equal intervals. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise contact practice characteristics across all recorded practice sessions. Categorical practice descriptors were reported as counts and percentages. Continuous variables describing training exposure, including controlled contact duration and full contact duration, were assessed for normality via visual inspection of histograms and Q-Q plots. Given the high frequency of zero values and non-normal distribution of the data, continuous variables were summarised using medians and the 25^th (Q1) to 75^th percentiles (Q3).

Four separate mixed-effects models were fitted to examine the four primary outcomes of interest. Training sessions were nested within teams, and a random intercept for team was included in all models to account for repeated observations across a season. Fixed effects were determined a priori based on theoretical relevance to training structure and contact exposure and included: TT workshop exposure (yes vs no) and age category (U13, U16, U18). High school teams were classified as U18 for analysis.

Duration of controlled contact and full contact were analysed using linear mixed-effects models estimated via restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to produce less biased estimated by maximising the likelihood of the residuals. Adoption of Contact Confident and Tackle Ready (yes/no) was modelled using mixed-effects logistic regressions estimated via Laplace (quadratic) approximation. No convergence warnings were observed for any model, and the default optimizer was retained for all logistic models.

Estimated marginal means were derived for each outcome, and pairwise contrasts were used to evaluate the main effect of TT workshop exposure on predicted minutes for the linear models, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) calculated using profile likelihood for linear models and the Wald method for logistic models. Odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% CI were obtained by exponentiating model coefficients and their interval bounds for the logistic models. Contrasts assessing the effect of TT workshop exposure on program adoption were reported as odds ratios alongside predicted probabilities of adoption per session for each condition.

Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05. All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.5.1) using the packages lme4, lmerTest, and emmeans.

Results

Sample characteristics

A total of 251 practice sessions across 33 adolescent girls rugby teams were included in the analysis, representing approximately 372 h of recorded training time across seven months (March to September 2025) (Supplemental Table 2). Of these, 115 sessions were recorded from high school teams representing 22 schools across Alberta (n = 16) and Quebec (n = 6), with a mean of five recorded sessions per school (range: 1–10). The remaining 136 sessions were recorded from age-grade club teams representing 11 clubs (Alberta: n = 9; Quebec: n = 2), with a mean of 11 recorded sessions per club (range: 1–22).

Sessions spanned four age categories, including U13 (n = 26 sessions), U16 (n = 30 sessions), and U18 (n = 195 sessions). A detailed breakdown of teams, sessions, TT workshop exposure between 2024 and 2025, and settings is provided in Supplemental Table 2.

Practice session contact classification and exposure

Across all age groups and settings, controlled contact activities were observed for 76.5% of all sessions (n = 192) and median time spent in controlled contact was 14.7 min (Q1,Q3: 2.8, 24.2). Full contact activities were less frequently adopted (9.2%) and of shorter duration (median 0 min, Q1,Q3: 0, 0). Among sessions that included full contact (9.2%), median duration was 10.9 min (Q1,Q3: 7.9, 14.0) (Table 1). Supplemental Figures 1 and 2 presents the distribution of controlled contact minutes and full contact minutes across teams with and without workshop exposure and by age category, respectively.

Table 1.

Practice duration, contact exposure, and TT programme adoption by age category and setting.

Competition setting	Age-grade club (n = 136 practices) n (%)			High school (n = 115) n (%)
Variable	U13 club (n = 26)	U16 club (n = 30)	U18 club (n = 80)
Controlled contact present (yes), n (%)	23 (88.5)	19 (63.3)	65 (81.3)	85 (73.9)
Median controlled contact duration, min (Q1,Q3)	17.7 (6.2,27.6)	6.8 (0.0,17.6)	11.3 (5.1,22.9)	16.0 (0.0,32.0)
Full contact present (yes), n (%)	6 (23.1)	4 (13.3)	4 (5)	9 (7.8)
Median full contact duration, min (Q1,Q3)	0 (0,0)	0 (0,0)	0 (0,0)	0 (0,0)
Median total practice duration, min (Q1,Q3)	87.5 (73.7,90.8)	88.3 (79.1,94.8)	84.5 (71.3,93.5)	87.9 (74.1,100.8)
Tackle Ready adoption (yes), n (%)	24 (92.3)	17 (56.7)	62 (77.5)	75 (65.2)
Contact Confident adoption (yes), n (%)	20 (76.9)	20 (66.7)	64 (80)	68 (59.1)

n number of recorded practice sessions. % percentage. Q1: 25^th percentile, Q3: 75^th percentile. These sessions were contributed by 3 U13 club teams, 3 U16 club teams, 5 U18 club teams (including 3 combined teams), and 22 high school teams.

