One,two,three or four: Does the number of Clegg hammer drops alter ground hardness readings on natural grass?

Abstract

The Clegg hammer is currently used to measure hardness of natural turf surfaces to inform performance and safety decisions. However, the number of Clegg hammer drops reported in natural grass testing varies from one to four drops, and the impact of the choice of the number of drops is unknown. The aim of this article is to determine whether significant differences exist between the four Clegg hammer drops on natural grass across a variety of conditions. Hardness readings (using a 2.25 kg Clegg hammer), soil moisture and botanical composition were recorded at nine different sites on seven football fields during an 18-week playing season. A total of 1255 hardness readings were collected for each of four consecutive Clegg hammer drops. Overall, there were significant differences between drop 1 and the other three consecutive drops, on all fields and on all sites. Deep soil moisture was the only factor that significantly influenced the hardness readings. The results of this study demonstrate that the decision regarding the number of drops recorded needs careful consideration as conclusions drawn on playability of a ground or the association with injury risk may vary considerably depending on the number of drops.

Keywords

Clegg hammer ground hardness test methods natural grass testing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

. Influence of Clegg hammer weight on the relationship between surface hardness and a ball rebound for cricket. J Turfgrass Sci 2011; 77: 71–74.

Twomey

Finch

Lloyd

. Ground hardness and injury in community level Australian football. J Sci Med Sport 2012; 15(4): 305–310.

Twomey

White

Finch

. Injury risk associated with ground hardness in junior cricket. J Sci Med Sport 2012; 15(2): 110–115.

Clegg

. An impact testing device for in-situ base course evaluation. In: Proceedings of the eighth Australian Road Research Board conference, vol. 8, Perth, Australia, 1976, pp.1–6. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Road Research Board.

Miller

. Analysis of soccer field surface hardness. Acta Hortic 2004; 661: 287–294.

Lush

. Objective assessment of turf cricket pitches using an impact hammer. J Sport Turf Res Inst 1985; 61: 71–79.

Aldous

Chivers

Kerr

. Players perceptions of Australian football league grass surfaces. Int Turfgrass Soc Res J 2005; 10(1): 318–326.

Chivers

Aldous

. Performance monitoring of grassed playing surfaces for Australian Rules football. J Turfgrass Sports Surf Sci 2003; 70: 73–80.

McAuliffe

Hannan

. Effects of root zone construction and preparation methods on cricket pitch performance. Int Turfgrass Soc Res J 2001; 9: 553–558.

10.

ASTM F1702-96:2002. Standard test method for measuring shock-attenuation characteristics of natural playing surface systems using lightweight portable apparatus. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.

11.

Swan

Otago

Finch

. The policies and practices of sports governing bodies in relation to assessing the safety of sports grounds. J Sci Med Sport 2009; 12: 171–176.

12.

McNitt

Landschoot

. Effects of soil reinforcing materials on surface hardness, soil bulk density, and water content of a sand root zone. Crop Sci 2003; 43: 957–966.

13.

Henderson

Rogers

III Crum

. The effects of natural and artificial root zone inclusions on the playing surface characteristics of trafficked Kentucky bluegrass. Int Turfgrass Soc Res J 2009; 2: 1107–1129.

14.

Sifers

Beard

. Enhancing participant safety in natural turfgrass surfaces including use of interlocking mesh element matrices. In: Hoerner

(ed.) Safety in American football. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997, pp.156–166.

15.

Baker

. Temporal variation of selected mechanical properties of natural turf football pitches. J Sport Turf Res Inst 1991; 67: 53–65.

16.

Finch

Lloyd

Elliott

. The preventing Australian football injuries with exercise (PAFIX) study: a group randomised controlled trial. Inj Prev 2009; 5: e1.

17.

Orchard

. The AFL penetrometer study: work in progress. J Sci Med Sport 2001; 4(2): 220–232.

18.

StataCorp. Stata statistical software (release 12). College Station, TX: StataCorp, 2011.

19.

R-Development-Core-Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011.

20.

Baker

Canaway

. Concepts of playing quality: criteria and measurement. Int Turfgrass Soc Res J 1993; 7: 172–181.

21.

Twomey

Otago

Ullah

. Reliability of equipment for measuring the ground hardness and traction. Proc IMechE, Part P: J Sports Engineering and Technology 2011; 225: 131–137.

22.

Baker

Isaacs

. The effect of root zone composition on the performance of winter game pitches II: playing quality. J Sport Turf Res Inst 1987; 63: 67–90.

23.

Follis

Anderson

Fresenburg

. Evaluation of sand-soil-compost root zones developed for athletic fields. Acta Hortic 2008; 881: 97–104.

24.

Otago

Swan

Chivers

. Ground conditions and injury risk – implications for sports grounds assessment practices in Victoria. Report, School of Human Movement and Sport Sciences, University of Ballarat, Australia, March 2007.

25.

Takemura

Schneiders

Bell

. Association of ground hardness with injuries in rugby union. Brit J Sport Med 2007; 41: 582–587.

26.

Orchard

Chivers

Aldous

. Rye grass is associated with fewer non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries than Bermuda grass. Brit J Sport Med 2005; 39: 704–709.

27.

Chomiak

Junge

Peterson

. Severe injuries in football players: influencing factors. Am J Sport Med 2000; 28(5): 58–68.

28.

Lee

Garraway

. The influence of environmental factors on rugby football injuries. J Sports Sci 2000; 18: 91–95.

29.

Saunders

Twomey

Otago

. Clegg hammer measures and human external landing forces: is there a relationship? Int J Sports Sci Eng 2011; 5(4): 231–236.