See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318843926

Kinematic Characterization Of Lacrosse Shooting Motions Of The Dominant And Non-dominant Side: 1940 Board #226 May 29, 3

Conference Paper  in  Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · May 2014

DOI: 10.1249/01.mss.0000495052.72489.f0

CITATION READS

1 86

6 authors, including:

Cong Chen Laura Ann Zdziarski-Horodyski

University of Florida University of Utah
39 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lacrosse mechanics, injuries and performance View project

IGF-1 in neuromuscular plasticity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heather Vincent on 27 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Kinematic Characterization of Lacrosse Shooting Motions of the
Dominant And Non-Dominant Side
Charles Drew Slater BS, Cong Chen MS, Laura Ann Zdziarski ATC, Cindy Montero, Kevin R. Vincent, MD, PhD, FACSM &
Heather K. Vincent PhD, FACSM; Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, FL, College of Medicine, Orthopaedics

Background & Methods Methods Results

Background. Lacrosse, deemed the “fastest sport on two feet,” Figure 1. A lacrosse Table 2. Kinematic variables during a lacrosse shot. Values are means
is gaining popularity exponentially in the US. As the popularity player releasing a ball
±SD. *denotes p<0.05; FC= foot contact, BR= ball release, FT=follow
during a shot from
grows, the biomechanical study of the sport is minimal. An through
the non-dominant
important aspect to lacrosse performance is the ability to use side (top; frontal Variable Dominant side Non-dominant side p(sig)
your dominant and non-dominant side during throwing and view) and the
shooting. Biomechanical analysis of other popular sports have dominant side
been can improve player performance and decrease the (bottom; sagittal Ball speed (kmh) 100 ± 23 85 ± 21 *
likelihood of injury. In a sport requiring ambidexterity, similar view) X-factor FC (°) -27.6 ± 10.6 -21.4 ± 12.4 *
motion and performance of both the non-dominant and X-factor is defined as X-factor BR (°) 4.7 ± 9.4 8.1 ± 11.4 *
dominant sides are important. At the present time, it is not well the degree of
crossover of the X-factor FT (°) 218.6 ± 58.4 194.2 ± 107.8 *
characterized whether there are differences in the shooting
shoulders relative to Anterior trunk lean 34.9 ± 14.7 31.8 ± 13.5
motion of lacrosse players. Understanding the biomechanics of the pelvis (- value is
a lacrosse throwing motion on both the dominant and non- Max pelvis rotational
away from goal, + is
dominant can lead to player performance enhancement and toward the goal) velocity (°/sec) 510.7 ± 165.7 420.5 ± 180.0 *
injury prevention. Max shoulder rotational
velocity (°/sec) 803.0 ± 248.4 673.7 ± 232.6 *
Purpose: This study determined the kinematic differences Table 1. Subject characteristics. Means ± SD or % of group are
Max stick shaft
between dominant and non-dominant lacrosse throwing shown.
velocity (°/sec) 1386 ± 398 1212 ± 397 *
motions.
Age (yrs) 18.2 ± 5.2
Methods. 28 retroflective markers were used with a 12 camera
Height(cm) 195.± 6 9.7 Timing of events expressed as a percent of the throw cycle.
system to capture motion data during lacrosse shooting. Each
Weight (kg) 70.0 ± 12.2 Max pelvis rotation velocity (%) 72 ± 66 96 ± 106
participant completed a warm up, followed by motion capture
Years of play 5.9 ± 2.7
of 12 throws. Throws were performed as quickly and accurately Max torso rotation velocity (%) 76 ± 19 82 ± 25
Female (%) 29.2
as possible into a standard collegiate goal target. Overhead Max shoulder rotation velocity (%) 82 ± 19 90 ± 26
throws were used. Kinematics were calculated in frontal, Players generated greater ball speeds on the dominant side
Max shoulder abduction (%) 64 ± 88 93 ± 149
sagittal and transverse planes. A shot cycle was defined as the compared to the non-dominant side (Table 2). These speeds
were likely due to higher angular/ rotational velocities at the velocity
point of lead foot contact to ball release (100% of the cycle).
pelvis, upper torso, shoulder and crosse. The dominant side
Matlab® software was used to find rotational velocities of the
pelvis, trunk, shoulder and crosse. Pelvic tilt, knee flexion demonstrated greater range of motion at X-factor value at foot Conclusions
angles, hand movement on the stick, trunk lean at ball release, contact (FC) and follow throw (FT) compared to the non- Optimizing the maximal rotational velocities at the pelvis, trunk
shoulder abduction angles at foot contact and ball release, and dominant side. The timing of when the maximal rotation and shoulder while improving the timing of each rotational event
trunk rotation relative to the pelvic were calculated. Ball speed velocities were not different between sides. Substantial variation could help improve ball speed during a shot with the non-
was calculated from the motion capture data. existed on the timing of the key rotational events (Table 2, SD dominant side.
values).

View publication stats