## 3 Results  
The multi-directional GRF normalised to body weight (BWs) and the tri-planar ankle range of motion (ROM) of high-level netball players are presented in Figure 1. Participants experienced landing forces of 3.24 \(\pm\) 0.59 BW (Figure 2A). Participants landed with varying degrees of plantar flexion (Figure 2B), which fluctuated according to landing direction. The degree of inversion/eversion (Figure 2C) and forefoot adduction/abduction (Figure 2D) fluctuated considerably as a function of landing direction. An overview of the mean, standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of variation (CV%) across all jump-landing directions is provided in Table 1.  
Figure 2: Multidirectional ground reaction forces and ankle range of motion for all three cardinal planes across different landing directions. Panel (**A**) shows the mean multidirectional force values of all participants normalised to body weight for each jump-landing direction. The mean sagittal, frontal, and transverse plane ankle kinematics are highlighted in panels (**B–D**), respectively, for each jump-landing direction. The vertical dashed line indicates the mean TTS, whereas the deviation around the mean is indicated by the dark grey bands (+1 SD) and light grey bands (+2 SD). DLO—dominant lateral outside; DS—dominant straight jump; DDI—dominant diagonal inside; DDO—dominant diagonal outside; DLI—dominant lateral inside; NDLO—non-dominant lateral outside; NDSI—non-dominant straight jump; NDDI—non-dominant diagonal inside; NDDO—non-dominant diagonal outside; NDLI—non-dominant lateral inside. Significant within-group differences were present for mean sagittal plane ankle kinematics as a function of the landing direction (F (9,81) = 3.48, \(p\) = 0.001). The estimated marginal mean differences for the pairwise comparisons are highlighted in Figure 3. It is evident that although there is direction- and limb-dependent variability in sagittal plane ankle ROM during landing, the differences are typically within \(\sim\)5\({}^{\circ}\) and, therefore, likely not meaningful. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline
**Measure** & **Mean** & **SD** & **CV\%** \\ \hline Plantarflexion-Dorsiflexion (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 46.58 & 4.88 & 10.48 \\ \hline Inversion-Eversion (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 17.61 & 2.95 & 16.78 \\ \hline FFAdduction-FFAbduction (\({}^{\circ}\)) & 10.52 & 1.34 & 12.76 \\ \hline Peak Landing Forces (BWs) & 3.24 & 0.41 & 12.58 \\ \hline Time-to-stabilisation (s) & 1.99 & 0.41 & 20.59 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: FF—forefoot; SD—standard deviation; CV%—coefficient of variation.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive data for ankle kinematics and kinetics during the landing phase of a jump. Figure 3: Plantar/dorsiflexion ROM in sagittal plane. DLO—dominant lateral outside; DSJ—dominant straight jump; DDI—dominant diagonal inside; DDO—dominant diagonal outside; DLI—dominant lateral inside; NDLO—non-dominant lateral outside; NDSJ—non-dominant straight jump; NDDI—non-dominant diagonal inside; NDDO—non-dominant diagonal outside; NDDI—non-dominant lateral inside; deg—degree; red bars indicate no significant mean difference; blue bars indicate significant mean difference; vertical black line indicates zero difference. Significant within-group differences for mean inversion/eversion ROM were evident as a function of the landing direction (F (9,81) = 8.01, \(p\) < 0.001), where mean differences for each of the pairwise comparisons are presented in Figure 4. The overarching implication is that the mean differences for the lateral inside, lateral outside and diagonal outside jump-landing directions of the dominant (D) and non-dominant (ND) are significantly different from zero (_p_ < 0.05). Mean forefoot ROM during landing also exhibits significant within-group differences (F (9,81) = 8.80, \(p\) < 0.001).