Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL...

Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
40
JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL
– A KINEMATIC MODEL EVALUATED ON THE
BASIS OF EXPERT MODELLING
Primož Pori, Marta Bon and Marko Šibila
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Original scientific paper
UDC 796.322:531:53.07
Abstract:
The jump shot is one of the most important elements of specific handball motor behaviour. We wanted
to assess it with the method of expert modelling. The sample of subjects consisted of ten male elite handball
players, members of the national Slovenian teams that play in the first national handball division (average
height - 191.1 ± 4.48 cm; average body mass - 90.0 ± 4.40 kg, average age - 23.4 ± 4.2 years; average training
experience in senior teams - 5.3 ± 2.1 years). We analysed six backcourt players, two wing players and two
pivots. Each of the subjects executed, after a 20-minute warm-up, three jump shots. Data processing was
performed by APAS (Ariel Dynamics, California, USA). Expert modelling was performed with the SPEX
expert system. We formed a success tree containing 17 variables, representing all five phases of the jump
shot. In order to assess the validity of this kinematic model, three independent referees also assessed the
quality of the jump shot. The ranks obtained from their marks were then compared with the ranks obtained
with the SPEX expert model. On the basis of the obtained results we then constructed an expert mark for each
analysed player. The level of concordance of the referees was high (W = 0.875), the coefficient of correlation
between the actual ranks and the referee ranks was statistically significant (0.912). Our final finding is that
a kinematic model of the jump shot constructed in this way can also be a good criterion for assessing the
quality of the basic technique of the jump shot for seniors.
Key words: team handball, jump shot, kinematic model, expert modelling
SPRUNGWURFAUSFÜHRUNG IM HANDBALL – EIN AUF DER GRUNDLAGE DER
EXPERTMODELLIERUNG BEWERTETES KINEMATISCHES MODELL
Zusammenfassung:
Der Sprungwurf ist ein der wichtigsten Elemente von der spezifischen Handballmotorik, das in dieser
Untersuchung nach der Methode der Expertmodellierung bewertet wurde. Zehn Handballspieler, Mitglieder
der slowenischen Nationalmannschaft, die in der ersten Nationaldivision spielen (Durchschnittsgröße 191,1 ±
4,48 cm; durchschnittliche Körpermasse 90,0 ± 4,40 kg, Durchschnittsalter 23,4 ± 4,2 Jahre; durchschnittliche
Trainingerfahrung in Seniorenmannschaften 5,3 ± 2,2 Jahre), haben nach einer Aufwärmungszeit von 20
Minuten drei Sprungwürfe ausgeführt. Die Datenbearbeitung wurde mit APAS (Ariel Dynamics, California,
U.S.A.) und die Expertmodellierung mit dem SPEX-Expertsystem durchgeführt. Danach wurde ein
Erfolgsbaum mit 17 Variablen geformt, die alle fünf Phasen des Sprungwurfs darstellen. Um die Gültigkeit des
ausgewählten kinematischen Modells zu prüfen, wurde die Sprungwurfsqualität auch von drei unabhängigen
Schiedsrichtern bewertet. Die aus ihren Bewertungen erworbene Reihenfolge wurde dann mit der mit dem
SPEX-Expertmodell erworbenen Reihenfolge verglichen. Auf der Grundlage der erworbenen Ergebnisse
wurde dann für jeden analysierten Spieler eine Expertnote erstellt festgelegt. Die Übereinstimmung zwischen
den Noten der einzelnen Schiedsrichter war hoch (W = 0,875) und der Korrelationskoeffizient der tatsächlichen
und der von den Schiedsrichtern ermittelten Reihenfolge statistisch bedeutend (0,912). Als Endergebnis ergab
die Untersuchung, dass das auf diese Weise konstruierte kinematische Sprungwurfmodell auch ein gutes
Kriterium zur Beurteilung der Qualität der Grundtechnik des Sprungwurfs bei Senioren sein kann.
Schlüsselwörter: Handball, Sprungwurf, kinematisches Modell, Expertmodellierung
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
41
Introduction
Kinematic analyses of elements of specific
sport-related motor behaviour (technique) ensure
important information, representing the basis for
an in-depth and precise knowledge of their actual
structure. Only on the basis of such findings can
we precisely describe the technique of executing
the elements and connect it to tactics. In this way,
we can also more easily construct didactic proce-
dures in teaching and training, especially if we con-
nect this knowledge with findings in the physiol-
ogy of sport.
All activities in team handball are performed
in specific conditions, with the presence of players
of the opposing team and while observing playing
regulations. Their selection and execution there-
fore depend mostly on the situations in the match.
Even if a player can execute the individual elements
sometimes in a non-typical way, certain kinematic
parameters do exist for most elements that show
a greater or lesser efficiency of the element’s ex-
ecution.
The key characteristics, which are stressed as
their findings by most authors studying the bio-
mechanical characteristics of throws in handball
(Küster, 1973; Kastner, Pollany, & Sobotka, 1978;
Zvonarek & Hraski, 1996; Zahalka, Tuma, & Bunc,
1997; Šibila, & Bon, 1999; Šibila, Bon, & Štuhec,
1999; Taborsky, Tuma, & Zahalka, 1999), are as
follows:
● The correct order of recruitment of the individ-
ual parts of the body is important, allowing the
development of maximal velocity and control
of these parts – this order is from the proximal
(central) parts to the distal (distant) parts of the
body. The most proximal part begins the action;
it is then followed by the next, and so on till the
most distal part – the wrist or the palm. The ve-
locity of movement of the smaller and lighter
parts of the body with lesser inertia is added to
the velocity of the bigger ones, achieving the
greatest possible velocity at the end part of the
kinetic chain (each proximal part offers support
for the next, more distal part). The increase of
angular velocity of the individual segment of
the kinetic chain is connected to the stoppage
of the proximal part (angular velocity of the el-
bow is greater after stopping the movement of
the shoulder, the wrist after stopping the elbow,
etc).
● When executing the shot, it is very important to
take into account certain physiological charac-
teristics of muscular effort and try to perform
the shot with an eccentric-concentric type of
muscular effort since it is more appropriate in
the production of greater force. Therefore, at
least for some muscular groups (or muscles in-
volved in the shot) there should be the shortest
possible time between extension and contrac-
tion. Electromyography measurements showed
that (in ideal conditions) agonistic muscles are
completely contracted till the time of maximal
velocity of the individual link in the kinematic
(throwing) chain and then completely relax with
maximal recruitment of antagonists (Müller,
1982). It is important to stress that extensors
in the wrist of worse players participate much
less in the wrist part of the shot than those of
better players. The delaying effect of the an-
tagonistic (opposite) muscles is obviously not
completely utilised in this case.
The development of computer technology, kin-
ematics methods, expert knowledge and the asso-
ciated artificial intelligence have enabled a com-
pletely new approach of studying the successfulness
of athletes on the basis of expert modelling (Jošt,
Dežman, & Pustovrh, 1995).
The main aim in this contribution is to analyse
a kinematic model of the jump shot, one of the
most important elements of the specific handball-
-related motor behaviour, and evaluate it with an
expert modelling method.
Methods
The sample of subjects consisted of ten male
elite handball players, members of the national Slo-
venian teams that play in the first national handball
division (average height - 191.1 ± 4.48 cm; average
body mass - 90.0 ± 4.40 kg, average age - 23.4 ±
4.2 years; average training experiences in seniors
teams - 5.3 ± 2.1 years). Six backcourt players,
two wing players and two pivots were analysed.
Each subject executed, after a 20-minute warm-
-up, three jump shots. First, they chose a starting
position for approach in the middle of the playing
court. Their approach consisted of two parts. First
they made three steps, bounced the ball and after
that they made three steps of approach. They per-
formed a take-off in the area which was marked on
the free-throw line. They performed all shots with
maximal effort. From among all the attempts, one
jump shot, being the most characteristics for the
analysed technique for each player, was chosen for
further analysis. Two SVHS Video cameras oper-
ating at 25 frames per second were used for the ac-
quisition of the data (Figure 1). The cameras were
positioned in such a way that, after the registration
of eight points, a reference frame (500cm x 100cm
x 100cm) provided the possibility of an analysis in
3D space. Data processing was performed by APAS
(Ariel Dynamics, California, USA). A fifteen-seg-
ment model of the human body was defined by
digitised co-ordinates of 16 reference points. Ref-
erence points represented in the 3D space the joint
centres of the limbs on both sides of the body, and,
additionally, atlas, vertex and the ball. The centre
of body gravity (CG) was calculated from Demp-
ster’s via Miller and Nelson anthropometric model
(Winter, 1990).
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
42
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the measurement procedure (C1, C2 – camera
1 and 2).
C 1
C 2
Area in which
the players
were analysed
The take-off
area
Starting area
According to its basic structure, the handball
jump shot was divided into five phases: approach,
take-off, flight, throw and landing (Table 1).
Table 1. Descripton of individual phases of jump shot
Approach Length of the last stride, lowering of CG in the last stride, rhythm
Take-off Placement of the take-off leg; direction of the take-off, explosiveness and elasticity of the take-off
Flight Preserving the lateral position; action of the swing leg
Throw Height of the elbow during the throw; sequence of inclusion of joints and muscle groups in the throw
Landing Landing on the take-off leg or on both legs; stopping the eccentric movement of the legs; balance
Seventeen 17 variables which represent the ba-
sic kinematic structure of jump shots at all phases
were also chosen (Table 2).