Contact exposure by season phase and workshop exposure

Controlled contact minutes varied across the season phases, with teams who received the TT workshop demonstrating higher controlled contact minutes compared to those without workshop exposure (Supplemental Figure 3). Some higher full contact minutes were observed in the early and mid-season phases, particularly among teams with TT workshop exposure but remained minimal (Supplemental Figure 4).

Factors associated with controlled contact minutes in practice

Practice sessions delivered by coaches who had attended the workshop included a mean of 9 additional minutes of controlled contact compared with sessions delivered by coaches without workshop exposure (β = 9.08, 95%CI: 3.69, 14.45, p = 0.004) (Table 2). Although point estimates suggested lower controlled contact exposure in older age categories (U16 and U18), these differences were not significant (U16: β = −7.10, 95%CI: −16.49, 2.32; U18: β = −3.18, 95%CI: −10.26, 3.88), although may be practically relevant.

Table 2.

Factors associated with time spent in controlled contact and full contact activities across teams (33 teams, 251 sessions).

Outcome	Fixed effects	Estimate (95%CI)	p-value
Controlled contact minutes	TT workshop exposure (yes vs no)	+9.08 min (3.83, 18.63)	0.004*
	Age group U16	−7.10 min (−16.49, 2.32)	0.174
	Age group U18	−3.18 min (−10.26, 3.88)	0.409
Full contact minutes	TT workshop exposure (yes vs no)	+0.15 min (−0.99, 1.29)	0.802
	Age group U16	+0.19 min (−1.74, 2.12)	0.850
	Age group U18	−0.93 min (−2.43, 0.56)	0.246

Controlled contact Marginal r² = 0.097, conditional r² = 0.187. Full contact Marginal r² = 0.013, conditional r² = 0.022.

TT: Tackle Training; vs: versus; mins: minutes; 95%CI: 95 percent confidence interval. Reference categories: U13 age group; TT workshop exposure = no. Values shown in bold with * are statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Factors associated with full contact minutes in practice

TT workshop exposure was not associated with full contact minutes (β = 0.15, 95%CI: −0.99, 1.29) (Table 2). Compared with the reference category (U13), sessions in the U16 and U18 age categories showed no difference in full contact exposure (U16: β = 0.19, 95%CI: −1.74, 2.12); U18: β = −0.93, 95%CI: −2.43, 0.56).

Adoption of tackle ready and contact confident activities

Tackle Ready phases were adopted in 70.9% of practices. Across both settings, Connection (87.1%) and Preparation (84.3%) were the most frequently observed phases, while other contact activities not explicitly aligned with Tackle Ready (e.g., ball-carrier or ruck-focused) were observed in 28.7% of all sessions (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Radar plot showing the percentage of practice sessions incorporating Tackle Ready phases in high school and club settings. High school data are shown by the darker grey shade.

Across all sessions that included contact activities, at least one Contact Confident activity group was observed in 68.5% of sessions. Among sessions in which Contact Confident activities were performed (n = 172), mobility, falling, rolling, and landing activities were most common (56.4%), followed by neck strengthening (50%), head reaction (45.9%), and deep neck stabilisation exercises (37.2%). Adoption patterns of contact confident activity groups were broadly similar across high school and age-grade club settings (Figure 2). Only seven practices (2.8%) demonstrated adoption of activities from all four Contact Confident groups as recommended by World Rugby. These sessions were contributed by seven different teams rather than repeated sessions from a single team.

Figure 2.

