BACKGROUND: Taping is a ubiquitous strategy to help prevent ankle sprains. The restrictive qualities of various taping methods may impair athletic performance. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the Gibney closed basket weave taping method with heel-locks to heel-locks and figure-eights in order to determine their effect on vertical jump performance and active range of motion (ROM) before and after exercise. METHODS: Eleven female varsity basketball athletes were subjected to three conditions of no ankle support (control), heel-locks, and figure-eights. The dependent variables of ankle active ROM, plantarflexor maximum voluntary contraction and jump height for the countermovement jump (CMJ), drop jump (DJ), and concentric only squat jump (COSJ) were randomly ordered. Following taping or control conditions, participants were pre-tested, completed a ten-minute treadmill run at 9.6 km/hr with a 3 minute cool down and then repeated the testing procedures. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in jump performance between taping methods or the effect of exercise. However significant differences for pre-/post-exercise for plantarflexor (p < 0.0001) and dorsiflexor (p = 0.007) active ROM and between no support and taping for plan-tarflexor ROM (p = 0.004) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite plantarflexor active ROM being restricted by both taping procedures compared to the control, no effect on jump performance occurred.
BACKGROUND: Taping is a ubiquitous strategy to help prevent ankle sprains. The restrictive qualities of various taping methods may impair athletic performance. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare the Gibney closed basket weave taping method with heel-locks to heel-locks and figure-eights in order to determine their effect on vertical jump performance and active range of motion (ROM) before and after exercise. METHODS: Eleven female varsity basketball athletes were subjected to three conditions of no ankle support (control), heel-locks, and figure-eights. The dependent variables of ankle active ROM, plantarflexor maximum voluntary contraction and jump height for the countermovement jump (CMJ), drop jump (DJ), and concentric only squat jump (COSJ) were randomly ordered. Following taping or control conditions, participants were pre-tested, completed a ten-minute treadmill run at 9.6 km/hr with a 3 minute cool down and then repeated the testing procedures. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in jump performance between taping methods or the effect of exercise. However significant differences for pre-/post-exercise for plantarflexor (p < 0.0001) and dorsiflexor (p = 0.007) active ROM and between no support and taping for plan-tarflexor ROM (p = 0.004) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Despite plantarflexor active ROM being restricted by both taping procedures compared to the control, no effect on jump performance occurred.