The modelling then proceeded according to the
didactical steps defined in advance (Čoh, Čuk, &
Boršnik, 1993). After the formalism of the knowl-
edge database (according to the set
kinematic model of successfulness
in the jump shot) was defined, we
formed also a suitable model tree.
This tree included the chosen di-
mensions, which formed a system,
according to the kinematic model.
The tree and the decision rules (de-
cision tree), with which we defined
the contribution of the individual
parameters to the final mark of suc-
cessfulness of the branch in ques-
tion, are shown in Table 5. The ba-
sis for determining the criteria was
expert knowledge, experience, sci-
entific research of the field and ob-
servance of basic biomechanical
principles. For a formalised pres-
entation of the expert system kin-
ematic model of the jump shot we
used the so-called success tree. For
this purpose we used the computer program SPEX
(Leskošek, 1995).
In order to find the validity of this kinematic
model, we asked three independent referees, experts
in handball, to assess the quality of the jump shot.
The ranks obtained in this way were compared with
the ranks obtained with the expert model SPEX.
To increase the objectivity of the referees’ as-
sessments, the referees assessed the individual
Parameters of approach (A):
Vertical change of CG height in the last step (cm) (vCGhls)
Change of horizontal CG velocity in the last step (m/s) (hCGvls)
Change of vertical CG velocity in the last step (m/s) (vCGvls)
Take-off parameters (TO):
Decrease of horizontal velocity (m/s (dhv)
Increase of vertical velocity (m/s) (ivv)
Duration of take-off contact (s) (toc)
Height of CG at the end of the take-off (cm) (hCGto)
Angle between CG and contact leg at the end of the take-off (
0
) (aCGcl)
Parameters of flight (F):
Maximal height of the flight (cm) (hmax)
Time for reaching thepeak height of flight (s) (thmax)
Horizontal move of CG till the moment of the release (cm) (hCGt)
Duration of flight (s) (tflg)
Parameters of throw (T):
Height of the throw (cm) (hthr)
Velocity of the throw (m/s) (vt)
Decrease of maximal CG height till the throw (cm) (decrmax)
Period from the take-off tillthe release (s) (tdto/t)
Parameter of landing (L): Height of CG in the moment of landing, contact with the ground (cm) (hCGlan)
Table 2. Sample of variables, defining the kinematic model of the jump shot
Legend: CG - centre of gravity
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
43
phases of the jump shot (approach, take-off, flight,
throw, landing). On the basis of the average mark,
we therefore obtained a common assessment of the
quality of the jump shot for the individual subject.
Since the motor action in the jump shot is of rela-
tively short duration, we defined those parameters
in the individual phases which we felt could be visu-
ally assessed with sufficient precision (Table 3).
In order to achieve a better homogeneity be-
tween the referees, we defined the common criteria
for assessing the individual phases, after determin-
ing the parameters and a precise definition of the
execution of the jump shot.
We used a five-level criterion scale; its values
are descriptive (1 – unacceptable; 5 – excellent).
The SPSS statistical package was used for other
statistical data analyses. Kendall’s concordance co-
efficient (W) was computed to assess the congruity
of the referees in assessing the quality of the jump
shot. In order to find the correlation between the
ranks obtained by the expert system SPEX and the
DESCRIPTION OF THE CRITERION VALUES
Mark Approach Take-off Flight Throw Landing
5
E
X
C
E
L
L
E
N
T
Optimal length
of the last stride
and simultaneous
lowering of CG;
execution is fluent,
rhythmic
Placement of take-
off leg precisely
towards the goal;
take-off is vertical,
explosive, elastic
Preservation of
optimal lateral
position and
action of swing leg
throughout the flight
phase till the throw,
In the throw phase
the elbow is high
and travels at head
height; correct
order of inclusion of
muscle groups into
the throw; explosive
execution
Optimal landing on
take-off leg or on
both legs simulta-
neously with evident
amortisation –
stiffness of musculo-
tendon apparatus is
optimal and allows
relaxed forward
running at once
4
V
E
R
Y

G
O
O
D
Very good, but
certain departures
from the optimal
execution can be
seen
Very good technical
execution, but
small deviations in
execution dynamics
appear
Very good, but some
deviations from
optimal execution
can be seen, espe-
cially in the action of
the swing leg
Execution very good,
but some departure
from an ideal
execution is seen
Execution very good,
but some deviation
from ideal execution
is seen, especially
in the amortisation
phase
3
G
O
O
D
Somewhat too short
or too long last
stride; execution still
fluent, rhythmic
Placement of take-
off leg somewhat
apart from the goal;
take-off directed a
little too forward
Execution good
but amplitudes of
movements average
(poor flexibility)
During the throw the
elbow travels a little
too low, technique
and dynamics of
execution good
Average execution,
with slight loss of
balance, which
can mean a worse
starting point in the
game
2
A
C
C
E
P
T
A
B
L
E
Execution not fluent,
non-rhythmic; breaks
in the movement are
seen,
uncontrolled
lowering of CG
Take-off oriented
markedly forward,
take-off execution
not elastic (bad
transition from the
eccentric to the
concentric muscular
contraction)
Just satisfactory
trunk unwinding,
consequence of the
action of swing leg in
forward direction
Satisfactory height of
elbow during throw;
evident errors in
throw technique
Landing unreliable,
athlete staggers after
landing
1
U
N
A
C
C
E
P
T
A
B
L
E Evident departures
in length of the last
stride and lowering
of CG; execution
not fluent, non-
rhythmic; intermittent
movement
Placement of take-
off leg is significantly
away from the goal,
take-off directed
markedly forward,
execution very non-
elastic
Unsatisfactory lateral
position, swing leg
remains too low and
acts only in forward
direction, too quick
opening for a throw

Elbow travels
markedly too low
(at or below the
shoulders), throw
performed only from
the elbow, dynamics
unsatisfactory
Landing on non-
take-off leg;
co-ordinatively
completely wrong,
usually consequence
of bad execution of
previous phases
Table 3. Description of criterion values for assessing jump shot quality
ranks of the referees (assessing the validity of the
expert model of the jump shot) we used the Spear-
man’s correlation coefficient.
Results
The absolute values of the kinematic param-
eters (Table 4) represent the basis of those input
values (data) with which it is possible to construct
and evaluate a kinematic model of performance of
the jump shot, from the viewpoint of technique on
the basis of expert modelling.
After this we formed a suitable model of a de-
cision tree. On the left side is the tree structure:
individual phases of the jump shot were given in
capital letters, the variables in the individual phases
in small letters (Table 5). The highest node repre-
sents an assessment of performance of the subject
in the jump shot. The weights are then given, show-
ing the importance of the individual kinematic pa-
rameters (nodes).
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
44
Table 4. Parameters of the kinematic model of the jump shot and values achieved by the subjects
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
A
vCGhls (cm) -1.0 -0.9 -1.1 -1.2 -2.4 -2.2 -0.8 -2.1 -2.0 -2.3
hCGvls (m/s) -1.20 -1.34 -1.32 -1.26 -1.25 -1.59 -1.42 -1.82 -1.52 -1.59
vCGvls (m/s) 3.07 3.01 3.17 2.77 2.45 2.69 2.93 3.01 2.30 2.56
TO
dhv (m/s) -0.78 -0.77 -0.74 -0.85 -0.85 -0.69 -0.77 -0.76 -0.87 -0.77
ivv (m/s) 0.42 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.33 0.31 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.35
toc (s) 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.28 0.27
hCGto (cm) 142 143 132 140 124 125 131 126 135 134
aCGcl (
0
) 58 60 56 52 54 55 52 53 64 61
F
hmax (cm) 179 187 184 177 156 166 177 171 167 171
thmax (s) 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.25 0.28
hCGt (cm) 105 116 162 124 114 114 122 156 149 116
tflg (s) 0.68 0.67 0.75 0.62 0.59 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.60 0.65
T
hthr (cm) 291 308 284 285 262 274 282 251 243 283
vt (m/s) 24.5 25.5 25.0 25.0 24.9 24.7 23.6 22.0 21.3 23.6
decrmax (cm) 3.1 2.9 14.7 9.3 6.1 5.6 5.1 20.4 23.1 7.3
tdto/t (s) 0.33 0.35 0.45 0.43 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.52 0.52 0.38
L hCGlan (cm) 118 132 123 127 116 118 117 108 115 121
Legend: S1….S10 – subjects; A – approach; TO – take off; F – flight; T – throw; L – landing; vCGhls - vertical change of CG height
in the last step (cm); hCGvls - change of horizontal CG velocity in the last step (m/s); vCGvls - change of vertical CG velocity in the
last step (m/s); dhv - decrease of horizontal velocity (m/s); ivv - increase of vertical velocity (m/s); toc - duration of take-off contact
(s); hCGto - height of CG at the end of the take-off (cm); aCGcl - angle between CG and contact leg at the end of the take-off (
0
);
hmax - maximal height of the flight (cm); thmax - time for reaching the maximal height of flight (s); hCGt - horizontal move of CG
till the moment of throw (cm); tflg - duration of flight (s); hthr - height of throw (cm); vt - velocity of throw (m/s); decrmax - decre-
ase of maximal CG height till the throw (cm); tdto/t - time duration from take-off till throw (s); hCGlan - height of CG in the moment
of landing contact (cm).