Radar plot showing the percentage of practice sessions incorporating activities targeting Contact Confident groups in high school and club settings. High school data are shown by the darker grey shade.

Factors associated with tackle ready and contact confident adoption

Table 3 presents the factors associated with Tackle Ready and Contact Confident programme adoption. Although the point estimate suggested 2.4-fold higher odds of Tackle Ready adoption among workshop-exposed teams, this association was not significant (OR = 2.42, 95%CI: 0.85, 6.90, p = 0.098) but practically relevant. Compared with U13 teams, U16 teams had 91% lower odds of Tackle Ready adoption (OR = 0.09, 95%CI: 0.01, 0.84) and U18 teams had 85% lower odds of Tackle Ready adoption (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.02, 0.91).

Table 3.

Factors associated with the adoption of Tackle Ready and Contact Confident activities (33 teams, 251 sessions).

Outcome	Fixed effects	Odds ratio (OR) (95%CI)	p-value
Tackle Ready adoption	TT workshop exposure (yes vs no)	2.42 (0.85, 6.90)	0.098
	Age group- U16	0.09 (0.01, 0.84)	0.035*
	Age group- U18	0.15 (0.02, 0.91)	0.040*
Contact Confident adoption	TT workshop exposure (yes vs no)	0.29 (0.09, 1.00)	0.049*
	Age group- U16	0.56 (0.08, 3.91)	0.558
	Age group- U18	0.71 (0.16, 3.19)	0.660

Contact Confident Marginal r² = 0.063, conditional r² = 0.234. Tackle Ready Marginal r² = 0.112, conditional r² = 0.254. TT: Tackle Training; vs: versus; 95%CI: 95 percent confidence interval. Reference categories: U13 age group; TT workshop exposure = no. Values shown in bold with * are statistically significant p < 0.05.

TT workshop exposure was associated with 69% lower odds of Contact Confident adoption (OR = 0.31, 95%CI: 0.08, 0.79, p = 0.035). Age category was not associated with Contact Confident adoption (U16: OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.08, 3.91; U18 OR = 0.71, 95%CI: 0.16, 3.19).

Equipment and format

During controlled contact activities (n = 192), most sessions were delivered with no equipment (73.4%, n = 141) followed by tackle shields (54.2%, n = 104), sausage bags (34.9%, n = 67), and tackle mats (12%, n = 23) (Supplemental Figure 5, Supplemental Table 3). Equipment use varied between settings, with tackle shields and sausage bags more commonly observed in age-grade club sessions compared with high school sessions.

Across both controlled and full contact sessions, contact activities were predominantly delivered using isolated 1v1 formats across all age-grade club and high school settings (80.9%, n = 174).

Discussion

This study provides the first objective, video-based evaluation of TT practices in adolescent girls rugby following the delivery of a structured, community-led coach education initiative.

Contact exposure and alignment with world rugby contact load guidance

TT exposure for adolescent girls rugby was characterised by frequent use of controlled contact activities, observed in 76.5% of practice sessions (median 14.7 min per session). This is comparable to existing research in South African boys rugby (median 17.2 min) ²⁷ and aligns with a global survey of women's rugby coaches who self-reported delivering 10–20 min of controlled contact per session on average. ²² In contrast, full contact activities were infrequent, occurring in only 9.2% of sessions (median 0 min per session), although sessions that included full contact activities demonstrated a median duration of 10.9 min. Teams with at least one coach who was exposed to the TT workshop demonstrated, on average, approximately 9 additional controlled contact minutes compared with non-exposed teams. Controlled and full contact exposure patterns remained relatively stable across early, mid, and late season phases. While controlled contact minutes were consistently higher among workshop-exposed teams, full contact exposure remained low across all season phases, with only minor increases observed in early and mid-season sessions.

