Rationing training load In accordance to some biomechanical approaches for developing shooting from jump up skill in handball dr.mrwan aly abudalla (1), dr.amr soliman mohamed (2) (1)Assistant Professor, Department of Athletic Training, College of Physical Education, Minia University, (2)Assistant Professor, Department of kensiology, College of Physical Education, Minia University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract Current research aims to rationing the components of the training load for develop the performance level of shooting from jump skill in Handball through the Guided of some biomechanical variables of the actual performance, In an attempt by the researchers to Optimum employ for these variables in a scientific form in the service of training Process,and approximating the disparities between the new coach and how own a long experience andaway from theguesswork in adjusting those loads and planning prior to target a particular level,the researchers used the experimental method with the two groups system and pre - post measurements to its suitability of the nature of recent research,research was applied on a sample of (18) Eighteen handball players in malawy team, (Age 22 ±1 year, Height 1.81±0.04m, Weight 73±1 kg) Divided into two equivalent groups, the experimental group had underwent to the Systematized exercises in light of biomechanical variables while control group underwent the same training, but with typical rationing ways, In light of what has been viewed from previous studies in this area and what Was obtained from the results, the researchers could estimate the components of the training load for the development of the shooting with jump skill in handball including specifications necessary for the success of the shooting process to perform their purpose and the difficulty of defending or address them, Consequently the researchers applied that in fact in the light of the differences between the two pre and postmeasurements for the sample in the performance level of skill under discussion, The results are in favor of the post measurement, as a result of the effectiveness of the effect of the estimation method proposed, and the researchers recommended the following proposed method for rationing the loads of training for all skills with a variety of sports. Key words: Biomechanical approaches, rationing training load from the standpoint of biomechanics Introduction: Athletic Training is a Crucible, which the laws and principles of the natural sciences and the humanities fused in it as a process of educational aims to reach with the player to the optimal level of sports, Which permitted by the abilities and aptitudes and potentials allows him, that fall naturally under biological requirements to him and that govern the his performance and the possibility of the development with a variety of sports activities Thus the diversity of physical and technical requirements and energy production systems for each of them.
Mohamed aly alkot (1999) noted that when talking about the development of athletic levels into account these requirements, which can be evaluated through of biomechanical measurements, which covers the physical and technical aspects with the stability of the psychological factors, thus, the choice exercises carefully and rationing load, in a scientific manner, in the functional and physical and skill efficiency at sports for the player, and achieve the objective of the training process, It is important to consider the principle of privacy in training in terms of the direction of the muscle work, according to the energy producing System at performances of skill, when the trend for rationing of training load should be focusing on the both the training intensity and size through development of energy production systems and functional changes associated. We can improve the ability of athletic aerobic and anaerobic, which is reflected directly on the level of performance skills (13: 10 13). We mean the components of the training: first load is a burden of physical and nervous actually vital organs player, second: the size mean and number of iterations means renderings concerned skill development within the groups Second the size and mean number of repeat performances involved skills development within the groups representing the act time in training, in addition to the rest periods, of the most important indicators that can be guided us to control the content of training doses the time of energy production systems, by identifying the temporal distribution of the stages of performance to determine the training volume and the pulls rate, as a quick positive information is given to the coach abut organs functional Reactions in the field and then directing the training load, In addition to some biomechanical variables as kinetic energy, Power and work that enter the body mass and muscle strength product and the direction of its work in its Structure to determine the intensity load level. Sareh Abdul-Karim al-fadhli (2005) refers that we can Consideration biomechanics and its contents of the theories and laws associated with the human body actively, which could be applied after the provision of the required data from the movement analysis, which is a scientific tool to deal with all the tasks associated with studying the performance skills, as provides information about it in Submitted digitally accurate description, this requires knowledge of technical information about any skill in the light of a group of foundations that help to determine the kinetic actions required to accomplish this performance (17: 7). Handball sport need for the two types of anaerobic and aerobic training, as they both play an important role in developing technical performance skills in handball, each of skills (shooting, Passing, deception, bulwark of defense and the corresponding defense) is requiring skills well