Table 5. Decision tree of the kinematic model of the jump shot evaluated by expert modelling
HFFFFFFFFN o r m a l i s e r s --FFFFFFFFFFI
Mark: >=4.0 >=3.5 >=3.0 >=2.0
Weight excellent very good good adequate
----- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
MARK 100.0
LFAPPROACH 8.4
G LFvCGhls 3.2 <=0.9 <=1.3 <=1.9 <=2.4
G LFhCGvls 3.2 <=1.23 <=1.33 <=1.53 <=1.63
G JFvCGvls 2.1 >=3.05 >=2.93 >=2.69 >=2.57
LFTAKE-OFF 31.6
G LFdhv 5.3 <=0.59 <=0.71 <=0.83 <=0.95
G LFivv 6.3 >=0.416 >=0.378 >=0.34 >=0.302
G LFtoc 10.5 <=0.23 <=0.25 <=0.27 <=0.29
G LFhCGto 4.2 >=145 >=137 >=129 >=121
G JFaCGcl 5.3 56-58 55-59 53-61 50-64
LFFLIGHT 17.9
G LFhmax 6.3 >=191 >=179 >=167 >=155
G LFthmax 3.2 <=0.22 <=0.26 <=0.3 <=0.34
G LFhCGt 4.2 <=102 <=116 <=130 <=144
G JFtflg 4.2 >=0.75 >=0.69 >=0.63 >=0.57
LFTHROW 38.9
G LFhthr 10.5 >=300 >=288 >=264 >=252
G LFvt 12.6 >=26 >=24.8 >=23.6 >=22.4
G LFdecrmax 9.5 <=1.1 <=8.1 <=15.1 <=22.1
G JFtdto/t 6.3 <=0.31 <=0.38 <=0.45 <=0.52
JFLANDING 3.2
JFhCGlan 3.2 >=131.5 >=123.5 >=115.5 >=107.5
Legend: vCGhls - vertical change of CG height in the last step (cm); hCGvls - change of horizontal CG velocity in the last step (m/
s); vCGvls - change of vertical CG velocity in the last step (m/s); dhv - decrease of horizontal velocity (m/s); ivv - increase of verti-
cal velocity (m/s); toc - duration of take-off contact (s); hCGto - height of CG at the end of the take-off (cm); aCGcl - angle between
CG and contact leg at the end of the take-off (
0
); hmax - maximal height of the flight (cm); thmax - time for reaching the maximal he-
ight of flight (s); hCGt - horizontal move of CG till the moment of throw (cm); tflg - duration of flight (s); hthr - height of throw (cm); vt
- velocity of throw (m/s); decrmax - decrease of maximal CG height till the throw (cm); tdto/t - time duration from take-off till throw
(s); hCGlan - height of CG in the moment of landing contact (cm).
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
45
In the node “mark” we therefore weighted the
individual phases of the jump shot. Table 5 shows
that the greatest importance was given to the throw-
ing phase (39%). It is followed by the take-off phase
(32%) and flight phase (18%). The lowest impor-
tance was given to the approach and landing phases.
The former because the kinematic analysis included
too few important parameters, and the latter, be-
cause it really does have a minimal import on per-
formance in the jump shot, that is, it does not affect
much the actual quality of the shot execution.
The most important parameters in the individ-
ual phases were defined as duration of a take-off
contact (10.5%), height of a throw (10.5%) and ve-
locity of a throw (12.6%).
We expected that the duration of the take-off
contact would point to quick and elastic strength of
the subjects and, indirectly, would affect the height
of a throw and velocity of the ball at the ball re-
lease moment (actual moment of a throw). A very
interesting kinematic parameter, from the aspect of
technique and tactics of the jump shot performance,
was doubtless the parameter decrease of maximal
height of the CG till the throw (9.5%). Here we can
notice the differences among the individual sub-
jects in the technique of the jump shot execution
since we tried to keep the difference between the
peak CG height and the height of CG at the time of
release to a minimum.
After the basic variables were transformed into
scales, the data on the individual subjects were en-
tered into the next phase on the higher levels of the
decision tree. The computer (program) can give us
both a numerical as well as a descriptive mark and
rank for each subject (Table 6).
Table 6. Ranks, numerical and descriptive values of marks,
obtained by the subjects on the kinematic model by expert
modelling
Rank SUBJECTS Mark
1 S2 3.70 very good
2 S1 3.68 very good
3 S3 3.40 good
4 S7 3.31 good
5 S4 3.28 good
6 S6 3.18 good
7 S10 3.15 good
8 S5 3.05 good
9 S8 2.62 adequate
10 S9 2.29 adequate
In Table 7 we can see the ranking of the indi-
vidual subjects from 1 to 10, according to the mark
given by the three independent referees (1 – best;
10 – worst). The referees were asked to rank the
subjects according to the jump shot performance
assessments.
Table 7. Marks of three independent referees
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10
R1 2 1 3 5 6 8 4 7 10 9
R2 2 1 4 5 9 8 3 7 10 6
R3 1 2 4 6 8 5 3 9 10 7
Legend: R1…R3 - Independent referees; S1….S10 - subjects
The Kendall coefficient of concordance (W),
which was used to find the actual and maximal
congruence between the referees, was statistically
significant (0.875, critical value of W = 0.56). This
means that the three referees were very congruent
in their assessments in spite of the rather complex
system. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient be-
tween the two ranks (rank according to the expert
model and according to the referees) was also sta-
tistically significant.
Table 8. Computation of Spearman’s correlation coefficient
RANKA RANKM
Spearman′s
rho
RANKA
Correlation
Coefficient
1.000 .912**
Sig.
(2-tailed)
. .000
N 10 10
Spearman′s
rho
RANKM
Correlation
Coefficient
.912** 1.000
Sig.
(2-tailed)
.000 .
N 10 10
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Legend:
RANKA – actual rank; RANKM – rank given by referees
Table 8 and previous computations (coefficient
of concordance) clearly showed that a high corre-
lation existed between the two rankings. The high
and statistically significant association is seen from
the correlation coefficient (0.912).
Discussion and conclusions
In sport diagnostics, we rarely use measure-
ments which would help us in assessing the effi-
ciency of an athlete’s technique. Such measure-
ments are namely complicated, and most of all,
the criteria used in the assessment are often un-
clear. This is especially true for handball, where
the individual technical elements are carried out
in the presence of team-mates and the opposing
team players, while observing playing regulations
(Šibila, 2004). In spite of this, mastering the basics
of the playing technique is a prerequisite for effec-
tive performance of typical and untypical variants
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
46
of the individual technical element in the game. It is
especially important to discover and evaluate those
parts of the individual technical element which are
particularly important for an efficient execution of
that element.
The success of shots (expressed as the goal shot
efficiency, i.e. the percentage of throws/scores from
the entire number of shots), belongs to the princi-
pal factors that influence the results or outcomes
of matches in team handball (Zvonarek & Hraski,
1996). Approximately one half of all shots during
a handball match are executed from the backcourt
position and in 60% of them by means of the jump
shot technique (Šibila, 2004). The jump shot from
a straight-on approach undoubtedly belongs to the
most basic technical elements of handball, taught
to the youngest, and often seen at any elite hand-
ball match.
In our study, we tried to construct a kinematic
model of the handball jump shot tehnique, formed
on the basis of expert modelling, to help us in as-
sessing the execution efficiency of this technical
element. On the basis of the obtained data we can
conclude that the level of congruence between the
referees was high (W = 0.875), and that the coeffi-
cient of correlation between the actual ranks (ranks
obtained on the basis of expert modelling) and the
ranks given by the referees was statistically signifi-
cant (0.912). The referees quite easily separated the
various qualitative levels of the jump shot execu-
tion. They were aided in this by the well-conceptu-
alised criteria which the referees used to assess the
quality of the jump shot in its individual phases.
Despite the fact of not comparing kinematic
data of the subjects jump shot performaces with sta-
tistical analysis, we can notice differences between
the individual executions of the jump shots. Differ-
ences are seen in the results of the SPEX program
as well as in the evaluations of the jump shot per-
formances made by the independent referees. Most
of the differences are probably due to the level of
morphological characteristics and motor abilities
of the analysed subjects (Pori & Šibila, 2003), as
well as of the specificities of the playing positions
(Šibila, Vuleta, & Pori, 2004). We did not want to
favour a certain playing position, even though the
sample of subjects consisted of six backcourt play-
ers, two wing players and two pivots. The chosen
technical element - the jump shot with a straight-on
approach – is namely one of the most fundamen-
tal technical elements of handball-specific motor
behaviour. In the process of the gradual training
of young handball players (aged 10-13 yrs) this
jump shot technique is the first to be taught and
learned. At that age the players should master only
the elementary shots. It is true that in the process
of specialisation the players get more information
(knowlegde) about specific shots. But in spite of
that, every well-trained handball player (regard-
less of his/her specialisation to specific playing
positions) should be able to demonstrate the tech-
nically correct basic jump shot technique used in
the present study.
