Author(s): BRASSINGTON, R., MARA, J., BALL, N., WADDINGTON, G., COOKE, J., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA, Country: AUSTRALIA, Abstract-ID: 463

INTRODUCTION:
Whole-match global navigation satellite system (GNSS) metrics are widely used to describe the running demands of rugby league (RL) match-play [1–3]; however, these measures include ball-out-of-play periods and may underestimate the intensity of live play [4]. Ball-in-play (BIP) analysis isolates active phases of competition and may better detect differences between competition levels and positional groups [4,5]. While running demands have been described in elite female RL [6–8], no studies have quantified both whole-match and BIP demands in sub-elite cohorts. Therefore, this study compared GNSS-derived whole-match and BIP running demands between elite and sub-elite female RL athletes and examined whether differences were position dependent
METHODS:
Match-play GNSS data were collected across a full competitive season from elite (n = 24) and sub-elite players (n = 23) from the same RL club. Running demands were quantified for whole-match and BIP periods across positional groups (backs, forwards, adjustables), with BIP identified via manual video-based annotation. Locomotor variables included total distance, high-metabolic-load distance (HMLD), metres per minute, high-speed running (>3.33 m·s⁻¹), and acceleration and deceleration counts (>2 m·s⁻²), consistent with previous female RL research [9]. Linear models examined differences between competition levels within each positional group, with effect sizes (ES) interpreted using standardised thresholds
RESULTS:
Whole-match differences between playing levels were position dependent and limited in scope. Elite backs covered greater adjusted total distance than sub-elite backs (β = 91.3 m, 95% CI [61.3, 304.0], p = 0.004, ES = 0.97), while elite forwards demonstrated greater running intensity, reflected by higher metres per minute (β = 6.67 m·min⁻¹ [3.27, 10.07], p < 0.001, ES = 0.91). Few whole-match differences were observed for adjustables. In contrast, BIP analyses revealed differences across all positional groups. Elite backs (β = 41.5 m [35.7, 47.2], p < 0.001, ES = 0.51), adjustables (β = 43.1 m [35.9, 50.3], p < 0.001, ES = 0.53), and forwards (β = 42.3 m [36.3, 48.3], p < 0.001, ES = 0.52) covered greater BIP total distance than sub-elite players. Elite adjustables and forwards also operated at higher BIP running intensities, demonstrated by greater metres per minute (adjustables: β = 18.8 m·min⁻¹ [11.8, 25.8], p < 0.001, ES = 0.59; forwards: β = 16.8 m·min⁻¹ [12.0, 21.7], p < 0.001, ES = 0.53)
CONCLUSION:
Differences between elite and sub-elite female RL athletes were position dependent and more consistently evident during BIP periods than across whole-match data. These findings suggest whole-match metrics may underestimate the true intensity of elite competition, with BIP analysis providing a more informative framework for benchmarking and athlete development. 1) Glassbrook (2019); 2) Delaney (2016); 3) Gabbett (2012); 4)Cummins (2021); 5) Newans (2021); 6) Cummins (2023); 7) Emmonds (2020); 8) Scantlebury (2024); 9) Quinn