World Rugby's contact load guidelines recommend an upper limit of 40 min of controlled contact training and 15 min of full contact training per week for professional rugby players. ¹⁷ At the single-session level, the observed contact exposure appears broadly conservative relative to these world rugby recommendations. ¹⁷ However, it is important to note that existing contact load guidance was primarily developed for the male elite game and has not yet been formally adapted or validated for adolescent community rugby settings.^18,25 As high school practices were intentionally self-selected by coaches as the most contact-intensive session of the week, these values likely represent an upper bound rather than cumulative weekly exposure. Therefore, the practical significance of apparent alignment with contact load guidance depends heavily on the setting and weekly training structure. For example, for teams training multiple times per week, particularly in high school environments where training commonly occurs three to four times weekly, repeated exposure of 15–18 min of controlled contact per session may cumulatively approach or exceed recommended weekly limits (≤40 min), ¹⁷ despite each session appearing compliant.

Although not significant, point estimates suggested lower controlled contact exposure in older age categories (U16 and U18) compared to U13. This may reflect a shift in training emphasis, with younger age groups focusing more on foundational contact skill development, while older age groups allocate greater time to tactical elements such as set-piece, attacking and defensive, and defensive structure. Hendricks et al. ²⁸ proposed a tackle skill training framework that emphasises progressive development from refining technique proficiency in highly structured and controlled practice scenarios to building skill capacity under fatigue in more unstructured representative practice scenarios. From a contact skill development perspective, the predominance of controlled contact and isolated formats observed in the present study across sessions may constrain progression toward later stages of tackle development if not complemented by more representative, unstructured contact activities to support skill capacity (maintaining technique under fatigue and pressure). ²⁸ Within the context of adolescent girls rugby, where competitive seasons are relatively short, particularly in high school settings (∼12 weeks), the limited use of full-contact activities may restrict opportunities to progress through these stages of contact skill development within a single season. This is especially relevant given the frequent and unpredictable nature of tackle events during match play. ⁹ Age- and context-specific tools that support progressive contact skill development across shorter playing seasons, while remaining aligned with injury prevention principles, are needed.

Adoption of contact confident and tackle ready components in practices

A key contribution of this study is the objective documentation of Contact Confident ¹⁶ and Tackle Ready ¹⁵ adoption in adolescent girls rugby practice environments following a community-led TT implementation initiative. Existing research has demonstrated that whilst coaches recognise the importance of safe TT initiatives, these intentions do not always translate into actual coaching practice.^22,27 Through objective practice video observations, approximately two-thirds of all practices incorporated at least one Contact Confident activity group (68.5%), ¹⁶ and 70.9% included at least one Tackle Ready phase, ¹⁵ indicating that World Rugby–recommended coach TT content was commonly incorporated, although comprehensive implementation across activity groups was limited. Importantly, these observations were made in teams participating in a larger TT study, where the majority had at least one coach (28/33 teams; 85%) who had attended a structured 3-h Contact Confident and Tackle Ready workshop. As such, the adoption patterns observed here likely reflect a best-case implementation scenario, rather than generalising to a typical practice across the broader adolescent girls rugby landscape.

Within Contact Confident adoption, ¹⁶ mobility, falling, rolling, and landing activities were most frequently observed (57%), followed by neck strengthening (50%), head reaction (46%), and deep neck stabilisation (36%) exercises. This pattern is encouraging, as these components directly target mechanisms associated with concussion risk, including uncontrolled head-to-ground contact.^9,10 Neck strengthening activities align with emerging biomechanical evidence. ¹⁰ However, the relationship between neck strength and concussion risk in female, women, and girl athletes remains unclear, with recent systematic review evidence reporting inconsistent findings. ²⁹ Only seven practices (2.8%) demonstrated adoption of activities from all four recommended groups, ¹⁶ with these sessions distributed across different teams rather than concentrated within a small number of high-adopting teams. Multivariable modelling indicated that TT workshop exposure was associated with about a 70% reduction in the likelihood of using Contact Confident activities. While the lower odds of Contact Confident adoption following a TT workshop is counterintuitive, this finding may reflect selective uptake of workshop content, whereby coaches prioritised Tackle Ready components over Contact Confident activities. From a behavioural perspective, this pattern may align with the ‘outcome expectancy’ construct of the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA). ³⁰ Coaches’ may favour activities perceived to have more immediate relevance to match performance, such as tackle technique, over preparatory activities aimed at building confidence and physical competence in contact. This may be particularly evident in high school and younger club settings, where limited training time and short seasons necessitate prioritisation of technical skills.