The obtained results are promising since they
show that this approach gives a good assessment of
the kinematic structure in analysing the element.
Therefore, this model can be used also in diagnos-
ing the execution efficiency of the jump shot. An
examination of individual’s data and its compari-
son with the model norms allow one to recognise
imperfections in any part of the shot execution.
In future, it would also be worthwhile to evaluate
other elements of handball-specific skills (espe-
cially the basic shots) in a similar way. It might
make sense to construct models also by playing
positions (back players, wings, pivots), especially
for those elements which are specific for the play-
ing position in question (e.g. sideways inclination
shot from the wing position). It must be made clear
here that such a model cannot include all the rel-
evant variables that affect efficiency, for example,
precision of targeting. And above all, the game effi-
ciency of certain technical element in a match does
not depend exclusively on the fact that a player may
perform perfectly its proper kinematic structure in
an isolated testing environment.
References
Čoh, M., Čuk, I., & Boršnik, A. (1993). Kinematični model skoka v višino, ovrednoten na podlagi ekspertnega
modeliranja [Kinematic model of high jump, evaluated on the basis of expert modelling]. Šport, 41, 41-45.
Jošt, B., Dežman, B., & Pustovrh, J. (1995). Vrednotenje modela uspešnosti v posameznih športnih panogah na podlagi
ekspertnega modeliranja [Evaluating a success model in different sports on the basis of expert modelling].
Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport.
Kastner, J., Pollany, W., & Sobotka, R. (1978). Der Schlagwurf im Handball. [The ground shot in team handball].
Leistungssport, 8(4), 287-298.
Küster, G. (1973). Der Einflus bestimmter Trainingsmethoden auf die Wurfkraft bei Handballspielerinnen
unterschiedlichen Leistungsniveaus [The influence of specific training methods on shot power in different
competitive levels in women team handball]. (Unpublished graduation paper) Cologne: Deutsche Sporthochschule
Köln.
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
47
Leskošek, B. (1995). SPEX - računalniški program za analizo meritev športnikov [SPEX – computer programme for
analysing measurements of athletes]. In V. Kapus & B. Jošt. (Eds.), Računalniško podprt sistem začetnega
izbora in usmerjanja otrok v športne panoge in evalvacija modela uspešnosti v posameznih športnih panogah
na podlagi ekspertnega modeliranja (pp. 46-61). [Computer-aided system of initial selection and orientation
of children into sports disciplines on the basis of expert modelling] Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport.
Müller, E. (1982). Zur Bewegungsübertragung bei Wurfbewegungen [Movement transfer in shots]. Leistungssport,
12 (4), 314-324.
Pori, P., & Šibila M. (2003) Razlike v izbranih morfoloških in motoričnih razsežnostih 17 in 18-letnih rokometašev, ki
igrajo na različnih igralnih mestih [Differences between selected motor and morfological variables of 17 and
18-year-old handball players, playing in different playing positions]. Šport, 51(3), 58-62.
Šibila, M., & Bon, M. (1999). The physiological foundations of the muscle action in the handball goal shot. Handball,
2, 29-36.
Šibila, M., Bon, M., & Štuhec, S. (1999). Kinematic basis of the two different jump shot techniques in the hanball. In
Proceedings of the 6th Sport Kinetics Conference 1999 (pp. 371 – 374). Ljubljana.
Šibila, M. (2004). rokomet - izbrana poglavja. [Handball – selected chapters] Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport.
Šibila, M., Vuleta D., & Pori, P (2004). Position-related differences in volume and intensity of large-scale cyclic
movements of male players in handball. Kinesiology, 36(1), 58-66.
Taborsky, F., Tuma, M., & Zahalka, F. (1999). Characteristics of the woman′s jump shot in handball. Handball, 1(2),
24-28.
Winter, D. A. (1990). Biomechanics and Motoric Control of Human Movement. 2
nd
ed. New York: John Wiley.
Zahalka, F., Tuma, M., & Bunz, V. (1997). 3-D Analysis of the man′s and woman′s jump shot in handball. In
Book of Abstracts – Second Annual Congress of the European College of the Sport Science (pp. 360-366).
Copenhagen.
Zvonarek, N., & Hraski, Ž. (1996). Kinematic basis of the jump shot. Handball, 3, 17-21.
Submitted: September 1, 2002
Accepted: April 4, 2005
Correspondence to:
Assistant Pori Primož, Ph.D.
Faculty of Sport
University of Ljubljana
Gortanova 22, 1110 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Phone: +386 1 520 77 00
Fax: +386 1 520 77 30
E-mail: primoz.pori@sp.uni-lj.si
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
48
Sažetak
Uvod
Skok šut jedan je od najvažnijih specifičnih ele-
menata motoričkog ponašanja u rukometu pa je
zbog toga vrlo važno poznavati njegovu strukturu,
pri čemu nam pomaže kinematička analiza. Samo
na temelju znanstvenih analiza možemo podrobno
opisati tehniku izvođenja dotičnog elementa i po-
vezati je s taktikom igre, ali i izraditi metodičke po-
stupke za učenje i vježbanje, usavršavanje toga
tehničkog elementa.
Stoga je glavni cilj ovoga rada analizirati kine-
matički model rukometnoga skok šuta i vrednovati
ga metodom ekspertnoga modeliranja.
Metode
Uzorak ispitanika sastojao se od desetorice ru-
kometaša, članova slovenskih nacionalnih izabra-
nih momčadi koji svi igraju u prvoj ligi (prosječna
tjelesna visina: 191.1 ± 4.48 cm; prosječna tjelesna
masa: 90.0 ± 4.40 kg, prosječna dob: 23.4 ± 4.2 go-
dine; prosječno igračko i trenažno iskustvo u seni-
orskim momčadima: 5.3 ± 2.1 godine), od toga šest
vanjskih igrača, dva krila i dva kružna napadača.
Svaki je ispitanik, nakon 20-minutnog zagrija-
vanja, izveo tri skok šuta punom snagom. Za priku-
pljanje parametara potrebnih za kinematičku anali-
zu koristili smo uređaj APAS (Ariel Dynamics, Cali-
fornia, USA). Za ekspertno modeliranje koristio se
Ekspertni sutav SPEX. Oblikovali smo stablo od 17
varijabli koje su predstavljale pet faza skok šuta (za-
let, odraz, let, izbačaj lopte, doskok) (tablica 1).
Da bi se provjerila valjanost kinematičkog mo-
dela, tri su neovisna suca također procjenjivala kva-
litetu izvedbe skok šuta svakog ispitanika. Kvaliteta
izvedbe skok šuta pojedinog ispitanika izražena je
prosječnom ocjenom. Definirali smo one parame-
tre za koje smo smatrali da se mogu vizualno do-
voljno kvalitetno procijeniti budući da izvedba skok
šuta traje vrlo kratko (tablica 3). Tako dobiven po-
redak ispitanika usporedili smo s poretkom dobive-
nim ekspertnim modelom SPEX. Na temelju dobi-
venih rezultata konstruirali smo ekspertnu ocjenu
za svakog ispitanika.
Rezultati
Apsolutne vrijednosti kinematičkih parametara
(tablica 4) bili su osnovni ulazni podaci pomoću ko-
jih je bilo moguće konstruirati i procijeniti kinemati-
čki model izvedbe skok šuta sa stajališta tehnike i
na temelju ekspertnog modeliranja.
Nakon unosa podataka oblikovan je odgova-
rajući model stabla odlučivanja. Na lijevoj strani je
prikazana struktura stabla: individualne faze skok
šuta napisane su velikim slovima, a varijable u po-
jedinim fazama napisane su malim slovima (tabli-
ca 5). Najviši čvor predstavlja procjenu izvedbe po-
jedinog ispitanika. Nakon toga su pojedini kinema-
tički parametri ponderirani, čime je svakom čvoru
pridijeljena određena razina važnosti.
U čvoru “mark” ponderirane su pojedine faze
skok šuta. U tablici 5 vidi se da je najveća važnost
pripisana fazi izbačaja (39%), potom fazi odraza
(32%) i fazi leta (18%). Najmanja je važnost pripi-
sana zaletu i doskoku.
Najvažniji parametri za pojedine faze izvedbe
skok šuta definirani su kao “trajanje kontakta s pod-
logom za vrijeme odraza” (10.5%), “visina izbačaja”
(10.5%) i “brzina lopte” (12.6%).
U tablici 6 prikazan je poredak pojedinog ispi-
tanika od prvog do desetog prema ocjenama do-
bivenima iz kinematičkog modela ekspertnim mo-
deliranjem, a u tablici 7 prikazan je poredak prema
procjenama triju nezavisnih sudaca (1. – najbolji;
10. - najlošiji). Stupanj slaganja sudaca bio je vrlo
visok (W = 0.875), a korelacijski koeficijent između
stvarnog (kinematičkog) poretka i sudačkog poret-
ka bio je statistički značajan (0.912).
Rasprava i zaključak
Mjerenja učinkovitosti izvedbe pojedinog teh-
ničkog elementa vrlo su komplicirana, a ni kriteriji
nisu uvijek potpuno jednoznačni. To osobito vrijedi
za rukomet gdje se pojedini tehnički element izvo-
di u nazočnosti i djelovanju suigrača i protivnika,
uz obvezno poštovanje pravila igre. Usprkos tomu,
svaki igrač na svakoj poziciji mora usavršiti sve teh-
ničke elemente kako bi ih mogao izvoditi kao tipične
i netipične varijante. Pri tome je jako važno odrediti
one dijelove pojedinog tehničkog elementa koji su
osobito važni za njegovu učinkovitu izvedbu.
