european college of sport science

PP-BM02 Biomechanics 2
Methods: The research group was n=13 (age = 20.28±0.91 years, height = 179.45±4.62 cm and weight = 76.15±3.72 kg). To evaluate the
distance of the throw-in, 2D analysis was used; it was provided by one camera covering calibrated scope of 30m. 3 cameras were used
for 3D spatial analysis of player’s movement. The speed of the thrown ball was measured by means of a radar device STALKER ATS at the
same time.
Results: The observed parameters of throw-in in the players show a longer distance (the length of throw-in) when throwing after a run up
that in throwing from a standing position. In throw-in from a standing position an average value of the longest measured trials was xds =
20.19 ± 1.52 m. In throw-in after the run up, the distance of the throw was longer about 13.5 % when compared to throw-in from the
standing position (xdr = 23.34 ± 2.75 m). In case of maximal velocity of the ball after the throw-in, the lower average speed was registered
in throw-in from the standing position vs = 50.1 km/h than in the throw-in after run up vr = 53.9 km/h. The highest registered speed
after throw-in from the standing position was vsmax = 56.2 km/h and the minimal speed was vsmin = 42.2 km/h. Variation coefficient of
the speed of all trials is 6.6 %. When throwing-in after run up the maximal measured velocity was vrmax = 62.3 km/h and the minimal
velocity was vrmin = 46.9 km/h. The performance of throw-in after run up is realized in two ways. In a symmetric way, both arms perform
symmetric movement above a head in a final phase. In an asymmetric way, a trunk is more twisted. A non-dominant arm is shifted
forward and a swipe is performed by a dominant arm. From totally 13 players, 7 players performed the throw-in asymmetrically and 6
players symmetrically.
Conclusion
Measured data show wider scope of values among several players. It proves different level of technical mastery of particular skill. Linthorne
and Everett (2004) indicate variable velocity in various angle of the throw-in from the standing position in range 43.2 – 68.4 km/h
in an experienced player. In training practice it is necessary to focus on improvement of performance of this skill and the choice of suitable
way of the throw-in.
References
Lees A, Nolan L. (1998). The biomachanics of soccer: A review. Journal of Sports Science, 16, 211–234.
Linthorne NP, Everett DJ. (2004). Release Angle for Attaining Maximum Distance in the Soccer Throw-in. Sport Biomechanice, 5,243-260.
This study was supported by MSM 0021620864 & GAČR 406/08/1514
BIOMECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF HANDBALL THROWS IN TWO DIFFERENT PLAYERS
PSALMAN, V., DUVAC, I.
COMENIUS UNIVERSITY BRATISLAVA
INTRODUCTION Many sports and physical activities require different levels of abilities and skills. Accuracy and throwing velocity are basic
parameters of sport performance in handball. Diagnostic process – monitoring of overarm throws by kinetic parameters with the help of
3 D biomechanical analysis is possible to achieve much more accuracy and different points of view.METHODS Two handball players in
age 24 and 20 were observed in three throwing attempts by using two synchronized high speed cameras and Simi motion software. This
3D biomechanical analysis allows to find exact values of kinetic parameters.RESULTS All attempts of each player were similar, more
differences appeared among tested players. Better results are tied with higher sport performance. Throwing technique is stabilized and
throws of one player have very common characteristics. The interesting differences appeared among tested handball players but we
could find some basic phases which have to be done in same or similar way. We obtained following average results for velocities in ball
release time: dominant wrist=8,397 (7,719) m/s, dominant elbow=5,954 (5,548) m/s, dominant shoulder=3,047 (3,151) m/s. All this values
of playing hand confirm the theory about increasing velocity and acceleration during the throw. The other hand is also useful for keeping
optimal and well balanced body position, velocities are lower: undominant wrist=1,952 (2,322) m/s, undominant elbow=3,016 (2,399)
m/s and undominant shoulder=2,485 (2,188) m/s. Excellent kinetic chain has to be connected with well balanced body position. The
lower part of body must be also quiet enough. All throwing phases have to be very accelerated but smooth and players are able to do
some movements corrections in time just before ball release phase (shoulder and elbow velocity decrease). Very interesting are high
acceleration peaks in time about 0,04s before releasing ball but quite big differences exist in decceleration after this moment. The reason
for doing this is accuracy of overarm throw.CONCLUSION The kinetic chain is a coordinated activation of the body segments which starts
with legs, trunk, then follows to shoulders, elbows and ends with the acceleration of the wrist. Created three dimensional space is real
and sufficient for understanding of each handball throw. Based on this biomechanical analysis it is possible to improve individual throwing
technique which requires special individual training.
REFERENCES: Psalman, V.:The kinetic chain of tennis strokes. In: 13th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, Lisboa,
Portugal, 2008, p.643.
COMPARISON OF DYNAMIC AND STATIC BALANCE IN ADOLESCENTS HANDBALL AND FOOTBALL PLAYERS
AKAN, I., RAMAZONOGLU, N., UZUN, S., ATILGAN, O., ÇAMLIGUNEY, F., KUCUK, V., BOZKURT, S., TIRYAKI, C., SIRMEN, B.
MARMARA UNIVERSITY
Introduction: Handballers and soccer players require maintain balance as they run at high speed, change direction and powerfully throw
and kick the ball to pass or shoot. Sport training programs may cause different balance abilities and these differences could be objectively
measured using Center of Pressure Measurements (COP). The aim of this study was to compare static and dynamic balance between
adolescent handball and soccer players.
Materials and Methods: Thirty two student national athletes: soccer (17), Handball (15) between 15-18 years of age and at least 3 training
years were included to the study.
Assessment of static balance and dynamic balance was measured with Prokin 5.0 Technobody. The following tests were utilized: 1) Static
tests were done as Opened Eyes (EO) and Closed Eyes (EC) with 30 second duration. Dynamic Tests 1) Slalom test was used as monoaxial
dynamic-time test Forward-Backward (F-B) to one axis a time and to assess the subject’s skill to complete the exercise. In this test, the
subject tries to see some balls-objectives that come against. The subject’s scope is to hit objectives and follow ideal line within 60 sn
duration (a) hold with two hand and (b) without hold. Subject load was selected 5 hard degree (according to soft (0) to hard (10) degree
system). 2) Unilateral dynamic-stance tests were done with the controlled load monoaxial test (F-B) for right and left foot. This test consists
in a test where the subjects try to catch up two objectives with 10 repetitions on an axis controlling load (5 hard).
Results: Balance test evaluations between two groups compare with Mann Whitney-U test. There were no significant differences in EO
Indexes Average C.O.P. X, EO Indexes Average C.O.P. Y, EO Indexes F-B Std. Dev., EO Indexes Medium-Lateral (M-L) Std. Dev., EO Indexes
Average F-B Velocity, Indexes Average M-L Velocity and all dimensions for closed eyes (EC) between the two groups on static tests. Be-
176 14 TH
ANNUAL CONGRESS OF THE EUROPEAN COLLEGE OF SPORT SCIENCE