prepared for the players to develop their anaerobic ability, while showing the importance of aerobic training as required the game of performance continuity for long periods of up to 90 minutes in some crucial games and that may take a long time through extra time to determine the result of the game, the shooting in handball is the main goal of the attack plans and It is the boundary between victory and defeat, The skills and basic types of attack plans become useless if it doesn t culminate in the end, with the successful shooting. Through the researchers note the decrease of player s inability to reach the maximum of their external abilities through the performance skills due to the adoption of their coaches in the legalization of the load on the pulse as an indicator of the performance of the motor only, and the omission of many other important indicators as a time of performance, speed and body mass, power and work expended, as many coaches when developing their training programs on basic skills they put repeats within their training program in estimate mod not Expresses the amount or the real repeats that must be played by the player according to his abilities, the same applies to the intensity of training, Because there are individual differences between the players and the difference in their abilities and their morphological specifications, and knowing it is of particular importance in the preparation and planning for the performance level of a particular specifications technical are necessary for the success of their objective. So the researchers turned to try to apply a new approach to legalize the training load, to develop the skill of shooting by high jump in handball in the light of some of the biomechanical indicators, and get to know the result of that application, Compared to the manner used by coaches, especially because of the noticeable lack of research in the area touched to that direction, and limitations on the study of the physiological and mechanical parameters as a function or as indicators to put Specialized exercises, or used as Evaluation criteria such as khaled Ramadan Mohamed study (2004)(6), and Mahmud Saied thabet study (2011)(9), and marwan Abdulla,amr soliman, Mohamed soliman study (2007)(10), and Mohamed fkry Saied (2000)(14), or identify the impact of training programs on effective performance skills in the light of energy production systems and their impact on the levels of performance, as Mohamed abd almaged almorsy study (2010)(12), khaled ahmed study (2009)(5), ahmed abd alhamed kodb study (2007)(2), ahmed Mohamed zaky study (2006)(3), or to use as an indicator to rationing game training load as blal mosaad Mohamed study (2006)(4) Research aim: the current research aims to rationing the training load from some biomechanical approaches for some special exercises to develop shooting by jump up skill in handball by achieving the following sub-goals:
1- Measuring biomechanical performance variables that target to research sample in its two groups. 2- Rationing components of the training load to special exercises for shooting skill under the Search in the light of the biomechanical indicators and energy producing system time. 3- Recognition the impact of the proposed systematized technique drills and compared it with typical style on some physical and technician skills variables that Special with high jump shoot for the research sample. Research hypotheses: 1- Biomechanical measurements show that there is a difference between what the players play and what they can within the limits of its actual applets. 2- can rationing training loads in light of biomechanical approaches as a innovative alternatives 3- There are statistically significant differences between the means two measures in the pre and post test in the biomechanical variables for each group separately in favor of post test. 4- There are statistically significant differences between the means two post measurements for the two research groups in biomechanical variables in favor of the experimental group. Research procedures: Methods and materials: The researchers used the experimental method with design two groups, one control group and the other experimental using pre and post measurements to them due to suitability to the nature of the research, that the research community included handball players in Minia Governorate registered in the Premier training League (b) and for the season 2013-2014, mallawy, Beni Mazar, Dermwas clubs, so the research sample was chosen by deliberate way for handball malawy club players one of the first division clubs in Premier League (b) (n=18) in 2013 2014, Were divided into two equivalent groups strength each of them (9) players One experimental was rationing training load for own shooting exercises according to her biomechanical approaches, The other control group used with boilerplate-style rationing. Statistical analysis: The researchers calculated a moderate frequency distribution of the sample in the variables under consideration, as shown in Table (1), and the researchers finding of equivalence between the experimental and control groups in the measurements under consideration, as shown in Table (2).