Uspješnost izvedbe udaraca na vrata (izražena
kao postotak šuta) jedan je od ključnih čimbenika
uspješnosti u rukometnoj utakmici – otprilike polovi-
na svih udaraca na vrata izvede se s pozicija vanj-
skih igrača, a od toga 60% tehnikom skok šuta.
Igrači se međusobno razlikuju po načinu izved-
be skok šuta, što se vidi i iz rezultata programa
SPEX i iz ocjena sudaca. Većina razlika vjerojat-
no proizlazi iz razlika u morfološkim i motoričkim
obilježjima pojedinih ispitanika, ali i iz specifičnosti
pojedinih igračkih mjesta za koja su se ispitanici
već specijalizirali. U stvaranju kinematičkog modela
nismo željeli dati prednost nijednoj igračkoj poziciji
zato jer smatramo da je skok šut iz ravnog zaleta
na zonu osnovni element, jedan od onih eleme-
nata rukometne igre koji se prvi uče u stupnjevitoj
izobrazbi rukometaša u dobi od 10 do 13 godina.
Istina je da igrači kasnije, tijekom specijalizacije za
pojedina igračka mjesta, stječu i usavršavaju puno
širi repertoar udaraca na vrata, no opisani skok šut
IZVEDBA SKOK ŠUTA U RUKOMETU – KINEMATIČKI MODEL
PROCIJENJEN EKSPERTNIM MODELIRANJEM
Pori, P., Bon, M. and Šibila, M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49
49
i dalje ostaje osnovni udarac na vrata i svaki obra-
zovani rukometaš mora biti sposoban ispravno de-
monstrirati dotični element.
Dobiveni rezultati su obećavajući jer pokazu-
ju da se tim pristupom može dobro ocijeniti kine-
matička struktura skok šuta. Usporedba podataka
o izvedbi skok šuta pojedinog igrača s modelnim
vrijednostima (modelom) omogućuje da se otkriju
nepravilnosti u izvedbi. Ubuduće bi bilo dobro da
se jednako procijene i drugi rukometni tehnički ele-
menti (osobito sve vrste udaraca na vrata). Bilo bi
dobro da se konstruiraju modeli tehničkih eleme-
nata specifični za pojedinu igračku poziciju. Pritom
valja imati na umu da takav model nikako i nikada
ne može obuhvatiti sve relevantne varijable koje
utječu na učinkovitost, primjerice preciznost. I, što
je još važnije, učinkovitost primjene pojedinog te-
hničkog elementa u utakmici ne ovisi samo o kine-
matičkoj ispravnosti izvedbe. Konačno, držimo da
je tako konstruiran kinematički model skok šuta do-
bar kriterij za procjenu kvalitete izvedbe osnovnih
tehničkih elemenata kod seniora.

Reference points represented in the 3D space the joint centres of the limbs on both sides of the body. A fifteen-segment model of the human body was defined by digitised co-ordinates of 16 reference points. 1997.0 ± 4. Tuma. and evaluate it with an expert modelling method. members of the national Slovenian teams that play in the first national handball division (average height . after a 20-minute warm-up. average training experiences in seniors teams . Even if a player can execute the individual elements sometimes in a non-typical way. and so on till the most distal part – the wrist or the palm.2 years.23. atlas. a reference frame (500cm x 100cm x 100cm) provided the possibility of an analysis in 3D space. bounced the ball and after that they made three steps of approach. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 Introduction Kinematic analyses of elements of specific sport-related motor behaviour (technique) ensure important information. more distal part). average age . & Sobotka. The centre of body gravity (CG) was calculated from Dempster’s via Miller and Nelson anthropometric model (Winter. especially if we connect this knowledge with findings in the physiology of sport. 1999. allowing the development of maximal velocity and control of these parts – this order is from the proximal (central) parts to the distal (distant) parts of the body. Methods The sample of subjects consisted of ten male elite handball players.40 kg. Only on the basis of such findings can we precisely describe the technique of executing the elements and connect it to tactics. & Zahalka. 1990). the wrist after stopping the elbow. First they made three steps. In this way. and Šibila. Each subject executed. Taborsky. California. certain kinematic parameters do exist for most elements that show a greater or lesser efficiency of the element’s execution. Six backcourt players. we can also more easily construct didactic procedures in teaching and training. 1973. 1978. additionally. are as follows: ● The correct order of recruitment of the individual parts of the body is important. it is very important to take into account certain physiological characteristics of muscular effort and try to perform the shot with an eccentric-concentric type of muscular effort since it is more appropriate in the production of greater force. From among all the attempts. they chose a starting position for approach in the middle of the playing court. P. was chosen for further analysis. it is then followed by the next.1 ± 4. at least for some muscular groups (or muscles involved in the shot) there should be the shortest possible time between extension and contrac- tion. Pollany. M. 41 . Šibila. & Štuhec.48 cm.. average body mass . one of the most important elements of the specific handball-related motor behaviour. kinematics methods. ● When executing the shot. etc). All activities in team handball are performed in specific conditions. 1982). 1999. two wing players and two pivots were analysed. & Pustovrh. They performed all shots with maximal effort. It is important to stress that extensors in the wrist of worse players participate much less in the wrist part of the shot than those of better players. Zahalka. one jump shot. Tuma. The velocity of movement of the smaller and lighter parts of the body with lesser inertia is added to the velocity of the bigger ones. The main aim in this contribution is to analyse a kinematic model of the jump shot. Dežman.90. M. expert knowledge and the associated artificial intelligence have enabled a completely new approach of studying the successfulness of athletes on the basis of expert modelling (Jošt. Their selection and execution therefore depend mostly on the situations in the match. & Bon. 1999). 1996. The delaying effect of the antagonistic (opposite) muscles is obviously not completely utilised in this case.5. and.Pori.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL. with the presence of players of the opposing team and while observing playing regulations. First. Therefore. Bon. USA).191. being the most characteristics for the analysed technique for each player. Their approach consisted of two parts. Two SVHS Video cameras operating at 25 frames per second were used for the acquisition of the data (Figure 1).4 ± 4.. achieving the greatest possible velocity at the end part of the kinetic chain (each proximal part offers support for the next. three jump shots. Šibila. Kastner. Electromyography measurements showed that (in ideal conditions) agonistic muscles are completely contracted till the time of maximal velocity of the individual link in the kinematic (throwing) chain and then completely relax with maximal recruitment of antagonists (Müller. The increase of angular velocity of the individual segment of the kinetic chain is connected to the stoppage of the proximal part (angular velocity of the elbow is greater after stopping the movement of the shoulder.. vertex and the ball. 1995). & Bunc.3 ± 2. They performed a take-off in the area which was marked on the free-throw line. which are stressed as their findings by most authors studying the biomechanical characteristics of throws in handball (Küster. Bon. after the registration of eight points. The most proximal part begins the action. Zvonarek & Hraski. The cameras were positioned in such a way that. Data processing was performed by APAS (Ariel Dynamics. representing the basis for an in-depth and precise knowledge of their actual structure. The development of computer technology.1 years). The key characteristics.

the handball this purpose we used the computer program SPEX jump shot was divided into five phases: approach. After the formalism of the knowlsessments. take-off. & To increase the objectivity of the referees’ asBoršnik. Bon. In order to find the validity of this kinematic model. Area in which This tree included the chosen dithe players C1 were analysed mensions. M.centre of gravity 42 .. used the so-called success tree. sic kinematic structure of jump shots at all phases The ranks obtained in this way were compared with were also chosen (Table 2).. throw and landing (Table 1). direction of the take-off. Descripton of individual phases of jump shot Approach Take-off Flight Throw Landing Length of the last stride. sequence of inclusion of joints and muscle groups in the throw Landing on the take-off leg or on both legs. are shown in Table 5. For According to its basic structure. (Leskošek. we formed also a suitable model tree. with which we defined the contribution of the individual The take-off parameters to the final mark of sucarea cessfulness of the branch in question. and Šibila. which formed a system. Čuk. 1995). Sample of variables. P. stopping the eccentric movement of the legs. explosiveness and elasticity of the take-off Preserving the lateral position. we asked three independent referees. flight.Pori. balance Table 2. M. rhythm Placement of the take-off leg. The tree and the decision rules (decision tree). experts Seventeen 17 variables which represent the bain handball. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 edge database (according to the set kinematic model of successfulness in the jump shot) was defined. C2 – camera ematic model of the jump shot we 1 and 2). experience.. according to the kinematic model. 1993). defining the kinematic model of the jump shot Parameters of approach (A): Vertical change of CG height in the last step (cm) (vCGhls) Change of horizontal CG velocity in the last step (m/s) (hCGvls) Change of vertical CG velocity in the last step (m/s) (vCGvls) Decrease of horizontal velocity (m/s (dhv) Increase of vertical velocity (m/s) (ivv) Duration of take-off contact (s) (toc) Height of CG at the end of the take-off (cm) (hCGto) Angle between CG and contact leg at the end of the take-off ( 0) (aCGcl) Maximal height of the flight (cm) (hmax) Time for reaching thepeak height of flight (s) (thmax) Horizontal move of CG till the moment of the release (cm) (hCGt) Duration of flight (s) (tflg) Height of the throw (cm) (hthr) Velocity of the throw (m/s) (vt) Decrease of maximal CG height till the throw (cm) (decrmax) Period from the take-off tillthe release (s) (tdto/t) Height of CG in the moment of landing. lowering of CG in the last stride. The basis for determining the criteria was expert knowledge. the referees assessed the individual Starting area Table 1. For a formalised presentation of the expert system kinFigure 1. the ranks obtained with the expert model SPEX. action of the swing leg Height of the elbow during the throw. The modelling then proceeded according to the didactical steps defined in advance (Čoh. contact with the ground (cm) (hCGlan) Take-off parameters (TO): Parameters of flight (F): Parameters of throw (T): Parameter of landing (L): Legend: CG .: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL. Schematic representation of the measurement procedure (C1. to assess the quality of the jump shot. scientific research of the field and observance of basic biomechanical C2 principles.

