EXERCISE ANALYSIS

3 stages:- Take off, flight phase and landing

Energy
-Important to understand the numerous types of energies an athlete will harness during a jumping
header
-Kinetic energy (primary source) the energy an object has because it is moving
- Calculated by the mass of the athlete and the velocity at which they are moving - E = mv
-If an athlete is able to produce a higher level of power, during their take-off phase, they will then
move at a higher velocity, which will result in a greater amount of kinetic energy
-Potential energy - occurs as the athlete is at the peak of their jump and during the flight phase
-This is where the athlete has the capacity to do work due to their position relative to the earths
surface Hay (1993). It is determined by the weight of the athlete multiplied by the height above
the ground - EP = Wh
-During the flight phase of the jumping header, the kinetic energy of the athlete decreases and the
potential energy increases during ascent. This is reversed during the descent of the jump.

AREAS TO CONSIDER FOR ANALYSIS:

JOINT ANGLES, ANKLE KNEE AND HIP
ALIGNMENT, KNEE VALGUS AND FORCE
PRODUCTION

SINGLE LEG JUMP ANALYSIS TAKE OFF

DOMINANT V NON-DOMINANT
-Strong gluteal/hip strength shown due to lack of
knee valgus. This is evidenced within tracker with
the angles from hip to knee only decreasing from
84.1 to 82.4 degree angles
-Hip alignment good at 1.2 degree angle showing
strong hip abductors.
-Greater depth in downward phase which could
lead to greater force production due to stronger
ankle and knee joints as well as adequate vastus
medialis strength allowing better knee
stabilization. This was shown by the working hip
joint lowering from 50.99 for the dominant leg in
comparison to 43.26 for the non-dominant. This
increase in length of the muscle in the dominant
leg may also lead to greater nerve activity
leading to the stretch reflex and possibly greater
force production

DOMINAN

-Non-dominant leg showed

increased pelvic tilt
requiring the hip abductors
to be engaged more in
order to remain balanced.
This
could
due to
having
lessbe
co-ordination
on this non-dominant side as
well as the muscles such as glutei medii within the hip
abductors being weaker and having to pull the pelvis
above the femur as well as preventing the hips from
moving into adduction and internal rotation.
-Greater external rotation of the non-dominant leg with
more weight seemingly distributed to the outside of the
foot due to the increased work capacity of the hip
abductors and quadriceps.

NON-DOMINANT

-No real differences between take off phases from side

view filming. This was shown by the degree of joint
angles being very similar with the knee angle only
changing from 47.5 to 47.0 from dominant to nondominant respectively.

-Both had sufficient movement within tibia/knee allowing

migration forward, preventing the foot from
compensating through pronation which in turn can lead
to internal rotation of the tibia and hip along with hip
adduction and knee valgus.
-Highlights that knee valgus in not an issue and that
despite non-dominant leg indicating more issues from
frontal view, the muscles including gastrocnemius,
soleus and anterior tibialis in the lower leg are efficient
in both dominant and non-dominant during downward
phase and take-off.

SIDE VIEW

Poor mobility and

tight ankles can be
overcome via
exercises as shown
above from a side
view . This is
resultant of knee
valgus.

FLIGHT PHASE

Biomechanically similar for both dominant and

non-dominant

The initial movement of the trunk and hips on

leaving the ground is joint extension in order
to produce a greater range of motion
throughout the body. This will produce a
higher velocity and level of power, which can,
in turn, be imparted on to the ball.

Trunk extension is within the suggested range

No
of knees
andhip
hips
of 1-15 degrees
atflexion
2.6 degrees
whilst
at peak
airborn phase
extension is at 10.1
degrees.
This is key to reaching
optimum height to win
headers
Gives the athlete added
velocity and power to
impart upon the ball

LANDING ANALYSIS
-Initial contact in dominant foot is
performed with good minimal joint
angles recorded at 7.6 degrees for
thigh and 7.2 for lower leg. This allows
for the reduction of posterior ground
reaction forces.
-This greater knee extension during
landing reducing the lower leg angle
also leads to a reduction in peak
proximal tibia anterior shear force
which could lead to ACL loading.

Segment and joint kinematics and net

joint moments were provided by
Thomas, C (2014)

-Slightly greater joint angles with

thigh being 11.2 along with lower leg
8.3. However, still good joint angles
within both which co-incide with the
diagram and literature stating the
optimum angles to be within the
range provided
-In non-dominant leg left foot made
initial contact prior to right foot which
was not the case in dominant side
meaning this side was less balanced

LANDING FRONT VIEW

Studies on landing importance

Previous studies have reported that
the incidence of lower extremity
injuries may be associated with
the magnitude of the ground
reaction force during landing (De
Wit et al., 1995; McNitt-Gray,
1991; Zhang et al., 2000).
Sell et al., 2007 and Yu et al., 2006
demonstrated that the increased
proximal tibia anterior shear
force and knee flexion moment
during landing in a stop-jump
task increase the non-contact
ACL injury risk

-No knee valgus in either jump during

landing
-Slight internal rotation of left knee (nondominant jump/right image) which is also
dropped right knee as evidenced by
crosses
-Similar joint angles for both dominant
and non-dominant legs
-Greater depth in jump achieved in
dominant leg
-Increased separation of joints in
dominant leg reducing injury risk and
giving larger base of support for centre of
gravity to remain over. This led to
increased balance upon landing.