Table (1) Mean, median, standard deviation and coefficient of sprains of The variables under discussion (n = 18) parameters sample (n=18) experimental group (n=9) control group (n=9) data mean median st.dv ± mean median st.dv ± mean median st.dv ± cofsp cofsp cofsp Age (year) 22 22 0.6 0 21.88 22 0.57-0.65 22.12 22.1 0.65 0.09 Wight (kg) 73 73 1.24 0 73.11 73 1.27 0.26 72.89 73 1.27-0.26 head length (cm) 24 24 0.69 0 23.89 24 0.78-0.43 24.11 24 0.6 0.55 hand length (cm) 20 20 0.84 0 20 20 0.87 0 20 20 0.87 0 forearm length (cm) 30 30 0.89 0 30.06 30 0.81 0.21 29.94 30 1.01-0.18 upper arm length (cm) 29 29 0.84 0 28.78 29 0.83-0.8 29.22 29 0.83 0.8 arm length (cm) 79 79 1.67 0 78.83 79 1.8-0.28 79.17 79 1.62 0.31 trunk length (cm) 49.67 50 0.84-1.19 49.44 49 0.88 1.51 49.89 50 0.78-0.42 thigh length (cm) 48.67 49 0.84-1.19 48.44 48 0.88 1.51 48.89 49 0.78-0.42 shank length (cm) 51 51 0.84 0 51.22 51 0.83 0.8 50.78 51 0.83-0.8 foot length (cm) 29 29 0.84 0 28.78 29 0.83-0.8 29.22 29 0.83 0.8 ankle high (cm) 6 6 0.77 0 6 6 0.71 0 6 6 0.87 0 leg length (cm) 106 106 1.24 0 105.67 106 1-1 106.33 106 1.41 0.7 total length (cm) 179.33 180 1.81-1.1 179 180 1.58-1.9 179.67 180 2.06-0.48 leg power (cm) 2.63 2.63 0.05 0 2.63 2.6 0.05 1.66 2.63 2.64 0.05-0.6 arm power 16 16 0.77 0 16.11 16 0.93 0.36 15.89 16 0.6-0.55 speed motor (m/s) 4.46 4.46 0.11 0.14 4.45 4.45 0.09-0.04 4.47 4.46 0.13 0.23 shoulder flexible (cm) 19 19 0.97 0 19.22 19 0.83 0.8 18.78 19 1.09-0.61 Compatibility eyehand 6.11 6 0.83 0.4 6.22 6 0.67 1 6 6 1 0 Accuracy (deg) 4.94 5 0.8-0.21 4.89 5 0.78-0.43 5 5 0.87 0 Seen from the table (1) that the values of coefficients sprains measurements under discussion for the research sample as a whole, as well as two groups of control and experimental research are all confined between (± 3), which refers to the distribution of the research sample Moderate in those variables
Table (2) Significance of differences between the experimental and control groups in The measurements under discussion way Mann Whitney nonparametric (n = 18) parameters ex. group (n=9) co. group (n=9) data m st.dv ± m st.dv ± Average ranks U W Z POE age 21.88 0.57 22.12 0.65 8.44 10.56 31 76-0.85 0.39 Wight 73.11 1.27 72.89 1.27 9.39 9.61 39.5 84.5-0.09 0.93 head length 23.89 0.78 24.11 0.6 8.72 10.28 33.5 78.5-0.69 0.49 hand length 20 0.87 20 0.87 9.50 9.50 40.5 85.5 0 1 forearm length 30.06 0.81 29.94 1.01 10.06 8.94 35.5 80.5-0.46 0.65 upper arm length 28.78 0.83 29.22 0.83 8.17 10.83 28.5 73.5-1.12 0.26 arm length 78.83 1.8 79.17 1.62 9.17 9.83 37.5 82.5-0.27 0.79 trunk length 49.44 0.88 49.89 0.78 8.22 10.78 29 74-1.08 0.28 thigh length 48.44 0.88 48.89 0.78 8.22 10.78 29 74-1.08 0.28 shank length 51.22 0.83 50.78 0.83 10.83 8.17 28.5 73.5-1.12 0.26 foot length 28.78 0.83 29.22 0.83 8.17 10.83. 28.5 73.5-1.12 0.26 ankle high 6 0.71 6 0.87 9.5 9.5 40.5 85.5 0 1 leg length 105.67 1 106.33 1.41 8.17 10.83 28.5 73.5-1.1 0.27 total length 179 1.58 179.67 2.06 8.16 10.39 32.5 77.5-0.78 0.44 leg power 2.63 0.05 2.63 0.05 9.28 9.72 38.5 83.5-0.18 0.86 arm power 16.11 0.93 15.89 0.6 9.94 9.06 36.5 81.5-0.4 0.69 speed motor 4.45 0.09 4.47 0.13 8.89 10.11 35 80-0.49 0.63 shoulder flexible 19.22 0.83 18.78 1.09 10.56 8.44 31 76-0.88 0.38 Compatibility eye-hand 6.22 0.67 6 1 10.44 8.56 32 77-0.81 0.42 Accuracy 4.89 0.78 5 0.87 9.17 9.83 37.5 82.5-0.28 0.78 Seen from the table (2) the presence of non-statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in terms of the variables under discussion that all the values of probability of error greater significance level of 0.05, which refers to the equality of the two groups in these variables. A) Exploratory experiment: Exploratory study was conducted on a sample of the research community and from outside the original sample of (12) players from the Handball team of Beni Mazar club, from 4 8 / 1 / 2014, the study aimed to identify the variables critical in the development of biomechanical performance level, The time of energy production of shooting with jump up skill performance in Handball, as well as identify the necessary s to rationalize training loads in accordance with the biomechanical approaches, In addition to identifying the obstacles and difficulties that may impede researchers through the application of the basic study and the optimal timing of the application and the needs of the equipment, and assistants.