but some departure from an ideal execution is seen During the throw the elbow travels a little too low. we defined those parameters in the individual phases which we felt could be visually assessed with sufficient precision (Table 3). take-off. rhythmic Take-off Placement of takeoff leg precisely towards the goal. take-off is vertical. The weights are then given. landing). nonrhythmic. technique and dynamics of execution good Satisfactory height of elbow during throw. M. throw performed only from the elbow. but some deviation from ideal execution is seen. and Šibila. which can mean a worse starting point in the game Landing unreliable. its values are descriptive (1 – unacceptable. On the left side is the tree structure: individual phases of the jump shot were given in capital letters.. uncontrolled lowering of CG Just satisfactory trunk unwinding. throw. the variables in the individual phases in small letters (Table 5). dynamics unsatisfactory Landing on nontake-off leg. swing leg remains too low and acts only in forward direction. intermittent movement Unsatisfactory lateral position. especially in the amortisation phase Average execution. take-off execution not elastic (bad transition from the eccentric to the concentric muscular contraction) Placement of takeoff leg is significantly away from the goal. too quick opening for a throw Elbow travels markedly too low (at or below the shoulders).. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 phases of the jump shot (approach. In order to find the correlation between the ranks obtained by the expert system SPEX and the ranks of the referees (assessing the validity of the expert model of the jump shot) we used the Spearman’s correlation coefficient. 5 – excellent). we therefore obtained a common assessment of the quality of the jump shot for the individual subject. execution is fluent. athlete staggers after landing 5 EXCELLENT 4 VERY GOOD Very good. explosive. After this we formed a suitable model of a decision tree. Results The absolute values of the kinematic parameters (Table 4) represent the basis of those input values (data) with which it is possible to construct and evaluate a kinematic model of performance of the jump shot. We used a five-level criterion scale. execution very nonelastic Very good. explosive execution Landing Optimal landing on take-off leg or on both legs simultaneously with evident amortisation – stiffness of musculotendon apparatus is optimal and allows relaxed forward running at once Execution very good. execution still fluent. showing the importance of the individual kinematic parameters (nodes). take-off directed a little too forward Take-off oriented markedly forward. Bon. breaks in the movement are seen. consequence of the action of swing leg in forward direction Evident departures in length of the last stride and lowering of CG. we defined the common criteria for assessing the individual phases.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL.Pori. The highest node represents an assessment of performance of the subject in the jump shot. but certain departures from the optimal execution can be seen Somewhat too short or too long last stride. especially in the action of the swing leg Execution good but amplitudes of movements average (poor flexibility) Execution very good. correct order of inclusion of muscle groups into the throw.. P. flight. In order to achieve a better homogeneity between the referees. from the viewpoint of technique on the basis of expert modelling. elastic Flight Preservation of optimal lateral position and action of swing leg throughout the flight phase till the throw. with slight loss of balance. rhythmic Very good technical execution. Throw In the throw phase the elbow is high and travels at head height. Description of criterion values for assessing jump shot quality DESCRIPTION OF THE CRITERION VALUES Mark Approach Optimal length of the last stride and simultaneous lowering of CG. but some deviations from optimal execution can be seen. Table 3. Since the motor action in the jump shot is of relatively short duration. after determining the parameters and a precise definition of the execution of the jump shot. non-rhythmic. On the basis of the average mark. execution not fluent. co-ordinatively completely wrong. but small deviations in execution dynamics appear Placement of takeoff leg somewhat apart from the goal. The SPSS statistical package was used for other statistical data analyses. usually consequence of bad execution of previous phases 43 . take-off directed markedly forward. M. Kendall’s concordance coefficient (W) was computed to assess the congruity of the referees in assessing the quality of the jump shot. evident errors in throw technique 3 GOOD 1 UNACCEPTABLE 2 ACCEPTABLE Execution not fluent.

65 274 24. Decision tree of the kinematic model of the jump shot evaluated by expert modelling HFFFFFFFFN o r m a l i s e r s --FFFFFFFFFFI Mark: >=4.9 6.59 2. toc . Bon.1 0.3 0. Table 5.65 283 23. decrmax . thmax .28 135 64 167 0.52 115 S10 -2.1 -1. ivv .increase of vertical velocity (m/s). toc .28 116 0.time for reaching the maximal height of flight (s).5 3. thmax .height of throw (cm).9 -1. hCGto .26 2.velocity of throw (m/s)..25 2.increase of vertical velocity (m/s).77 0.67 308 25.37 116 S6 -2.6 7.31 122 0.2 >=131. hthr . vCGvls .1 0.83 <=0.34 0.82 3.time duration from take-off till throw (s).horizontal move of CG till the moment of throw (cm). hCGto .height of throw (cm).32 3.38 121 Legend: S1….26 114 0.duration of take-off contact (s).decrease of horizontal velocity (m/s).29 162 0.maximal height of the flight (cm). Parameters of the kinematic model of the jump shot and values achieved by the subjects S1 vCGhls (cm) A hCGvls (m/s) vCGvls (m/s) dhv (m/s) ivv (m/s) TO toc (s) hCGto (cm) aCGcl (0) hmax (cm) F thmax (s) hCGt (cm) tflg (s) hthr (cm) T vt (m/s) decrmax (cm) tdto/t (s) L hCGlan (cm) -1. 44 .35 132 S3 -1.26 125 55 166 0.34 0.1 0.31 0.height of CG in the moment of landing contact (cm).angle between CG and contact leg at the end of the take-off ( 0).5 >=123. A – approach.6 0.30 -0.59 262 24.2 -1.24 126 53 171 0. hCGlan . aCGcl .8 -1.67 282 23.34 0. tdto/t .77 -0. tflg .0 20.height of CG in the moment of landing contact (cm).76 0.change of vertical CG velocity in the last step (m/s). hCGt .4 GLFY&*KOV     GLFK&*YOV     GJFY&*YOV! ! ! !  LFTAKE-OFF 31.87 0.20 3.75 284 25.42 2.0 -1.01 -0.height of CG at the end of the take-off (cm).duration of flight (s).1 0.93 -0.31 156 0. T – throw.25 131 52 177 0. tdto/t .change of vertical CG velocity in the last step (m/s)..----------.duration of take-off contact (s).4 -1. M.41 0.25 132 56 184 0.3 0. hmax . hCGlan .3 -1.26 124 54 156 0. ivv . aCGcl .77 0. dhv .69 0.45 123 S4 -1.62 285 25.39 0.decrease of horizontal velocity (m/s).9 GLFKWKU! ! ! !  GLFYW! ! !  >=22.time for reaching the maximal height of flight (s).45 -0.26 105 0.3 23.85 0.27 134 61 171 0. TO – take off. L – landing.0 -1.43 127 S5 -2. decrmax .68 291 24. hthr .change of horizontal CG velocity in the last step (m/s).59 2.33 118 S2 -0.01 -0.9 GLFKPD[! ! ! !  GLFWKPD[     GLFK&*W <=102 <=116 <=130 <=144 GJFWIOJ! ! ! !  LFTHROW 38.0 Weight excellent very good good adequate ----. vCGvls . P.52 108 S9 -2. vt .68 251 22.24 142 58 179 0..0 14.----------. M.60 243 21.change of horizontal CG velocity in the last step (m/ s).28 114 0.height of CG at the end of the take-off (cm).42 117 S8 -2.74 0.29 116 0.angle between CG and contact leg at the end of the take-off ( 0).59 <=0.4 0.vertical change of CG height in the last step (cm).52 2.07 -0.2 JFK&*ODQ 3. hCGvls .0 >=2.9 0.0 >=3.25 143 60 187 0.----------MARK 100.5 >=115.decrease of maximal CG height till the throw (cm). hCGvls .27 140 52 177 0.----------.duration of flight (s).5 2. F – flight.4 GLFGHFUPD[     GJFWGWRW     JFLANDING 3. vt .34 3. tflg .6 GLFGKY 5.0 LFAPPROACH 8.5 >=107.39 118 S7 -0.3 <=0.vertical change of CG height in the last step (cm). hmax .5 >=3. hCGt .Pori.7 5.30 124 0.maximal height of the flight (cm).S10 – subjects.17 -0. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 Table 4. and Šibila.69 -0.85 0.71 <=0.time duration from take-off till throw (s).5 Legend: vCGhls .6 5.decrease of maximal CG height till the throw (cm).1 -1. vCGhls .35 0.33 0.56 -0.77 0.42 0.25 149 0.0 9.horizontal move of CG till the moment of throw (cm).95 GLFLYY! ! ! !  GLFWRF     GLFK&*WR! ! !  >=121 GJFD&*FO-58 55-59 53-61 50-64 LFFLIGHT 17. dhv .7 0.velocity of throw (m/s).78 0.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL.2 -1.37 0.

