Effect of A Two-Week Upper Body Isolated Shooting Drill

The Effect of a Two-Week Upper-Body-Isolated Shooting Drill on
the Kinematics of Netball Goal Shooting
Red C. Sajonia
Giselle S. Sigua
Sports Science 152: Biomechanics II
SS 152 Final Paper
7 May 2018
Department of Sports Science
College of Human Kinetics
University of the Philippines Diliman
Supervisor: Manlangit, Pastor Jr

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………..……….... 5
2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ………………….……………………………..…..….…... 7
3 HYPOTHESIS.. ……………………………………………………………..…...……… 9
4 RESEARCH PROTOCOLS …………………………………………………….……… 11
4.1 Participants ………………………………………………………………….………... 11
4.2 Experimental Set-up ………………………………………………………….………. 11
4.2.1 Pre-Test and Post-Test………………………………………………...….………… 11
4.2.2 Upper-Body-Isolated Shots……………………………………………….……...…. 14
4.2.3 Intervention…………………………………………………………….……...……. 14
4.2.4 Control and Experimental Group……………………………………….…...……… 15
4.3 Methods of Analysis…………………………………………………….…………….. 15
4.3.1 Joint Angles ………………………………………………………….………...…… 16
4.3.2 Peak Height of the Ball …………………………………………….………..……... 17
4.3.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension ……………………………….……..…….... 17
4.3.4 Trunk Lean ………………………………………………………….……..……….. 18
4.3.5 Statistical Analysis …………………………………………………….………….... 18
4.4 Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………….………..…. 19
5 TIMETABLE ……………………………………………………………….……….…. 20
6 RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………..…… 21
6.1 Overhead Medicine Ball Throw ………………………………………………..…….. 21
6.2 Ball Toss Coordination Test …………………………………………………..……… 22
6.3 Joint Angles …………………………………………………………………..………. 24
6.4 Peak Height of the Ball …………………………………………………….……….... 30
6.5 Trunk Lean ………………………………………………………………..………….. 31
6.6 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension ……………………………………..……….... 33
7 DISCUSSION………………………………………………………………..…….…… 35
7.1 Joint Angles and Trunk Lean ……………………………………………..….………. 35
7.2 Peak Height of the Ball ………………………………………………………...…….. 38
7.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension ………………………………………...……... 38
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .……………………………………………...……. 40
9 RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………..………… 41
10 APPENDIX...……………………………………………………………..…………… 42
11 TAKE HOME MESSAGE ……………..………………………………..……………. 44
12 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………..…………….. 45
ABSTRACT
Sajonia, Red & Sigua, Giselle. The Effect of Two-Week Upper-Body-Isolated Shooting
Drill on the Kinematics of Netball Goal Shooting. Department of Sports Science.
College of Human Kinetics. University of the Philippines Diliman. SS 152. 40pp.
The normal stand shot is the standard goal shooting technique used by goal shooter and
attacker netball players. The most advantageous approach is to let the ball see the ring as a
circle by increasing the release angle and speed of the shooter. With the consent of their
coaches, ten (n=10) female elite Philippine national netball team players agreed to
participate in the study and were divided into the official shooters (control) and the
unofficial shooters (experimental) and were further subdivided into groups of the normal
standing shot and of the isolated-upper-body shot. The pre-tests consisted of Tennis Ball
Wall Toss Coordination Test, Medicine Ball Overhead Throw Strength Test, and the video
analysis of their shooting forms. Two weeks was allotted for the upper-body-isolated
training intervention where the Experimental groups were asked to shoot the ball 50 times
per session and the last week was for the post-testing where test protocols similar to the
pre-testing were conducted.
Results showed no significant difference in the different joint angles in the shooting form of
the 4 groups in their pre- and post-test scores, as well as in the strength and coordination
tests. The significant difference was observed in the trunk lean angle, exhibiting a
backward lean on the control and experimental A groups and a forward lean on the control
and experimental B groups, was responsible for the changes in the other joint angles. The
backward trunk lean makes it possible to increase the release angle of the shot, increasing
accuracy. The upper-body-isolated shooting drill training therefore did not make significant
improvements on the shooting form of the netball players, but isolation of the lower limbs
in doing the netball shot makes significant changes on the trunk lean angles.
Keywords: joint angles, upper-body-isolation, standing shot, trunk lean, limb
coordination
1 INTRODUCTION
Most netball players in the Philippines have basketball as their background sport,
and the two sports are often closely linked. Netball is a game wherein two teams of seven
players each strive to keep or gain possession of the ball. The team with the ball, through
running, jumping, throwing and catching, attempts to move the ball into its goal circle from
where a goal may be scored, while the opposing team uses defensive movements and
strategies to prevent this and to gain possession. The team with the greater number of goals
is the winner of the match. Different positions restrict players to move in specified on the
court. Play restarts after each goal, with teams having alternate possession (Dewhurst-
Hands, 1980).
Shooting is a skill used only by goal shooters and goal attacks when attempting to
score from the edge of the circle (Dewhurst-Hands, 1980). The rules of netball specify that
the body of a defender must be 0.9 meters away from the body of the shooter for a period of
3 seconds, after which time the ball must be released (Miller, 1993). This gives the game of
netball a more “closed-skill” nature, or the quality of shooting being self-paced, and
allowing the increase of reproducibility of shooting of the players. Joint angles, timing of
movement, and peak height of the ball are some of the factors that affect the accuracy of a
netball standing shot, and were the main variables investigated by the researchers in the
study.
Literature have shown that biomechanics, anthropometry, physical and motor

abilities are factors that when neglected may affect a netball player’s athletic performance
and may increase their risk of getting injured (Ferreira & Spamer 2010). Players who have
more biomechanical stressors have been shown to be more prone to injury. Utilizing
biomechanical information to hone existing techniques of netball players may help them
reach their optimal performance in the technical aspect of their game skills, at the same
time minimizing their potential for injury (Steele, 1990).
5
It has been shown that the angle of entry of the ball into the basket is an important
factor in determining success in shooting (Hay, 1985), and is dependent on both the release
speed and the release angle. There is an option to choose between the advantages to be
gained (Miller, 1993) from an increased margin for error due to a high release angle where
the ball “sees” the basket as a circle, and from those to be gained from utilizing a lower
release speed at shallower approaches, where the basket appears to become increasingly
elliptical. This is explains why netball players usually attempt to shoot the ball when they
are closer to the ring since there is an inverse relationship that exists between the distance
from the target and the release angle required to shoot the ball (Miller, 1993). This would in
turn increase the demand for upper body strength in order to exert enough power to execute
a throw with a higher release angle. The involvement of leg movement in the throw would
make the execution of the shooting technique easier and less strenuous for the upper limbs.
6
2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Netball requires a great amount of precision skill in scoring since unlike in