b) Tests used in the research: researchers used the following tests First: physical tests 1. Test to measure the ability of the muscle legs. 2. Test to measure the ability of muscle to arms. 3. Test measuring speed motor 4. Test to measure the compatibility between the eye and the hand Second: test skills Test the performance level of shooting Research sets and tools: 1- Sets ( computer two digital camera ) 2- Tools ( measurement tap - reflex fixed points - handballs handball playground player sheets- heavy balls high jump set - jump box hurdles - Elastic rope Curtain shooting angle - Tennis balls Stopwatch - Cones ). Scientific tests of transactions under discussion: The researchers using the tests in question on the basis of scientific references for each of (Mackenzie (2002) (7) and (2000) (8), McGill (2007) (11), Mohamed sobhy and kmal abd alhamed (2002) (16), Mohamed Hassan allawy and Nasr Aden Rdwan (2001) (15), as well as previous studies as a study of Ahmed babul hammed Kotb (2007) (2) and the study of Khaled Ahmed El-Borai (2009) (5), and the study of Ahmed Mohamed Zaki (2006) (3), and the study of Mahmud Sayed thabet (2011) (9), which indicated all to these tests have high validity and reliability coefficients varies between (70.23: 95.8). Basic Experience from 12/1/2014 till 27/2/2014 The basic experiment has been applied in two phases: First: pre test (12 16 / 1 / 2014) was it follows - Identify the values of the variables for biomechanical shooting with high jump skill in handball for the two sets of research and time producing its own energy. - Identify deficiencies in the actual performance of the experimental group. - Determine the exercises that will be rationed according to the entrances and biomechanical system energy production for Special shooting with high jump skill that was rationing according to the following equations : Speed = stride length stride frequency Kinetic energy = 0.5 mass (speed) 2 Stride length = distance / stride count Force = mass acceleration Stride frequency = time / stride count Power = force speed Stride frequency = stride count total time Repetition count= energy system time effort time (1 : 33 110). The temporal distribution of the selected exercises 1- Researchers were selected (12) Exercise to develop the level of performance of shooting with high jump skill, and were divided into (4) exercises for the development phase
approach (4) exercises to develop tack off (4) exercises for the development of arm movement shooting. 2- was performed with skill workouts shooting, that wear rationed according to biomechanical approach and energy producer system to shooting with high jump skill on the experimental group in rang (4) unit weekly with range (6) exercise in every unit in time (30) minuet from the time of basic unit time for (6) weeks, when the control group do the seam exercise that rationing by the coach in the seam period time of training unit. 3- the application of the proposed method of rationing From 19/1/2014 to 27/2/2014 The second: Post measurement of the two groups of research and Survey results (1-07/03/2014). Statistical treatments: The researchers used what are appropriate laws of speed, strength, power and kinetic energy that necessary for biomechanical treatments and created biomechanical differences between the two measurements pre and post between the experimental and control groups testing the significance of differences by Mann Whitney nonparametric test and significance of differences per set, and the two equal groups using statistical software (spss v11), and addition to the average and standard deviation and coefficient of variation. Results and discussion: The researchers section the research results according to the s followed in extracted as follows: First-the results of the pre test measurements include: 1) Biomechanical variables Results for measuring the actual sample (diagnostic phase). 2) Preparation the report Guide to controls rationing loads the optimal training methods in light of the current situation. Second: the results of the post test for each group separately 1) Biomechanical variables Results for research sample 2) Results of the significant differences between the two pre and post tests for each research groups separately. 3) Results of the significant differences between the two research group in post tests.