RANKM – rank given by referees Table 8 and previous computations (coefficient of concordance) clearly showed that a high correlation existed between the two rankings.29 very good very good good good good good good good adequate adequate Table 7.912** . Table 8. Legend: RANKA – actual rank. numerical and descriptive values of marks. Table 6. This means that the three referees were very congruent in their assessments in spite of the rather complex system. We expected that the duration of the take-off contact would point to quick and elastic strength of the subjects and. because it really does have a minimal import on performance in the jump shot.15 3. (2-tailed) N 1. 45 . Such measurements are namely complicated. height of a throw (10.000 10 1. 10 . which was used to find the actual and maximal congruence between the referees. M. P.28 3. M.56). A very interesting kinematic parameter.62 2. obtained by the subjects on the kinematic model by expert modelling Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SUBJECTS S2 S1 S3 S7 S4 S6 S10 S5 S8 S9 Mark 3.000 . from the aspect of technique and tactics of the jump shot performance. The referees were asked to rank the subjects according to the jump shot performance assessments. and the latter. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 In the node “mark” we therefore weighted the individual phases of the jump shot.05 2..01 level (2-tailed). (2-tailed) N Spearman′s rho RANKM Correlation Coefficient Sig. The former because the kinematic analysis included too few important parameters. mastering the basics of the playing technique is a prerequisite for effective performance of typical and untypical variants In Table 7 we can see the ranking of the individual subjects from 1 to 10.912). the criteria used in the assessment are often unclear. was statistically significant (0. would affect the height of a throw and velocity of the ball at the ball release moment (actual moment of a throw). After the basic variables were transformed into scales. and Šibila. Table 5 shows that the greatest importance was given to the throwing phase (39%). where the individual technical elements are carried out in the presence of team-mates and the opposing team players.S10 .40 3. The high and statistically significant association is seen from the correlation coefficient (0. and most of all. critical value of W = 0. we rarely use measurements which would help us in assessing the efficiency of an athlete’s technique.000 10 . indirectly. The lowest importance was given to the approach and landing phases. S1….5%). Ranks. The most important parameters in the individual phases were defined as duration of a take-off contact (10. while observing playing regulations (Šibila.5%).Independent referees. 10 ** Correlation is significant at 0. The computer (program) can give us both a numerical as well as a descriptive mark and rank for each subject (Table 6).. it does not affect much the actual quality of the shot execution. Marks of three independent referees S1 R1 R2 R3 2 2 1 S2 1 1 2 S3 3 4 4 S4 5 5 6 S5 6 9 8 S6 8 8 5 S7 4 3 3 S8 7 7 9 S9 S10 10 10 10 9 6 7 Legend: R1…R3 . Computation of Spearman’s correlation coefficient RANKA RANKM Spearman′s rho RANKA Correlation Coefficient Sig.Pori.875. was doubtless the parameter decrease of maximal height of the CG till the throw (9. Discussion and conclusions In sport diagnostics.31 3. In spite of this.6%).18 3. Here we can notice the differences among the individual subjects in the technique of the jump shot execution since we tried to keep the difference between the peak CG height and the height of CG at the time of release to a minimum. the data on the individual subjects were entered into the next phase on the higher levels of the decision tree. 10 – worst).70 3. This is especially true for handball.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL. It is followed by the take-off phase (32%) and flight phase (18%). 2004).. Bon.912** . The Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the two ranks (rank according to the expert model and according to the referees) was also statistically significant.68 3. that is. according to the mark given by the three independent referees (1 – best.5%) and velocity of a throw (12.000 .subjects The Kendall coefficient of concordance (W).

. M. the percentage of throws/scores from the entire number of shots). 41-45. B. It might make sense to construct models also by playing positions (back players. ovrednoten na podlagi ekspertnega modeliranja [Kinematic model of high jump. G. formed on the basis of expert modelling. Differences are seen in the results of the SPEX program as well as in the evaluations of the jump shot performances made by the independent referees. Most of the differences are probably due to the level of morphological characteristics and motor abilities of the analysed subjects (Pori & Šibila. (1995).g. sideways inclination shot from the wing position). The referees quite easily separated the various qualitative levels of the jump shot execution. (1993). And above all. They were aided in this by the well-conceptualised criteria which the referees used to assess the quality of the jump shot in its individual phases. 41.. But in spite of that. and Šibila. belongs to the principal factors that influence the results or outcomes of matches in team handball (Zvonarek & Hraski. Despite the fact of not comparing kinematic data of the subjects jump shot performaces with statistical analysis. A. 8(4). J. it would also be worthwhile to evaluate other elements of handball-specific skills (especially the basic shots) in a similar way. & Pori. (1978). Der Schlagwurf im Handball. 2004). Kinematični model skoka v višino. 2003). & Sobotka.. In future. It is especially important to discover and evaluate those parts of the individual technical element which are particularly important for an efficient execution of that element. R. taught to the youngest. [The ground shot in team handball]. (Unpublished graduation paper) Cologne: Deutsche Sporthochschule Köln. as well as of the specificities of the playing positions (Šibila. W. An examination of individual’s data and its comparison with the model norms allow one to recognise imperfections in any part of the shot execution.. M.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL. It must be made clear here that such a model cannot include all the relevant variables that affect efficiency. Therefore. Čuk. In our study. The obtained results are promising since they show that this approach gives a good assessment of the kinematic structure in analysing the element. i. We did not want to favour a certain playing position. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 of the individual technical element in the game.the jump shot with a straight-on approach – is namely one of the most fundamental technical elements of handball-specific motor behaviour. In the process of the gradual training of young handball players (aged 10-13 yrs) this jump shot technique is the first to be taught and learned. M. 287-298.. we can notice differences between the individual executions of the jump shots. for example. even though the sample of subjects consisted of six backcourt players. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport. It is true that in the process of specialisation the players get more information (knowlegde) about specific shots. Bon. to help us in assessing the execution efficiency of this technical element.Pori. and that the coefficient of correlation between the actual ranks (ranks obtained on the basis of expert modelling) and the ranks given by the referees was statistically significant (0. Vrednotenje modela uspešnosti v posameznih športnih panogah na podlagi ekspertnega modeliranja [Evaluating a success model in different sports on the basis of expert modelling]. 46 .875). & Pustovrh. the game efficiency of certain technical element in a match does not depend exclusively on the fact that a player may perform perfectly its proper kinematic structure in an isolated testing environment.. B. this model can be used also in diagnosing the execution efficiency of the jump shot. Leistungssport. and often seen at any elite handball match. Küster.912). The chosen technical element . two wing players and two pivots. & Boršnik. Der Einflus bestimmter Trainingsmethoden auf die Wurfkraft bei Handballspielerinnen unterschiedlichen Leistungsniveaus [The influence of specific training methods on shot power in different competitive levels in women team handball]. Approximately one half of all shots during a handball match are executed from the backcourt position and in 60% of them by means of the jump shot technique (Šibila. References Čoh.. Kastner. The success of shots (expressed as the goal shot efficiency. wings. Dežman. On the basis of the obtained data we can conclude that the level of congruence between the referees was high (W = 0. precision of targeting.. I. every well-trained handball player (regardless of his/her specialisation to specific playing positions) should be able to demonstrate the technically correct basic jump shot technique used in the present study.e. Pollany. especially for those elements which are specific for the playing position in question (e. we tried to construct a kinematic model of the handball jump shot tehnique. At that age the players should master only the elementary shots. J. evaluated on the basis of expert modelling]. Vuleta. Šport.. Jošt. The jump shot from a straight-on approach undoubtedly belongs to the most basic technical elements of handball. 1996). 2004). (1973). P. pivots).

