## 3 Results
The pairwise comparisons of the mean differences for forefoot adduction/abduction as a function of the landing direction are presented in Figure 5. There appears to be considerable variability in the available ankle ROM within the transverse plane that is both direction- and limb-dependent, whereby differences of \(\sim\)10\({}^{\circ}\) are evident. The practical implications of such large differences are presently unclear but should provide impetus for further research. Figure 4: Inversion/eversion range of motion in the frontal plane. 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; 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. Peak landing forces also showed significant within-group differences related to landing direction (F (8,91) = 2.68, \(p\) = 0.009). Post-hoc analyses (see Figure 6) showed that the disparities could be ascribed to differences in leg dominance, specifically when landing in the diagonal-outside direction. Variability in landing forces is evident whereby the magnitude and direction of the observed differences appear to be dependent on the limb and directionality of landing. However, most observed differences are within \(\sim\)0.5 BW and likely not meaningful, although future research should verify such inferences. Figure 5: Forefoot adduction/abduction range of motion in the transverse plane. 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; deg—degree; red bars indicate no significant mean difference; blue bars indicate significant mean difference; vertical black line indicates zero difference. Although the TTS showed direction-specific within-group differences (F (8,91) = 2.27, \(p\) = 0.026), these differences did not hold true following the post-hoc pairwise analyses (see Figure 7). Given the rapidity with which athletes could stabilise regardless of landing limb or direction, our study lacked the statistical power to detect very small differences in TTS. Figure 6: Mean difference in peak ground reaction force. 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; NDSI—non-dominant straight jump; NDDI—non-dominant diagonal inside; NDDO—non-dominant diagonal outside; NDLI—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. The correlation analysis between ankle range of motion and peak multidirectional landing forces is highlighted in Figure 7. There is evidence of weak to very strong negative correlations, specifically for the diagonal directions for the non-dominant leg (Figure 8A), whereas small to moderate negative correlations are evident for the dominant leg (Figure 8B). For greater clarity and insights, the relationship between ROM in the diagonal outside (DO) direction and the peak force in the straight (SJ) direction is shown for the non-dominant (Figure 8C) and dominant (Figure 8D) limbs, respectively. A clear negative relationship is apparent, thereby highlighting that greater sagittal plane ROM during landing may favourably moderate (i.e., reduce) the peak landing forces. Figure 7: Mean differences in TTS as a function of leg dominance and landing direction.