basketball, the goal does not have a board to rebound onto when shooting. Attempting to
score a goal in netball therefore requires a calculated upward shooting trajectory rather than
just shooting the ball in a straight and direct manner. The purpose of this research is to
provide an insight on the importance of lower limb involvement and upper-body
coordination in netball shooting and to guide the athletes and coaches on the proper
execution of the standing shot for deeper understanding. Thus, the researchers studied the
importance of lower limb movement and its effects on the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and knee
angle, and the angle of trunk lean in the shooting form of Philippine National Netball
Players, to further illustrate the significance of leg power and trunk coordination in the
efficiency of shooting in netball. The goals of this research are as follows:
A. Describe the proper way of executing a standing shot.
B. Investigate whether the two-week upper-body-isolation shooting drill

makes a significant difference on the standing shot and upper-body
isolated shot form.
C. Discuss the importance of interlimb coordination and lower limb

movement when executing a netball standing shot
D. Analyze the changes in form that contribute to acquisition of injuries.
The researchers expected to observe compensatory movements of the trunk and the
upper limbs of the netball athletes when there is little to no lower limb involvement in
executing the standing shot skill. Consequently, it was also expected that the two-week
7
netball training will be of help in the improvement and correction of the shooting form of
the athletes.
8
3 HYPOTHESIS
If there is a significant difference in the different joint angles between the pre- and
post-analysis of the shooting form of non-goal shooters of the national netball players in
their normal standing shot and in their upper-body-isolated shot after the two-week upper-
body-isolated shooting drill, then upper-body-isolated shooting is an effective way to
improve goal shooting form and efficiency in netball. Wherein previous studies discovered
that:
A. The accurate joint angular measurements of the highly skilled players were from
126.9 to 152.2 for the shoulder, from 108.0 to 132.0 for the elbow, and from
145.0 to 148.7 for the wrist (obtained with respect to the x-axis) on the start of
throw (Elliott & Smith, 1983a, 1983c; Steele & Furze, 1996). Whereas, at the
start of shooting action and release, Delextrat and Goss-Sampson (2010) obtained
joint angles of senior county-level shooters with mean and standard deviation
114.5±31.3 and 116.5±18.8 for the shoulders, 108.0±18.8 and 139.7±36.3 for the
elbow, 251.4±49.7 and 192.2±5.0 for the wrist, and 120.9±9.5 and 163.2±12.0
for the knee with a trunk lean angle of 11.1±2.6.
B. Li, Levin, Carson, & Swinnen (2004) suggested that the simultaneity of limb
movement increases movement stability and allows efficient muscle activation
hence, improving performance.
C. Structural alignment, muscle strength, muscle flexibility, and nervous system

coordination of muscle responses to changing environment are the factors
influencing human movement. By looking at these factor, possible injuries can be
discovered and prevented, and performance can be enhanced (Hirth, 2007). This
study particularly focused on structural alignment and muscles coordination
following the two-week upper-body-isolated shooting drills and the
9
compensatory movements in executing a netball standing shot without the aid of
the lower limbs.
10
4 RESEARCH PROTOCOLS
4.1 Participants
Four official shooters of the Philippine national netball team (age 27.0 ± 6.0 years,
height 176.53 ± 3.81 cm, mass 70.0 ± 8.0 kg, years of experience 2.0 ± 1.0 years) and six
unofficial shooters (age 23.0 ± 6.0 years, height 168.91 ± 11.43 cm, mass 65.0 ± 13.0 kg,
years of experience 5.0 ± 4.0 years) who occasionally experience being goal shooters or
attackers in their training, volunteered to take part in this study. The frequency of the
athletes’ training is twice a week at night 7-9PM, every Tuesdays and Thursdays. All of the
participants including the coaches were fully informed about the test procedures, aims, and
purpose of the study, prior to the beginning of the experimentation.
4.2. Experimental Set-up
4.2.1. Pre-Test and Post-Test
A. Video Analysis (Standing and Upper-Body-Isolated Shot)

a. Two respondents from the Control Group and three respondents from the
Experimental Group performed the Stand Shot;
b. Two respondents from the Control Group and three respondents from the
Experimental Group performed the Upper-Body-Isolated Shot;
c. Athletes used their preferred shooting arm;
d. Reflective markers were placed on the wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, and knee joints
on the right-hand side of the body;
11
e. Distance of shooter from the shooting ring: 2.00 metres;
f. Height of the shooting ring: 3.05 metres;
g. Height of elevation from the ground for the Upper-Body-Isolated Shot: 1.00 metre;
h. Distance of camera from the athlete: 6.00 metres;
i. Height of the camera: 1.525 metres.
Figure 1. Study Design
B. Overhead Medicine Ball Throw Strength Test

The respondents were asked to sit on the floor with their back touching the wall.
150cm distance was measured from the wall using a measuring tape, and another measuring
tape was attached to the ground to serve as a reference for measure of the distance of the
throw later on. The participants were asked to throw a 5-kg medicine ball overhead for as
far as they can, with the distance being marked with a chalk for each trial. Three trials were
conducted per respondent, and the mean score was recorded.
12
Figure 2. Overhead Medicine Ball Throw Strength Test.
C. Ball Toss Coordination Test