First: Pre tests results Table (3) Biomechanical results for experimental group (diagnostic phase) (N=9) pre-test Parameters Experimental group Statistic phase data player N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 max min rang average st.dv approach tack off flay shoot effectiveness approach distance 2.50 1.92 2.16 2.32 2.21 2.37 2.48 2.44 2.51 2.51 1.92 0.58 2.32 0.19 approach time (s) 0.64 0.48 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.48 0.16 0.60 0.06 kinetic energy in approach (J) 563.06 603.00 533.89 645.84 569.78 493.64 539.17 522.58 560.87 645.84 493.64 152.20 559.09 45.05 body velocity in touchdown (m/s) 3.90 4.01 3.85 4.15 3.95 3.70 3.87 3.81 3.92 4.15 3.70 0.45 3.91 0.13 body velocity in tack off (m/s) 2.99 3.13 3.01 3.35 3.00 2.95 2.99 2.95 2.98 3.35 2.95 0.40 3.04 0.13 loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 0.91 0.89 0.84 0.80 0.95 0.75 0.88 0.86 0.94 0.95 0.75 0.20 0.87 0.07 force in tack off (N) 335.59 414.84 377.46 298.88 433.35 269.64 317.88 385.20 430.20 433.35 269.64 163.71 362.56 59.65 distance push 0.69 0.57 0.55 0.75 0.56 0.67 0.69 0.54 0.55 0.75 0.54 0.21 0.62 0.08 power in tack off (J) 1156.95 1479.96 1295.29 1121.23 1506.35 897.50 1089.85 1302.75 1483.56 1506.35 897.50 608.86 1259.27 209.87 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 439.75 477.26 423.93 527.77 441.04 398.84 423.17 411.77 434.08 527.77 398.84 128.92 441.96 38.93 Cg high in tack off 1.09 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.09 1.06 0.03 1.07 0.01 tack off time (s) 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.02 Flay angel (degree) 27.15 33.25 30.21 34.35 29.12 27.00 28.32 26.55 26.45 34.35 26.45 7.90 29.16 2.92 Flay horizontal distance 0.87 0.59 0.78 0.55 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.55 0.41 0.82 0.15 cg high max in faly 1.18 1.19 1.19 1.22 1.17 1.16 1.19 1.16 1.14 1.22 1.14 0.08 1.18 0.02 flay time (s) 0.33 0.23 0.30 0.20 0.32 0.35 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.20 0.16 0.31 0.06 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) 0.32 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.08 0.28 0.04 Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) 18.00 17.50 16.00 18.00 17.00 15.50 17.00 16.00 16.00 18.00 15.50 2.50 16.78 0.94 Movement range for shooting sowing 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.03 0.23 0.01 Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) 56.25 72.92 66.67 75.00 70.83 48.44 53.13 5 5 75.00 48.44 26.56 60.36 10.88 Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) 6 65.00 64.00 66.00 55.00 25.00 5 63.00 55.00 66.00 25.00 41.00 55.89 12.79 Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 187.50 270.83 266.67 275.00 229.17 78.13 156.25 196.88 171.88 275.00 78.13 196.88 203.59 64.76 Shooting velocity (m/s) 202.50 292.50 288.00 297.00 247.50 84.38 168.75 212.63 185.63 297.00 84.38 212.63 219.88 69.94 angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 3475.17 6688.40 7042.91 6949.50 5142.49 866.07 2305.12 3387.85 2844.40 7042.91 866.07 6176.84 4300.21 2246.12 shooting high (cm) 207.00 203.55 208.15 207.00 203.55 205.85 207.00 207.00 203.55 208.15 203.55 4.60 205.85 1.82 shooting angel (deg) 12.32 15.00 14.00 13.01 14.50 15.00 12.00 11.00 14.00 15.00 11.00 4.00 13.43 1.42 accuracy mentoring (deg) 5.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 4.89 0.78 time of the energy producer system (s) Anaerobic system < 10