Dominant

NonDominant

Ankle separation

70

58.59

Knee separation

126

102.2

Hip separation

114.2

116

Thigh angle
(Right)

90.3

91.9

Thigh angle (Left)

93.9

90.7

Lower leg angle

(Right)

95.2

98.1

Lower leg angle

(Left)

74.9

77.6

DOMINANT
Tim For
e
ce
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
4
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.0

-2.24
158.9
318.52
436.17
98.8
-3.11
417.71
349.22
241.35
210.52
33.2
35.84
52.7
20.99

4.7
4.8
4.9
5
5.1
5.3
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
6
6.1
6.2
6.3

-1.87
40.56
225.63
367.57
334.58
-2.85
350.04
391.26
359.06
278.46
123.9
58.87
42.17
75.48

FORCE PRODUCTION ANALYSIS

Force
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100

NONDOMINANT
Tim Forc
e
e

Force
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50

Similarities
-Formation of graph
-Timings of key stages e.g duration
of take-off for each was 0.3
seconds
-Scattered data at the end of the
jump after completion of landing
Differences
Take off peak force:- Dominant =
436.17N
Non-dominant =
367.17N
Landing peak force:- Dominant =
417.71N
Non-dominant =
391.26N
Flight phase duration:- Dominant =
0.5s
Nondominant = 0.5s
Velocity:- Dominant = 54.16
Non-dominant = 48.1
Momentum:- Dominant = 8665
Non-dominant = 7,696

COMPARISON TO DOUBLE LEGGED JUMPS

-Higher impact peak for one-legged jump which allows for a
possible increase in muscle stiffness prior to the impact. This
could lead to an increased ability to store elastic energy as well
as increasing the capacity of the muscle to do positive work
once the concentric contraction begins during the upward
phase of the jump Discussed by Row, B (2000)
Knee angles comparison for both types of jumps

Single leg
jump

Two footed jump

Conventional two-footed
vertical jump graph

Means (standard deviations) of lower extremity kinematic variables during the landing of
the single- and double-leg stop-jump tasks.

Double-leg
Hip flexion angle at initial foot contact with ground
(degree)
Knee flexion angle at initial foot contact with ground
(degree)
Hip flexion angular velocity at initial foot contact
with ground (degree/s)
Knee flexion angular velocity at initial foot contact
with ground (degree/s)
Hip maximum flexion angle during landing (degree)

Single leg

P
-Value

38.30 (9.02)

29.45 (9.26)

.002

37.92 (12.32)

26.30 (6.53)

.019

78.50 (46.69)

-55.55 (57.33)

< .001

200.29 (63.33)

100.20 (64.82)

.004

42.52 (8.44)

31.24 (8.52)

< .001

INJURY PREVENTION
Important due to presenting a significant risk of injury to lower extremities
mostly to the the ACL in particular due to stress placed upon knee
Study of Boden et al. (2000) along with Griffin et al. (2000) show most
sports-related ACL injuries occur during non-contact situations in games
such as landing, rapid deceleration and sudden changes of direction

PREVENTION OF INJURIES/IMPROVEMENT OF EXERCISE

1. Ankle Dorsiflexion Mobility Drills and Gastroc/Soleus
Stretching
Both mobility drills and static stretches have been shown to be effective in the research
for improving ankle dorsiflexion mobility.

2. Motor Re-Education With Immediate Video Feedback

Has been shown to be ne of the best strategies for fixing valgus collapse. By filming
the movement/exercise and playing back their video clips immediately after the set
allows for intrinsic feedback along with knowledge of what's going wrong and how to
improve it.

3. Mini-Band Exercises
This include things such as mini-band squats and mini-band bridges or hip thrusts.
The purpose of these is to help teach the body which muscles force the knees out
during jumping and landing exercises and build some hip abduction/external
rotation strength throughout the hip flexion-extension range of motion.

4. Hip Abductor/External Rotation Exercises

This can include x-band walks, monster walks, sumo walks, band seated abductions,
band/cable standing abduction, side planks, Pallof presses, band anti-rotation holds, and

REFERENCES
1) Row, B and Hreljac, A (2000) the one-legged and two-legged vertical jumps: a kinetic and temporal analysis.
University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.
2) Boden, B et al. (2000) Mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Orthopedics 23, 573-578
3) Castillo-Rodriguez, A., J. Fernandez-Garcia, J. Chinchilla-Minguet, and E. Carnero. (2012) Relationship between
muscular strength and sprints with changes of direction. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 26: 725-732
4) De Wit, B., De Clercq, D. and Lenoir, M. (1995) The effect of varying midsole hardness on impact forces and foot
motion during foot contact in running. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 111, 395-406.
5) McNitt-Gray, J.L. (1991) Kinematics and Impulse characteristics of drop landing from three heights. International
Journal of Sport Biomechanics 77, 201-224.
6) Moolyk, AN, Carey, JP, and Chiu, LZF. (2003) Characteristics of lower extremity work during the impact phase of
jumping and weightlifting. J Strength Cond Res 27(12): 3225 3232.
7) Sell, T.C., Ferris, C.M., Abt, J.P., Tsai, Y.S., Myers, J.B., Fu, F.H. and Lephart, S.M. (2007) Predictors of proximal tibia
anterior shear force during a vertical stop-jump. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 225, 1589-1597.
8) Yu, B., Lin, C.F. and Garrett, W.E. (2006) Lower extremity biomechanics during the landing of a stop-jump task.
Clinical Biomechanics 21, 297-305.
9) Zhang, S.N., Bates, B.T. and Dufek, J.S. (2000) Contributions of lower extremity joints to energy dissipation during
landings. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32, 812-819.
Online
[Accessed online: 12/05/14) Available at: http://scienceofsportsperformance.wordpress.com/tag/vertical-jump/
[Accessed online: 15/05/14) Available at: http://www.jssm.org/vol10/n1/20/v10n1-20text.php#4
[Accessed online: 15/05/14) Available at:
http://breakingmuscle.com/strength-conditioning/biomechanics-and-newton-s-laws-force-time-curves-and-human-m
ovement