Tackle Ready phases were adopted in 70.9% of practices, ¹⁵ with Connection (87.1%) and Preparation (84.3%) phases the most observed. This emphasis aligns with tackle height policy and coaching priorities around body position, head placement, and initial contact mechanics central to safe and effective tackle execution. ⁵ In contrast, Acceleration and Finish phases were less consistently implemented, suggesting that later elements of the tackle sequence may be underrepresented in training. This finding is relevant given that head-to-ground contact during the post tackle phase accounts for a high proportion of suspected concussions and uncontrolled whiplash movements during landing.^9,10 Similar patterns have been reported in elite women's rugby, where retrospective match analysis from the Women's Six Nations demonstrated low overall completion of recommended Tackle Ready techniques, with fewer than one-third of post-contact techniques evident in more than 50% of tackles. ³¹ TT workshop exposure was associated with non-significantly higher odds (OR = 2.42) of Tackle Ready adoption, suggesting a positive directional trend. However, adoption varied by age group, with lower odds observed in U16 and U18 sessions compared with U13. This may reflect both a greater need for structured tackle skill development in younger players who are newer to contact, and a shift in training emphasis in older age groups towards tactical elements. Overall, the selective and inconsistent Tackle Ready adoption highlights that programme awareness does not necessarily translate into coherent or sequential delivery. Implementation challenges such as selective uptake, contextual adaptation, and variability in coach confidence, education or implementation support have been identified as key barriers to sustained delivery across injury prevention interventions in youth sport. ³² Complementary qualitative findings from the wider TT evaluation project within which this study is embedded demonstrate that coaches prefer clear guidance on the why, what, and how of TT and ongoing reinforcement beyond initial preseason workshops. ³³

Practical implications

The findings of this study have several practical implications for the design and delivery of TT in adolescent girls rugby. First, the observed alignment with World Rugby contact load guidance provides reassurance that current practice broadly reflects injury prevention recommendations, particularly with respect to limited exposure to full contact practice. ¹⁷ This cautious approach appears appropriate for an adolescent population with an elevated risk of concussion ³⁴ and suggests that safety considerations are being prioritised within community settings.^22,27 Although the predominance of controlled contact in isolated formats highlights an opportunity to better support coaches in progressing contact activities toward more representative, decision-rich practice environments.^21,28 Controlled contact allows for repetition of technical components under constrained conditions; however, without progression toward representative full-contact scenarios, meaningful learning and skill transfer to match performance may be limited.^21,28 Practical examples of how controlled contact activities can be layered with tactical and physical fatigue-related demands is needed.^20,28

Second, with respect to programme adoption, the findings highlight strengths and areas for improvement in the implementation of Contact Confident and Tackle Ready.^15,16 For example, Contact Confident is designed to be implemented across four complementary activity groups. ¹⁶ Comprehensive implementation was rare (2.8%). This selective adoption suggests that while coaches may be familiar with individual elements, the intended breadth and balance of Contact Confident are not consistently achieved in practice. Similarly, while Tackle Ready phases were commonly observed, implementation was skewed toward earlier phases of the tackle sequence, with later phases, such as Acceleration and Finish, less consistently addressed. In line with research in South African boys rugby, ²⁷ a large proportion of controlled contact activities were delivered without equipment (73.4%). When equipment was used, the tackle shield was most utilised in the present study (54%), whereas South African boys rugby more frequently reported use of sausage bags (20%). ²⁷ These differences may reflect variation in equipment preferences, availability and access to specialised training resources between genders and rugby settings. These findings suggest that practical guidance for coaches should emphasise not only what contact activities to include, but also how to structure sessions to ensure coverage across activity groups and tackle phases over time, without reliance on equipment.^21,33