Taborsky.Pori. SPEX . Kinesiology. (Eds.. Ljubljana. 46-61). (1997). Šibila. Vuleta D. M. Računalniško podprt sistem začetnega izbora in usmerjanja otrok v športne panoge in evalvacija modela uspešnosti v posameznih športnih panogah na podlagi ekspertnega modeliranja (pp. 51(3). (1990). 58-66.D. Ph. P (2004).. 3-D Analysis of the man′s and woman′s jump shot in handball. Šibila. 3. S. & Štuhec. M. Šibila. Zahalka.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL. M. Pori. Tuma... P. 1110 Ljubljana. Kapus & B. [Computer-aided system of initial selection and orientation of children into sports disciplines on the basis of expert modelling] Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport. V. Position-related differences in volume and intensity of large-scale cyclic movements of male players in handball.pori@sp. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 Leskošek.. 2nd ed. (1999). rokomet . 58-62. 2002 Accepted: April 4. 24-28. P.... Handball. 17-21. Tuma.izbrana poglavja. M.računalniški program za analizo meritev športnikov [SPEX – computer programme for analysing measurements of athletes]. 314-324. & Bon. A. Zur Bewegungsübertragung bei Wurfbewegungen [Movement transfer in shots]. E. Šport. Submitted: September 1. Ž.si 47 . 2. In V. 1(2). & Šibila M. Müller. M. Kinematic basis of the two different jump shot techniques in the hanball.. (1996). ki igrajo na različnih igralnih mestih [Differences between selected motor and morfological variables of 17 and 18-year-old handball players. playing in different playing positions]. Slovenia Phone: +386 1 520 77 00 Fax: +386 1 520 77 30 E-mail: primoz. (1982). Bon. (1995). Kinematic basis of the jump shot. (1999). Faculty of Sport University of Ljubljana Gortanova 22.. 12 (4). F. M. Jošt. Winter. [Handball – selected chapters] Ljubljana: Fakulteta za šport. B. 360-366). N. Bon. New York: John Wiley.... F.). Biomechanics and Motoric Control of Human Movement. Characteristics of the woman′s jump shot in handball. (2003) Razlike v izbranih morfoloških in motoričnih razsežnostih 17 in 18-letnih rokometašev. and Šibila. M. & Hraski. Šibila. 36(1).uni-lj. (2004). & Zahalka. In Book of Abstracts – Second Annual Congress of the European College of the Sport Science (pp. F. M. D. The physiological foundations of the muscle action in the handball goal shot. & Pori.. Copenhagen. Leistungssport. (1999). Handball. Handball. Zvonarek. In Proceedings of the 6th Sport Kinetics Conference 1999 (pp. 2005 Correspondence to: Assistant Pori Primož. 371 – 374). & Bunz. M. 29-36. M.

and Šibila.1 godine). ali i iz specifičnosti pojedinih igračkih mjesta za koja su se ispitanici već specijalizirali. ali i izraditi metodičke postupke za učenje i vježbanje. Nakon unosa podataka oblikovan je odgovarajući model stabla odlučivanja.2 godine. U tablici 6 prikazan je poredak pojedinog ispitanika od prvog do desetog prema ocjenama dobivenima iz kinematičkog modela ekspertnim modeliranjem. Najmanja je važnost pripisana zaletu i doskoku. USA). Većina razlika vjerojatno proizlazi iz razlika u morfološkim i motoričkim obilježjima pojedinih ispitanika.5%) i “brzina lopte” (12. jedan od onih elemenata rukometne igre koji se prvi uče u stupnjevitoj izobrazbi rukometaša u dobi od 10 do 13 godina. M. Definirali smo one parametre za koje smo smatrali da se mogu vizualno dovoljno kvalitetno procijeniti budući da izvedba skok šuta traje vrlo kratko (tablica 3). a korelacijski koeficijent između stvarnog (kinematičkog) poretka i sudačkog poretka bio je statistički značajan (0. tri su neovisna suca također procjenjivala kvalitetu izvedbe skok šuta svakog ispitanika. Nakon toga su pojedini kinematički parametri ponderirani. a varijable u po48 . Stupanj slaganja sudaca bio je vrlo visok (W = 0. U čvoru “mark” ponderirane su pojedine faze skok šuta. Oblikovali smo stablo od 17 varijabli koje su predstavljale pet faza skok šuta (zalet. Uspješnost izvedbe udaraca na vrata (izražena kao postotak šuta) jedan je od ključnih čimbenika uspješnosti u rukometnoj utakmici – otprilike polovina svih udaraca na vrata izvede se s pozicija vanjskih igrača. no opisani skok šut Rezultati Apsolutne vrijednosti kinematičkih parametara (tablica 4) bili su osnovni ulazni podaci pomoću kojih je bilo moguće konstruirati i procijeniti kinematički model izvedbe skok šuta sa stajališta tehnike i na temelju ekspertnog modeliranja. uz obvezno poštovanje pravila igre. Igrači se međusobno razlikuju po načinu izvedbe skok šuta. Samo na temelju znanstvenih analiza možemo podrobno opisati tehniku izvođenja dotičnog elementa i povezati je s taktikom igre.najlošiji). Da bi se provjerila valjanost kinematičkog modela. Svaki je ispitanik. od toga šest vanjskih igrača. Usprkos tomu. Pri tome je jako važno odrediti one dijelove pojedinog tehničkog elementa koji su osobito važni za njegovu učinkovitu izvedbu.Pori.40 kg. Bon. . što se vidi i iz rezultata programa SPEX i iz ocjena sudaca.1 ± 4. članova slovenskih nacionalnih izabranih momčadi koji svi igraju u prvoj ligi (prosječna tjelesna visina: 191. stječu i usavršavaju puno širi repertoar udaraca na vrata.. Istina je da igrači kasnije. prosječna tjelesna masa: 90.875).5%). Na temelju dobivenih rezultata konstruirali smo ekspertnu ocjenu za svakog ispitanika. prosječna dob: 23. “visina izbačaja” (10. odraz. jedinim fazama napisane su malim slovima (tablica 5). Kvaliteta izvedbe skok šuta pojedinog ispitanika izražena je prosječnom ocjenom. let. Na lijevoj strani je prikazana struktura stabla: individualne faze skok šuta napisane su velikim slovima. potom fazi odraza (32%) i fazi leta (18%). usavršavanje toga tehničkog elementa. nakon 20-minutnog zagrijavanja. Stoga je glavni cilj ovoga rada analizirati kinematički model rukometnoga skok šuta i vrednovati ga metodom ekspertnoga modeliranja. prosječno igračko i trenažno iskustvo u seniorskim momčadima: 5. izveo tri skok šuta punom snagom. a ni kriteriji nisu uvijek potpuno jednoznačni. a od toga 60% tehnikom skok šuta. Najvažniji parametri za pojedine faze izvedbe skok šuta definirani su kao “trajanje kontakta s podlogom za vrijeme odraza” (10. doskok) (tablica 1). čime je svakom čvoru pridijeljena određena razina važnosti.. Tako dobiven poredak ispitanika usporedili smo s poretkom dobivenim ekspertnim modelom SPEX. Za prikupljanje parametara potrebnih za kinematičku analizu koristili smo uređaj APAS (Ariel Dynamics.3 ± 2. Najviši čvor predstavlja procjenu izvedbe pojedinog ispitanika. pri čemu nam pomaže kinematička analiza. California.6%). a u tablici 7 prikazan je poredak prema procjenama triju nezavisnih sudaca (1. dva krila i dva kružna napadača.48 cm. tijekom specijalizacije za pojedina igračka mjesta. Za ekspertno modeliranje koristio se Ekspertni sutav SPEX. U tablici 5 vidi se da je najveća važnost pripisana fazi izbačaja (39%). M. U stvaranju kinematičkog modela nismo željeli dati prednost nijednoj igračkoj poziciji zato jer smatramo da je skok šut iz ravnog zaleta na zonu osnovni element.912). To osobito vrijedi za rukomet gdje se pojedini tehnički element izvodi u nazočnosti i djelovanju suigrača i protivnika. Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 IZVEDBA SKOK ŠUTA U RUKOMETU – KINEMATIČKI MODEL PROCIJENJEN EKSPERTNIM MODELIRANJEM Sažetak Uvod Skok šut jedan je od najvažnijih specifičnih elemenata motoričkog ponašanja u rukometu pa je zbog toga vrlo važno poznavati njegovu strukturu.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL.4 ± 4. 10. izbačaj lopte. svaki igrač na svakoj poziciji mora usavršiti sve tehničke elemente kako bi ih mogao izvoditi kao tipične i netipične varijante. – najbolji.. P. Metode Uzorak ispitanika sastojao se od desetorice rukometaša. Rasprava i zaključak Mjerenja učinkovitosti izvedbe pojedinog tehničkog elementa vrlo su komplicirana.0 ± 4.

Bon. Dobiveni rezultati su obećavajući jer pokazuju da se tim pristupom može dobro ocijeniti kinematička struktura skok šuta. držimo da je tako konstruiran kinematički model skok šuta dobar kriterij za procjenu kvalitete izvedbe osnovnih tehničkih elemenata kod seniora. učinkovitost primjene pojedinog tehničkog elementa u utakmici ne ovisi samo o kinematičkoj ispravnosti izvedbe..Pori. primjerice preciznost. M. Ubuduće bi bilo dobro da se jednako procijene i drugi rukometni tehnički elementi (osobito sve vrste udaraca na vrata). Pritom valja imati na umu da takav model nikako i nikada ne može obuhvatiti sve relevantne varijable koje utječu na učinkovitost. I. Bilo bi dobro da se konstruiraju modeli tehničkih elemenata specifični za pojedinu igračku poziciju. 49 . P... Kinesiology 37(2005) 1:40-49 i dalje ostaje osnovni udarac na vrata i svaki obrazovani rukometaš mora biti sposoban ispravno demonstrirati dotični element. M. and Šibila. Konačno. što je još važnije.: JUMP SHOT PERFORMANCE IN TEAM HANDBALL. Usporedba podataka o izvedbi skok šuta pojedinog igrača s modelnim vrijednostima (modelom) omogućuje da se otkriju nepravilnosti u izvedbi.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful