## 4 Discussion
These findings seem to hold true across different directions and show that netball coaches and practitioners should incorporate varied movement strategies during strength and conditioning practices which, based on the literature, tend to be skewed towards uniplanar exercises that tend to favour the sagittal plane [1; 38]. Whether those with differing tri-planar ankle kinematics exhibited more favourable landing kinetics was not investigated in the present study but would offer a potential area of future research. Higher landing loads can have two potential outcomes where, on the one hand, the soft-tissue structures adapt over time to become stronger and more resilient, or on the other hand, they may be subject to injury if inadequately stressed to tolerate higher repetitive loads [39]. In the present study, the reported mean average GRF is 3.24 \(\pm\) 0.59 BW among high-level netball players (Figure 2A), which overlaps with the expected values of 3.0-5.7 BW from other studies [6; 12; 17]. It is well understood that several factors, such as landing height, jumping distance, foot placement, and landing strategy, tend to moderate landing forces [6]. The present study adds to the available literature by showing that landing directionality and'momentum' should also be considered, in addition to the ability to enhance the sagittal plane ROM during landing, given that the greater the ROM, the lower the expected peak landing forces tend to be. Landing with one limb requires different muscular recruitment patterns compared to bilateral landing, which likely influences multidirectional dynamic postural stability [6; 17; 26]. Dynamic postural control has been evaluated with single-leg landing by measuring the TTS required for an individual to stabilise to a stable posture after landing [19; 40; 41; 42]. The TTS should be evaluated across all planes as this may address important aspects required for neuromuscular control when landing and possibly identify the direction that could potentially cause ankle injuries in netball players. The present study reported no significant difference in mean TTS across different landing directions (\(p\) > 0.05) and appeared to be independent of limb dominance (Figure 7). The results of the present study are, at least to some extent, contrary to those reported by [PERSON] et al. [26], who showed that the -media-lateral and vertical dynamic postural stability was significantly affected by lateral and diagonal jump landing directions in the healthy population (F (2,50) = 41.41, \(p<0.001\)). The study by [PERSON] et al. [22] went further and reported significantly longer TTS in the lateral landing direction (\(p<0.001\)) compared to the medial and forward directions in 49 male collegiate soccer players landing from a 30 cm high platform situated just 5 cm away from force plates. Interestingly, [PERSON] et al. [22] showed that the ankle and rear foot kinematics during lateral landing exhibited smaller version and pronation positions than forward landing and medial landing (\(p<0.010\)), which seem to employ a similar landing mechanism adopted by the participants of our current study. The recent results of the study by [PERSON] et al. [17] confer with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [26] and observed significant directional differences for TTS, specifically between the DI and LI directions (M\({}_{\text{diff}}\) = -0.37 s, t (14) = -3.14, p\({}_{\text{Tukey}}\) = 0.048) for elite netball players. These findings signify that when landing laterally and diagonally, the centre of mass likely oscillates in the frontal plane (medially and laterally), and the neuromuscular components of the ankle may be challenged more during landing and that this may be directionally dependent [22]. Given the rapidity with which the athletes in our study managed to stabilize independent of landing limb or direction, it is important to note that we likely lacked the statistical power to detect very small differences.