Qualitative findings from the broader TT evaluation project within which this study is embedded provide clear direction for addressing this implementation gap. ³³ For example, clear, age-appropriate examples of practice design and ready-to-use progressions of Contact Confident groups and Tackle Ready phases were recommended by coaches to support more comprehensive adoption. ³⁰ Clearly signposted ‘minimum effective doses’ (e.g., one activity from each Contact Confident group per session) and leveraging credible messengers, such as elite players or coaches, were identified as powerful tools for implementing these recommended contact activities. ³³ Coaches working with mixed-age or combined teams may face challenges in distributing contact load appropriately across players with differing physical maturity, development needs and playing experiences.^21,22 Guidance for scaling contact intensity and complexity could help address these challenges. ¹⁸ Embedding these strategies within existing coach education may help bridge the gap between programme intent and delivery of consistent and progressive tackle preparation in adolescent girls rugby.

Finally, this study demonstrates the value of video analysis for capturing the objective realities of coaching practice, offering insights that are unlikely to be obtained through self-report alone. Future research should build on this approach by directly comparing coach self-report with objective video-derived measures to quantify the extent and direction of reporting bias in TT content and contact exposure. However, video analysis should complement, rather than replace, qualitative approaches that capture coaches’ relational expertise and contextual decision-making, which are particularly salient in girls and women's practice environments.^11,21,35 Methods such as video-stimulated recall offer a valuable means of integrating technical observation with coaches’ reflective and interpersonal practices. ³⁶

Limitations and future research

In high schools, practice sessions were filmed once weekly and were deliberately self-nominated by coaches as the most contact-intensive session planned for that week. While this approach enabled capture of the upper bound of contact exposure within each team, caution is warranted when extrapolating these findings to overall weekly or seasonal contact exposure patterns. Future research would benefit from integrating instrumented mouthguard head acceleration data alongside video-based assessment to enable more accurate tracking of cumulative contact load across practice sessions, weeks, and seasons. ²⁵ Combining these data with injury surveillance would also allow exploration of potential contact load thresholds for game readiness and injury risk, which is particularly important in adolescent populations undergoing physiological development.^34,37 The analysis also focused on the presence, structure, and duration of contact-related activities rather than coaching methods (e.g., verbal instruction or demonstration), ²⁷ the number of repetitions, the technical quality of contact execution, or player attitudes or level of engagement. ³⁸ Consequently, it is not possible to determine the extent to which observed activities translated into effective skill acquisition, contact readiness, or game contact performance. ²⁸

Although this study provides objective evidence of Contact Confident and Tackle Ready adoption, it cannot determine coaches’ intent, understanding, or fidelity in implementing these programmes. The selective adoption of programme components demonstrated in this study may be reflective of purposeful adaptation to context, incomplete understanding of programme design, or structural constraints.^30,32 Mixed-methods approaches combining systematic video analysis with interviews, surveys, ³⁸ or video-stimulated recall ³⁶ may provide deeper insight into the decision-making processes underpinning observed practices.

This study also did not assess player-level outcomes. Linking practice exposure to match performance, injury incidence, and concussion outcomes remains a critical next step in evaluating the effectiveness of tackle practices. This is particularly important given the ongoing debate and marked inconsistency across sports, genders, and national jurisdictions regarding when and how full contact should be introduced in youth collision sports. ³⁹ Longitudinal designs tracking contact exposure and injury outcomes, especially during key developmental transitions (e.g., entry into contact rugby and progression to higher age grades), would strengthen causal inference and help inform age- and development-appropriate contact load guidance.

Conclusion

This study provides the first objective, video-based evaluation of TT practices in adolescent girls rugby, offering insight into how contact preparation is delivered in community settings following coach TT education. Contact exposure was predominantly delivered through controlled contact activities, with minimal use of full contact, suggesting a cautious approach that broadly aligns with World Rugby contact load guidance at the single-session level. Although adoption of Tackle Ready and Contact Confident components was observed in approximately two-thirds of practices, comprehensive implementation was rare, and adoption patterns varied both within and between teams. Workshop exposure was not consistently associated with improved Contact Confident uptake, underscoring the complexity of translating coach education into recommended TT practices. Future research should integrate objective exposure monitoring with match performance and injury surveillance to determine how contact preparation influences game readiness, safety, and long-term player development.