Table (4) Biomechanical results for control group (diagnostic phase) (N=9) pre-test Parameters control group Statistic phase data player N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 max min rang average st.dv approach tack off flay shoot effectiveness approach distance 2.13 2.27 2.48 2.40 2.46 2.45 1.98 2.52 2.53 2.53 1.98 0.55 2.36 0.19 approach time (s) 0.56 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.48 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.48 0.16 0.60 0.06 kinetic energy in approach (J) 532.87 574.65 549.77 514.65 531.67 536.81 629.58 568.05 579.05 629.58 514.65 114.93 557.46 34.75 body velocity in touchdown (m/s) 3.80 4.05 3.88 3.76 3.84 3.84 4.13 3.95 3.96 4.13 3.76 0.37 3.91 0.12 body velocity in tack off (m/s) 3.12 3.31 2.96 2.88 2.79 2.90 3.21 2.89 2.97 3.31 2.79 0.53 3.00 0.17 loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 0.67 0.74 0.93 0.88 1.06 0.94 0.92 1.06 0.98 1.06 0.67 0.39 0.91 0.13 force in tack off (N) 310.75 322.88 337.63 401.50 380.16 342.37 425.50 482.71 364.08 482.71 310.75 171.96 374.18 55.11 distance push 0.55 0.59 0.68 0.53 0.66 0.67 0.59 0.55 0.69 0.69 0.53 0.16 0.61 0.06 power in tack off (J) 1074.91 1189.15 1154.17 1330.97 1260.23 1152.42 1559.46 1648.95 1261.17 1648.95 1074.91 574.03 1292.38 193.20 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 442.71 474.76 426.54 401.11 395.61 413.54 496.99 425.92 443.97 496.99 395.61 101.38 435.68 33.31 Cg high in tack off 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.08 1.06 1.10 1.10 1.06 0.04 1.08 0.01 tack off time (s) 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.04 0.18 0.02 Flay angel (degree) 31.02 31.62 28.47 24.33 25.64 26.41 36.12 24.66 25.00 36.12 24.33 11.79 28.14 4.03 Flay horizontal distance 0.73 0.80 0.82 0.94 0.93 0.90 0.50 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.45 0.83 0.15 cg high max in faly 1.20 1.23 1.19 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.22 1.12 1.17 1.23 1.12 0.11 1.17 0.04 flay time (s) 0.27 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.19 0.18 0.32 0.06 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.08 0.29 0.04 Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) 16.00 16.00 15.00 15.00 16.00 15.00 17.00 17.00 18.00 18.00 15.00 3.00 16.11 1.05 Movement range for shooting sowing 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.03 0.22 0.01 Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) 66.67 66.67 46.88 46.88 5 46.88 70.83 53.13 56.25 70.83 46.88 23.96 56.02 9.63 Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) 