The respondents were asked to toss a tennis ball inside an 18x18 box target using
their dominant hand and then catching it alternately with their non-dominant hand for 30
seconds. The toss were only counted if the ball bounces inside the target, and they only
stopped if (a) they failed to catch the ball, or (b) if the 30 seconds is up. The target of the
respondents was a square-shaped figure on the wall with a height of 1.0 metre from the
ground, and the respondents tossed the ball 2.0 metres away from the wall.
Figure 3. Alternate Hand Wall Toss Test.
13
4.2.2. Upper-Body-Isolated Shots
Upper-body-isolated shots are described as shots that were taken where the majority
of the force generated in executing the shooting action comes only from the trunk and no
significant aid from the lower limbs. These shots were done by the control group B (pre-
test, post-test), the experimental group A (intervention only), and the experimental group B
(pre-tests, intervention, post-tests) as they were seated in an elevated platform 1 metre
from the ground as the shots were made positioned 2 metres away from the netball ring.
Figure 4. Upper-Body-Isolated Shooting Drill Set-up.
4.2.3. Intervention
The study was consisted of a two-week intervention which focused on the method
of shooting where the upper body was isolated. Participants from the experimental group
were the ones who underwent the intervention by doing the upper-body-isolated shots fifty
times for two meetings.
The intervention was done to see if there will be significant improvements on the
kinematics of the experimental group A on their standing shot execution and the
14
experimental group B if there were adjustments after getting familiar with the upper-body-
isolated shot.
4.2.4. Control and Experimental Group
The control group consisted of four official shooters in the National Netball Team,
whose positions in the game are either goal shooters or goal attackers. The experimental
group consisted of six unofficial shooters of the team, but have previous experience in
shooting from their basketball background, and who experience being assigned as goal
shooters and attackers during their training.
The control group was divided into two. Two shooters were asked to perform a
normal stand shot for the video analysis, and another two while performing a seated-upper-
body-isolated shot. Similarly, the experimental group was divided into two with three
athletes assigned for each of the two different kind of shots.
4.3. Methods of Analysis
The researchers used the Tracker software to obtain the data for the joint angles and
the peak height of the ball particularly the peak height of the ball. Reflective markers were
attached to the participants’ wrist (radioulnar), elbow (lateral epicondyle), shoulder
(glenohumeral), hip (bilateral pelvic crest), knee (lateral femoral epicondyle), and ankle
(lateral maleolus) joints to be able to define the joint angles needed for the study. Only the
wrist, elbow, shoulder, and hip joints were marked for the control group B and
experimental group B.
15
Each participant performed five trials. A successful trial is described as the best
attempt of the participant with the ball passing through the net without touching the rim. In
the case where there were multiple trials when the ball went into the net but had touched
the rim, the successful trial was defined as the attempt where the ball had the most minimal
deflection or touch on the rim.
4.3.1. Joint Angles
Joint angular measurements were obtained on the three critical phases of the
standing shot adapted from Delextrat and Samson (2010): start of throw (position in which
the shooters started the initial flexion of the knees facing the basket with both feet in
contact with the ground), start of shooting action (position of the player before elbow and
shoulder extension), and release (position in which the ball left the hands of the shooter).
A comparison was made between the joint angles of the shooters who did the
normal standing shot and the upper-body-isolated shot to see what the changes in shooting
mechanics of the upper body with or without the movement of the lower limbs are, as well
as the resultant peak height of the ball. To standardize the data, the participants executed
the shot on the same distance from the netball ring.
Figure 5. Joint angles measured at the sagittal plane.
16
4.3.2. Peak Height of the Ball
The peak height of the ball was the dependent variable of the study. The assessment
of the peak height of the ball was analyzed in relation to the joint angles of the participants.
The researchers attempted to distinguish the optimal joint angular measurements, timing of
knee and elbow extension, and angle of trunk lean which results to a peak height of the ball
of a netball shot with lesser margin of error.
4.3.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension
From the start of throw, to the moment when the ball was released, the elbow and
knee joint movements were tracked. The timing of the elbow and knee extension was
obtained by computing the time difference of the point where the angles of both the joints
are on its lowest, since this point suggests that joint extension will be initiated after it. . The
axes were adjusted based on the first initiation of knee and elbow flexion after the start of
throw phase (y-axis) and on the point where there is maximal flexion at the joints (x-axis).
Figure 6. Timing of knee extension measured at the sagittal plane.
17
Figure 7. Timing of elbow extension measured at the sagittal plane.
4.3.4 Trunk Lean
The angle of trunk lean was obtained by determining the angle at which the upper
body deviated with respect to the vertical laboratory reference (refer to Figure 5).
4.3.5. Statistical Analysis
The mean and standard deviations of each parameter were calculated. Using the
Microsoft Excel, dependent t-test for two variables were used to investigate whether or not
there was a significant difference on the joint angular measurements, peak height of the
ball, timing of knee and elbow extension, and angle of trunk lean after the two-week upper-
body-isolated shooting drills. Whereas, independent t-test for two variables were utilized to
compare the joint angles, trunk lean, and timing of knee and elbow extension between the
control and experimental groups.
18
4.4. Limitations of the Study
The focus of the study is to identify the improvements caused by the upper-body-
isolated shooting drill on the shooting form and efficiency of normal stand shots of national
level netball women athletes. Related literature about the biomechanics of netball are
limited in both electronic databases and in the library of College of Human Kinetics, which
caused the researchers to cite some books and journals that are considered outdated. Both
the researchers have zero background and experience in the game of netball.
There are currently 28 members of the Philippine National Netball Team, however
each athlete is assigned a specific position in which they are most fit to play in. Only four
of the members were official shooters, and only six other netballers get to be substitute
shooters in their training but not officially in their competitive games. Most of the members
of the team are already working, and some of them are only available to train on Tuesdays
or on Thursdays only, which resulted in the conflict of schedule of the experimentation.
The schedule of their training starts at 7 in the evening and ends at 9, which also made it
difficult for the researchers to extend too much to finish all the pre-tests in one day since
not all athletes are available. The intervention of the study was only conducted for two
meetings instead of four because of this conflict. Attempting to arrange individual meet-ups
with the participants in order to finish the study earlier was not a free option since some of
the participants already have families and are already tired after work days. The researchers
only had the opportunity of using the Labor Day holiday that caused the long weekend to
arrange a meet-up and finish the post-testing.
19
5 TIMETABLE
The study started on the fourth week of March 2018 and concluded on the first
week of May. The researchers began briefing the coaches and the athletes about the study
on the first and second week. Gathering of data along with the experimentation was done
on the third to sixth week. A week was allotted for the pre-testing, two for the intervention,
and another for the post-testing. Analysis of the gathered data and writing of the paper
proper occurred on the sixth week along with the dissemination of the study. Presentation
of the results and end product of the study to the professors, students, coaches, participants,
and guests is also allotted on the sixth week.
Table 1. Timetable showing the summary of activities per week starting from last week of March
2018 as the first week, and the first week of May 2018 as the sixth week.
20
6 RESULTS
6.1 Overhead Medicine Ball Throw
No significant difference was found in the scores of the control and experimental
group. However, a decrease in the mean scores of the Control A (standing shot) and
Experimental B (sitting shot) was observed between their pre- and post-test scores, while
there was an increase in the scores of the Control B (sitting shot) and Experimental A
(standing shot).
Table 2. Mean scores of the participants in the pre- and post-test of Overhead Medicine Ball Throw,
the difference between the pre- and post-test, and the mean of the standard deviation.
OVERHEAD MEDICINE BALL

PRE POST DIFFERENCE MEAN
THROW (in cm)
CA1 309.33 298.33 -11

CONTROL A 3.3
CA2 304 294.33 -9.67
CB1 263 264 1

CONTROL B 7.78
CB2 249.67 272.67 23
EA1 234.33 235 0.67
EXPERIMENTAL A EA2 263.67 275.67 12 9.11
EA3 243.67 X 0
21
EB1 306.67 278.33 -28.34
EXPERIMENTAL B EB2 263.67 261.67 -2 15.26
EB3 278.67 274.33 -4.34
Table 3. Mean scores of the different groups in the pre- and post-test of Overhead Medicine Ball
Throw, and the standard deviation.
OVERHEAD MEDICINE BALL THROW (in Pre Post

cm)
Control A 306.67 ± 3.77 296.33 ± 2.83
Control B 256.33 ± 9.43 268.33 ± 6.13
Experimental A 246.89 ± 14.44 306.67 ± 3.77
Experimental B 283 ± 21.83 271.44 ± 8.70
6.2 Ball Toss Coordination Test
There was no significant difference in the scores of the control and experimental
group in their pre- and post-test scores. Majority of the athletes, however, increased their
22
mean scores in the post-test, which may indicate that their eye-hand coordination somehow
improved although not significantly high.
Table 4. Mean scores of the participants in the pre- and post-test of Alternate Hand Wall Toss Test,
the difference between the pre- and post-test, and the mean of the standard deviation.
ALTERNATE HAND WALL TOSS TEST PRE POST DIFFERENCE MEAN
CA1 20.33 21.33 1

CONTROL A 1.65
CA2 18.67 24.33 5.66
CB1 17 20.67 3.67

CONTROL B 9.78
CB2 1.33 8.67 7.34
EA1 14 12.67 -1.33
EXPERIMENTAL A EA2 17.33 23 5.67 2.72
EA3 15.33 X 0
EB1 18 19.33 1.33
EXPERIMENTAL B EB2 20 20 0 2.59
EB3 25.33 22 -3.33
23
Table 5. Mean scores of the different groups in the pre- and post-test of Overhead Medicine Ball
Throw, and the standard deviation.
TENNIS BALL WALL TOSS Pre Post
Control A 19.5 ± 1.18 22.83 ± 2.12
Control B 9.17 ± 11.08 14.67 ± 8.49
Experimental A 15.56 ± 1.68 17.83 ± 3.77
Experimental B 21.11 ± 3.79 20.44 ± 1.39
6.3 Joint Angles
The t-value of the joint angles during the pre-test of the experimental groups were
computed to compare whether there were significant changes on their shooting form. Using
the t-test paired two sample for means, there were no significant difference on the joint
angles of the participants during the pre-test and post-test on the three phases of netball
goal shooting at α = 0.05.
Consequently, the joint angles of the control group A and experimental group A,
and control group B and experimental group B were also compared using the independent t-
test for two samples assuming unequal variances. At α = 0.05, there were no significant
differences between the shooting form of the control groups and the experimental groups of
the study.
24
Table 6. Mean and standard deviation of the different joint angles in the start of throw, start of
shooting action, and release phase of the pre- and post-testing of the Control A Standing group.
Start of Throw Pre Post
Wrist Angle 237.2 ± 10.18° 229.15 ± 14.64° NSD
Elbow Angle 132.55 ±38.11° 121.65 ± 37.69° NSD
Shoulder Angle 140.6 ± 13.86° 141.6 ± 24.04° NSD
Start of Shooting Action Pre Post
Wrist Angle 231.95 ± 12.52° 179.07 ± 83.81° NSD
Elbow Angle 87.8 ± 4.24° 69.25 ± 0.35° NSD
Knee Angle 149.1 ± 43.70° 138.65 ± 41.65° NSD
Trunk Lean Angle 13.75 ± 7.14° 2.5 ± 4.67° NSD
Release Pre Post
Wrist Angle 212.3 ± 5.8° 221.45 ± 7.14° NSD
Elbow Angle 132.95 ± 8.56° 129.65 ± 13.22° NSD
Knee Angle 171.5 ± 3.54° 168.5 ± 9.05° NSD
shooting action, and release phase of the pre- and post-testing of the Control B Sitting group.
Wrist Angle 150.25 ± 35.3° 134.05 ± 25.67° NSD
25
Elbow Angle 115.6 ± 54.31° 121.65 ± 37.69° NSD
Wrist Angle 254.25 ± 3.18° 238.45 ± 21° NSD
Elbow Angle 81.7 ± 1.83° 72.95 ± 10.68° NSD
Shoulder Angle 101 ± 1.41° 108.95 ± 11.1° NSD
Trunk Lean Angle 1 ± 4.53° (-)8.6 ± 7.21° NSD
Release Pre Post
Wrist Angle 234.25 ± 3.89° 233.7 ± 0.85° NSD
Elbow Angle 130.05 ± 18.31° 122.4 ± 8.49° NSD
shooting action, and release phase of the pre- and post-testing of the Experimental A Standing
group.
Wrist Angle 228.67 ± 15.63° 235.45 ± 14.78° NSD
Elbow Angle 93.33 ± 25.32° 109.95 ± 64.13° NSD
Wrist Angle 238.67 ± 19.14° 235.6 ± 7.64° NSD
Elbow Angle 67.67 ± 11.15° 60.85 ± 3.04° NSD
26
Shoulder Angle 78.33 ± 15.57° 74 ± 3.39° NSD
Knee Angle 143.67 ± 17.04° 142.05 ± 25.81° NSD
Trunk Lean Angle 1.83 ± 8.16° 5.95 ± 6.01° NSD
Release Pre Post
Wrist Angle 235.67 ± 10.07° 225.7 ± 0.28° NSD
Elbow Angle 152.33 ± 12.66° 149.85 ± 1.91° NSD
Knee Angle 172.67 ± 5.77° 169.45 ± 3.18° NSD
shooting action, and release phase of the pre- and post-testing of the Experimental B Sitting group.
Wrist Angle 231.8 ± 17.64° 217.2 ± 14.29° NSD
Elbow Angle 88.53 ± 26.53° 84.87 ± 26.44° NSD
Wrist Angle 237.6 ± 11.7° 226.07 ± 7.24° NSD
Elbow Angle 59.63 ± 19.95° 59.63 ± 20.46° NSD
Trunk Lean Angle (-)3.57 ± 4.27° (-)0.93 ± 0.64° NSD
Release Pre Post
27
Wrist Angle 216.9 ± 9.2° 221.93 ± 9.74° NSD
Elbow Angle 128.97 ± 16.43° 128.73 ± 15.17° NSD
shooting action, and release phase of the Control A and Experimental A groups.
Start of Throw Ctrl A Exp A
Wrist Angle (-)8.05 ± 4.45° (-)1.55 ± 6.29° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)10.9 ± 0.42° 6.95 ± 37.26° NSD
Start of Shooting Action Ctrl A Exp A
Wrist Angle (-)52.885 ± 71.3° 7.6 ± 0.57° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)18.55 ± 4.6° (-)13.15 ± 0.21° NSD
Shoulder Angle (-)0.2 ± 11.6° (-)12.5 ± 5.8° NSD
Knee Angle (-)10.45 ± 2.05° 3.05 ± 4.6° NSD
Release Ctrl A Exp A
Wrist Angle 9.15 ± 12.94° (-)9.3 ± 13.86° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)3.3 ± 4.67° (-)9.65 ± 5.44° NSD
Shoulder Angle 2.9 ± 4.1° (-)9.65 ± 5.44° NSD
Knee Angle (-)3 ± 5.52° (-)6.55 ± 3.18° NSD
28
Table 11 Mean and standard deviation of the different joint angles in the start of throw, start of
shooting action, and release phase of the Control B and Experimental B groups.
Start of Throw Ctrl B Exp B
Wrist Angle (-)16.2 ± 136.33° (-)14.6 ± 8.77° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)3.65 ± 3.75° (-)3.67 ± 8.04° NSD
Shoulder Angle (-)8.45 ± 3.75° 4.1 ± 8.04° NSD
Start of Shooting Action Ctrl B Exp B
Wrist Angle (-)15.8 ± 24.18° (-)11.53 ± 17.49° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)8.75 ± 8.84° 0 ± 4.73° NSD
Shoulder Angle (-)0.55 ± 9.69° 5.03 ± 27.96° NSD
Release Ctrl B Exp B
Wrist Angle (-)0.55 ± 4.74° 5.03 ± 8.54° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)7.65 ± 9.83° (-)0.23 ± 30.96° NSD
shooting action, and release phase of the Control A and Experimental B groups.
Start of Throw Ctrl A Exp B
Wrist Angle (-)8.05 ± 4.45° (-)14.6 ± 8.77° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)10.9 ± 0.42° (-)3.67 ± 8.04° NSD
29
Start of Shooting Action Ctrl A Exp B
Wrist Angle (-)52.89 ± 71.3° (-)11.53 ± 17.49° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)18.55 ± 4.6° 0 ± 4.73° NSD
Shoulder Angle (-)0.20 ± 11.6° (-)3.03 ± 27.96° NSD
Trunk Lean Angle (-)11.25 ± 11.81° 2.63 ± 4.27° NSD
Release Ctrl A Exp B
Wrist Angle 9.15 ± 12.94° 5.03 ± 8.54° NSD
Elbow Angle (-)3.3 ± 4.67° (-)0.23 ± 30.96° NSD
6.4 Peak Height of the Ball
For this parameter, the peak height of the ball was obtained with respect to the rim
of the netball ring to determine the optimal ball height to be able to execute a successful
netball shot. The mean and standard deviations of the peak height of the ball during the pre-
test and post-test were calculated and were compared using the t-test for paired samples.
The results suggested that there were no significant difference on the peak height of the ball
of the netball shots for both the control and experimental groups on their pre-test and post-
test at α = 0.05 . However, to execute a successful netball shot the total mean and standard
deviation was calculated to be 37.82 ± 14.3 cm.
30
Table 13. Mean and standard deviation of the peak height of the Control A, Control B,
Experimental A, and Experimental B groups.
PEAK HEIGHT OF THE BALL (in cm) Pre Post
Control A 42.75 ± 5.44 48.65 ± 18.88
Control B 46.9 ± 11.31 34.0 ± 15.27
Experimental A 29.33 ± 23.72 23.95 ± 1.63
Experimental B 39.37 ± 8.9 35.73 ± 15.89
TOTAL MEAN ± SD 37.82 ± 14.3
6.5 Trunk Lean
The difference between the trunk lean of the groups who executed the standing shot
(Control A and Experimental A) and the upper-body-isolated shot (Control B and
Experimental B) was compared using the independent t-test for two samples assuming
unequal variances. At α = 0.05, the results showed that there was a significant difference
with the angle of trunk lean among the said groups, with the Control A and Experimental A
having positive trunk lean values (leaning backward) with mean and standard deviation of
5.54 ± 7.3895° while the Control B and Experimental B groups having negative trunk lean
(leaning forward) with mean and standard deviation of -2.87 ± 4.932°.
31
Table 14. Mean and standard deviation of the trunk lean of the groups who executed the standing
shot (Control A & Experimental A) and upper-body-isolated shot (Control B and Experimental B),
Experimental A, and Experimental B groups.
TRUNK LEAN Mean ± SD
Standing Shot 5.54 ± 7.3895°
Upper-body-isolated Shot -2.87 ± 4.932°
The researchers further investigated whether there was a significant difference on

the trunk lean angles between the control and experimental groups following the two-week
upper-body-isolated shooting drill. Using the t-test for paired samples, the results of the
pre- and post-test of the experimental groups showed no significant difference at α = 0.05.
There were also no significant difference between the trunk lean angles between the
control and experimental groups at α = 0.05.
Table 15. Mean and standard deviation of the trunk lean of the Control A and Experimental A, and
Control B and Experimental B groups.
Ctrl A Exp A
Trunk (-)11.25 ± 11.81° (-)0.55 ± 7.57° NSD

Lean
Ctrl B Exp B
Trunk (-)9.6 ± 11.74° 2.63 ± 4.27° NSD

Lean
32
6.6 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension
The mean difference of the timing of knee and elbow extension during the pre- and post-test
of the control and experimental groups were calculated using the dependent t-test for paired sample.
At Experimental A groups were calculated. At α = 0.05, the timing differences of knee and
elbow extension during the pre- and post-test showed no significant difference. Further, the
researchers also investigated whether there is a significant difference between the timing of
knee and elbow extension of the Control A and Experimental A groups with the use of
independent t-test for two samples assuming unequal variances. No significant difference was seen
among the two groups at α = 0.05.
Table 16. Timing of knee and elbow extension of the Control A and Experimental A groups and
their differences.
TIMING OF KNEE
AND ELBOW
EXTENSION (in s) PRE POST
ELBOW KNEE DIFFERENCES ELBOW KNEE DIFFERENCES
CA1 0.667 0.434 0.233 0.52 0.04 0.48
CA2 0.534 0.534 0 1.16 1.16 0
EA1 0.5 0.467 0.033 4.04 3.96 0.08
EA2 0.4 0.3 0.1 2.6 2.56 0.04
EA3 1.835 2.302 0.467
33
Table 17. Mean and standard deviation of the timing differences between the elbow and knee
extension of the Control A and Experimental A groups.
TIMING OF KNEE AND

ELBOW EXTENSION (in s) Pre Post
Control A 0.1165 ± 0.1648 0.24 ± 0.34 NSD
Experimental A 0.0665 ± 0.047 0.06 ± 0.028 NSD
34
7 DISCUSSION
This study investigated the kinematics of a netball standing shot comparing the
differences in the shooting form of the player executing the standing shot and the upper-
body-isolated shots after two weeks of upper-body-isolated shooting drills. The researchers
also tracked if there are significant compensatory movements between the players who did
a normal standing shot and the upper-body-isolated shots. This study was patterned after
the comparative study of Delextrat & Goss-Sampson (2010) on the kinematic analysis of
netball goal shooting among junior and senior players, and the study of Henderson et. al.
(2006) on the effectiveness of a six-week jump shot intervention on the kinematics of
netball shooting performance. It is expected that the two-week upper-body-isolated
shooting drills will produce significant improvements on the shooting form with regards to
joint angular measurements, and the timing of knee and elbow extension.
7.1 Joint Angles and Trunk Lean
No significant difference was found in the pre- and post-test measures of the wrist,
elbow, shoulder, and knee joints; the only observed significant difference was that of the
trunk lean angle. Both the Experimental A and B group exhibited an increase in the mean
measures of their trunk lean angle, which means that at their start of shooting action phase,
the athletes were more of leaning back. This change affected and allowed them to increase
the flexion of their elbow and shoulder joints in the same phase, and in turn allowed a
greater chance to further extend the same joints in the release phase, decreasing the chance
of their shot being deflected by the opponent, and increasing release height and their
probability of shooting the ball more accurately (Miller 1993).
35
In the control groups, on the other hand, their trunk lean angle decreased, telling us
that they were more of leaning forward in their start of shooting action phase. This group
was not exposed to the upper-body-isolated shooting drill which explains why their natural
response was to use the assistance and advantage of the additional force and momentum
they get from the lower leg movements in executing a shot. As they lean their trunk
forward in the start of shooting action phase, they also flex their knee joint in preparation
for the release phase. The knee-hip extension along with the upper body force generation
affects that of the lower limbs’ (Kobayashi, et al. 2011) to assist the overall force
generation for the release of the throw.
Netball shooting can be relatively defined as a closed skill, and acquisition of

coordination necessary for this skill depends on three types of constraints: relating to the
task, the individual, or to the environment (Delextrat & Goss-Sampson, 2010). The upper-
body-isolated shooting drill was designed to divert the attention of the shooters towards
their upper body shooting form, in the hopes of helping them correct or improve their
normal stand shot. In terms of kinematic parameters, accuracy is best predicted with greater
angle of elbow and knee flexion, minimal unnecessary movement of the trunk, arm, and
forearm during the shooting action, and greater height and velocity of ball release (Elliott
and Smith, 1983). When the trunk is leaned backwards at the start of shooting action phase,
it is easier to increase the flexion of the elbow and shoulder joint, resulting to a higher angle
of ball release and increasing accuracy. One way to minimize trunk forward movement is
through training sessions by practicing shooting against a passive opponent. Other authors
also suggest minimization of the amplitude of arm and forearm movements, while
maximizing that of hand movements for finer control (Baumgartner, 1975; Hess, 1980).
A study by Hartley and Fulton (1971), proposed that forward and backward trunk
inclination is detrimental in basketball shooting. In the recent study, the researchers
discovered that the possible compensation for doing the netball shot without the aid of the
lower limb was for their trunk lean angle which showed a significant difference between
36
the players who performed the standing shot and upper-body-isolated shot. This may
indicate a change in the body’s force distribution through the changes in the center of mass
(COM) and center of pressure (COP) in connection to the stability of the trunk. Aberrations
from the trunk movement brought by impaired proprioception and trunk control was seen
as predictors of knee injury in female athletes. Too much tilting of the trunk is not
recommended. To expound on this, it is discovered that excessive anterior tilting of the
trunk due to a weak posterior rotators of the pelvis and tightness of the hip flexors resulting
in a more posterior trunk position may lead to compensatory lumbar lordosis. An increase
in knee flexion moment and the demand on knee extensors while simultaneously decreasing
the hip flexion moment and the demand on the hip extensors accounts for this posterior
shift in the COM during functional activities. This may also perpetuate weakness of the hip
extensor resulting in a greater anterior pelvic tilt. Development of core programs in training
protocols would be integral for improving trunk proprioception and trunk control (Powers,
2010).
Other factors and best predictors of performance include wrist flexibility, relative
sitting height, and upper extremity length (Elliott and Smith, 1983). Minimal trial-to-trial
variability, postural stability of the shooter, and synchronization of postural movement and
ball release are also strong predictors of performance (Verhoeven and Newell, 2016).
However, wrist hyperextension is discouraged at the start of shooting action phase as this
forces the wrist flexor muscles to produce excessive tension (Elliott & Smith 1983) and
may lead to a decrease in control and accuracy. Most coaches also discourage releasing the
ball in front of the shooter’s head, and advise instead to execute this behind or in line with
the head (Brown, 1981).
37
7.2 Peak Height of the Ball
According to the study of Miller (1993) on the biomechanical comparison between

shooting technique in basketball and netball, a higher release height is optimal for a more
accurate shot in netball. This parameter is dictated by the extension of the shoulder and
elbow joints at release where in the angle of incline from point of release to the basket
changes exponentially with respect to distance. In this study, it was recorded from the best
trials of the participants that the recommended peak height of the ball for a more accurate
netball standing shot is 37.82 ± 14.3 cm.
7.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension
When aiming to improve accuracy, the simultaneity of muscle action is seen as an

important element that participants learned through the timing of upper limb and lower
limb movement (Christou & Rodriguez, 2008) for this increases movement stability and
improve performance compared to the sequential muscle activation (Li, Levin, Carson, &
Swinnen, 2004). In this study, the differences between the initiation of knee and elbow
extension was calculated among the participants. The execution of a netball shot requires a
more accurate aiming ability since there is no backboard to be of use to assist the ball to go
through the net. In order to maximize the momentum generated by the lower extremity
action, there should be a coordinated sequencing of the trunk and upper body action with
the ball released at, or close to, the time of full extension of the knee (Adrian & Cooper,
1995).
The study of Delextrat & Samson (2010) showed that the senior netball players
reported a mean of 0.05s on the elbow-knee synchronization which is not far from the
results of the timing of the knee and elbow extension of the Experimental A group with a
38
mean and standard deviation of 0.0665 ± 0.047 during the pre-test and 0.06 ± 0.028 during
the post-test. Although the Control A group showed a higher delay in the initiation of knee
and elbow extension, this was because CA 1 did little to no knee flexion and extension on
the execution of the netball standing shot whereas CA 2 manifested no delay in the
initiation of knee and elbow extension.
39
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The two-week exposure to an upper-body-isolated shooting drill did not

significantly affect the wrist, elbow, shoulder, and knee joint angle in the shooting form of
Philippine national netball athletes. The significant difference observed in the trunk lean
angle, however, made it possible for the experimental groups to manifest a backward lean
that increased the flexion angle of the elbow and shoulder joint, allowing their throw to
have an increased release angle that is associated with higher accuracy. Observable increase
in the scores of the majority of the athletes in the tennis ball wall toss test suggests that eye-
hand coordination could be improved in prolonged exposure of the intervention. The
changes in the scores however were of no significant differences observed in the pre- and
post-test scores of the athletes in the overhead medicine ball throw nor in the tennis ball
wall toss test.
From the results of the study, it can be concluded that a two-week exposure to
upper-body-isolated shooting drill training ensues a backward trunk lean in the start of
shooting action phase as a compensatory movement to the absence of the assistance from
the lower-limb movements. This response leads to a higher release angle making the shot
more difficult to deflect by the opponents and at the same time increases accuracy, and
thereby improves the efficiency of shooting form of netball players. However, it is
discouraged for the players to do excessive trunk leaning because it may cause unnecessary
stresses on the hip, knees, and back causing injuries. Aberrations on hip and trunk
movement also suggests postural instability. Including core exercises in training protocols
is recommended to improve trunk control and trunk proprioception.
40
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
Through this study, the researchers investigated whether the two-week upper body
isolated shooting drill would produce a significant change on the shooting form of
Philippine national netball team players with joint angles, peak ball height, timing of knee
and elbow extension, and trunk lean as the variable under study. To further better the study,
the researchers recommends an additional acquiring of data for variables such as release
speed, joint angular velocities, and kinetic variables involved in doing a netball standing
shot to get a clearer idea on the optimal execution of the netball standing shot to better
guide coaches and trainers. Furthermore, the researchers also recommend to select more
participants that are currently playing the goal shooter and/or goal attacker positions in
studying a netball shot to be able to obtain more reliable results. For the intervention, it is
suggested to let the athletes perform this before or in the middle of training to ensure that
they are able to adapt the adjustments in actual game contexts and thereby further increase
the chances of transfer of learning.
With the emphasis on the importance of lower limb movement, particularly knee
flexion, in executing a netball stand shot, the researchers are advising the netball shooters to
also engage their lower limbs in sync with the upper limbs on the execution of the standing
shot to avoid making compensatory movements that can cause unnecessary stresses to the
viscoelastic and musculoskeletal components of the body.
41
10 APPENDIX
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 8. Joint angular measurements during the (a) start of throw (b) start of shooting action and
(c) release of a normal standing shot obtained with the use of Tracker software.
42
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 9. Joint angular measurements during the (a) start of throw (b) start of shooting action and
(c) release of an upper-body-isolated obtained with the use of Tracker software
43
11 TAKE HOME MESSAGE
With the greater accuracy requirement in executing the netball standing shot,
it is important for the coach to be able to help the players be familiarized on the
proper form in executing the said skill for a higher percentage of achieving
successful shots. Isolating the upper body from the lower limb when shooting
showed a compensation on the trunk lean angle. Further research on the possible
stress and strains on the viscoelastic and muscloskeletal components caused by the
said compensatory movement is recommended to give emphasis on the importance
of engaging the lower limb in doing the standing shot.
44
12 REFERENCES
Aboodarda, S., et al. (2015). Elbow flexor fatigue modulates central excitability of the
knee extensors. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 40: 924-930.
Baumgartner, D. (1975). Proper body positioning in the jump shot. Scholastic Coach,
44 (4), 16–18, 20.
Brown, J. (1981). Netball the Australian way. Fitzroy, VIC: Stone Mill Publishers.
Christou, E. A., & Rodriguez, T. M. (2008). Time but not force is transferred ipsilateral
upper and lower limbs. Journal of Motor Behaviour, 40: 186–189.
Delextrat, A., & Goss-Sampson, M. (2010). Kinematic analysis of netball goal

shooting: A comparison of junior and senior players. Journal of Sports Sciences.
28(12): 1299–1307
Dewhurst-Hands, S. (1980). “Netball: A Tactical Approach.” Faber and Faber, London.
Elliott, B. and Smith, J. (1983). The Relationship of Selected Biomechanic and

Anthropometric Measures to Accuracy in Netball Shooting. Journal of Human
Movement Studies. 9(4): 171-187.
Ferreira, M. A., and Spamer, E. J. (2010). Biomechanical, Anthropometric and Physical

Profile of Elite University Netball Players and the Relationship to Musculoskeletal
Injuries. South African Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and
Recreation, North-West University.
journals.co.za/content/sport/32/1/EJC108916#abstract_content.
Fisher, H., et al. (2016). Relationship between force production during isometric squats
and knee flexion angles during landing. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research. 30(6): 1670.
45
Hartley, J. and Fulton, C.. Mechanical analysis of the jump shot, Athletic Journal,
51(7):92, 1971.
Hay, J. G. (1985). The Biomechanics of Sports Techniques. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:

Prentice-Hall.
Henderson, M. E., et al. (2006). The effectiveness of a six-week jump shot intervention
on the kinematics of netball shooting performance. ISBS - Conference Proceedings
Archive, ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/276/235.
Hirth, C. (2007). Clinical movement analysis to identify muscle imbalances and guide
exercise. Human Kinetics - Athletic Therapy Today. 12(4):10-14.
Kobayashi, M., Sakurai, Y., and Yamauchi, Jurtichiro. (2011) Effects of Upper Limb
Force Generation on the Lower Limb Movement. Advances in Exercise & Sports
Physiology. 17(2): 75.
Miller, S.A. (1993). A Biomechanical Comparison Between Shooting Technique in

Basketball and Netball. Cardiff Institute of Higher Education, Cardiff, Wales.
Ofori, E., Shim, J, and Sosnoff, J. (2018). The influence of lower leg configurations on
muscle force variability. Journal of Biomechanics. 71: 111-118.
Pranata, A., et al. (2018). Trunk and lower limb coordination during lifting in people
with or without chronic low back pain. Journal of Biomechanics. 71: 257.
Powers, C. (2010). The influence of abnormal hip mechanics on knee injury: a

biomechanical perspective. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy.
4(2): 42-51.
Smith, R., et al. (2005). Hypermobility and sports injuries in junior netball players.
Journal of Sports Medicine. 39: 628-631.
Steele, J.R. (1990). Biomechanical Factors Affecting Performance in Netball:

Implications for Improving Perormance and Injury Reduction. Sports Medicine.
Adis International. University of Wollongong, Australia.
46
Verhoeven, M. F., and Newell, K. M. (2016) Coordination and Control of Posture and
Ball Release in Basketball Free-Throw Shooting. Human Movement Science.
49:216.
47

Effect of A Two-Week Upper Body Isolated Shooting Drill

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Effect of A Two-Week Upper Body Isolated Shooting Drill

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Effect of a Two-Week Upper-Body-Isolated Shooting Drill on

the Kinematics of Netball Goal Shooting

Sports Science 152: Biomechanics II

SS 152 Final Paper

Department of Sports Science

College of Human Kinetics

University of the Philippines Diliman

Supervisor: Manlangit, Pastor Jr

2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ………………….……………………………..…..….…... 7

4 RESEARCH PROTOCOLS …………………………………………………….……… 11

4.1 Participants ………………………………………………………………….………... 11

4.2 Experimental Set-up ………………………………………………………….………. 11

4.2.1 Pre-Test and Post-Test………………………………………………...….………… 11

4.2.2 Upper-Body-Isolated Shots……………………………………………….……...…. 14

4.2.4 Control and Experimental Group……………………………………….…...……… 15

4.3 Methods of Analysis…………………………………………………….…………….. 15

4.3.1 Joint Angles ………………………………………………………….………...…… 16

4.3.2 Peak Height of the Ball …………………………………………….………..……... 17

4.3.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension ……………………………….……..…….... 17

4.3.4 Trunk Lean ………………………………………………………….……..……….. 18

4.3.5 Statistical Analysis …………………………………………………….………….... 18

4.4 Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………….………..…. 19

6.1 Overhead Medicine Ball Throw ………………………………………………..…….. 21

6.2 Ball Toss Coordination Test …………………………………………………..……… 22

6.3 Joint Angles …………………………………………………………………..………. 24

6.4 Peak Height of the Ball …………………………………………………….……….... 30

6.5 Trunk Lean ………………………………………………………………..………….. 31

6.6 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension ……………………………………..……….... 33

7.1 Joint Angles and Trunk Lean ……………………………………………..….………. 35

7.2 Peak Height of the Ball ………………………………………………………...…….. 38

7.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension ………………………………………...……... 38

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .……………………………………………...……. 40

11 TAKE HOME MESSAGE ……………..………………………………..……………. 44

Literature have shown that biomechanics, anthropometry, physical and motor

Netball requires a great amount of precision skill in scoring since unlike in

A. Describe the proper way of executing a standing shot.

B. Investigate whether the two-week upper-body-isolation shooting drill

C. Discuss the importance of interlimb coordination and lower limb

D. Analyze the changes in form that contribute to acquisition of injuries.

C. Structural alignment, muscle strength, muscle flexibility, and nervous system

4.2. Experimental Set-up

4.2.1. Pre-Test and Post-Test

A. Video Analysis (Standing and Upper-Body-Isolated Shot)

Figure 1. Study Design

B. Overhead Medicine Ball Throw Strength Test

C. Ball Toss Coordination Test

Figure 3. Alternate Hand Wall Toss Test.

Figure 4. Upper-Body-Isolated Shooting Drill Set-up.

4.2.4. Control and Experimental Group

4.3. Methods of Analysis

4.3.1. Joint Angles

Figure 5. Joint angles measured at the sagittal plane.

4.3.3 Timing of Knee and Elbow Extension

Figure 6. Timing of knee extension measured at the sagittal plane.

4.3.4 Trunk Lean

4.3.5. Statistical Analysis

6.1 Overhead Medicine Ball Throw

OVERHEAD MEDICINE BALL

CA1 309.33 298.33 -11

CB1 263 264 1

EA1 234.33 235 0.67

EXPERIMENTAL A EA2 263.67 275.67 12 9.11

EXPERIMENTAL B EB2 263.67 261.67 -2 15.26

EB3 278.67 274.33 -4.34