55.00 62.00 75.00 35.00 16.00 6 5 66.00 54.00 75.00 16.00 59.00 52.56 17.64 Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 229.17 258.33 234.38 109.38 5 187.50 208.33 206.25 168.75 258.33 5 208.33 183.56 66.10 Shooting velocity (m/s) 247.50 279.00 253.13 118.13 54.00 202.50 225.00 222.75 182.25 279.00 54.00 225.00 198.25 71.39 angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 6489.49 6420.08 5025.26 1339.45 506.50 3523.08 4636.62 3771.04 2862.85 6489.49 506.50 5983.00 3841.60 2065.82 shooting high (cm) 205.85 207.00 207.00 207.00 209.30 209.30 208.15 207.00 212.75 212.75 205.85 6.90 208.15 2.07 shooting angel (deg) 12.00 13.00 15.00 14.00 16.00 12.00 11.00 13.00 15.00 16.00 11.00 5.00 13.44 1.67 accuracy mentoring (deg) 4.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 0.87 time of the energy producer system (s) Anaerobic system < 10 Seen from the table (3.4) the values of the biomechanical variables and time system energy output as an answer to the first hypothesis, and in order to achieve the first goal of the search
Rationing loads in light the biomechanical variables: Table (5/1) Intensity for developing approach variables player N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Intensity TWCD DWCT DWCT DWCT TWCD DWCT TWCD DWCT TWCD DWCT TWCD DWCT TWCD 100% 0.56 2.21 2.48 2.67 0.48 2.43 0.56 2.54 0.56 2.45 0.56 2.55 0.56 95% 0.57 2.16 2.42 2.60 0.49 2.36 0.57 2.47 0.57 2.44 0.57 2.51 0.57 90% 0.59 2.10 2.35 2.54 0.51 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 85% 0.61 2.04 2.29 2.46 0.52 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 80% 0.63 1.98 2.22 2.39 0.54 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 75% 0.65 1.92 2.15 2.31 0.55 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 TWCD time with constant distance DWCT distance with constant time Table (5/2) Intensity for developing tack off variables player N 1 2 3 Intensity v t d v t d v t d 100% 4.17 0.12 0.50 4.31 0.10 0.43 4.14 0.10 0.41 95% 4.06 0.13 0.54 4.20 0.11 0.46 4.03 0.11 0.44 90% 3.96 0.15 0.58 4.09 0.12 0.49 3.93 0.12 0.47 85% 3.84 0.16 0.61 3.97 0.13 0.52 3.82 0.13 0.50 80% 3.73 0.17 0.65 3.86 0.14 0.54 3.70 0.14 0.52 75% 3.61 0.19 0.67 3.73 0.15 0.56 3.58 0.15 0.54 70% 3.49 0.20 0.70 3.61 0.16 0.58 3.46 0.16 0.55 player N 4 5 6 Intensity v t d v t d v t d 100% 4.47 0.14 0.63 4.33 0.08 0.35 4.07 0.12 0.49 95% 4.36 0.15 0.65 4.22 0.09 0.39 3.96 0.13 0.53 90% 4.24 0.16 0.68 4.11 0.11 0.44 3.86 0.15 0.57 85% 4.12 0.17 0.70 3.99 0.12 0.48 3.75 0.16 0.60 80% 4.00 0.18 0.72 3.87 0.13 0.52 3.64 0.17 0.63 75% 3.87 0.19 0.74 3.75 0.15 0.55 3.52 0.19 0.66 70% 3.74 0.20 0.75 3.62 0.16 0.58 3.40 0.20 0.68 player N 7 8 9 Intensity v t d v t d v t d 100% 4.26 0.10 0.43 4.09 0.10 0.41 4.22 0.10 0.42 95% 4.15 0.12 0.48 3.99 0.11 0.44 4.12 0.11 0.45 90% 4.04 0.13 0.54 3.88 0.12 0.47 4.01 0.12 0.48 85% 3.93 0.15 0.59 3.77 0.13 0.49 3.89 0.13 0.51 80% 3.81 0.17 0.63 3.66 0.14 0.51 3.78 0.14 0.53 75% 3.69 0.18 0.68 3.54 0.15 0.53 3.66 0.15 0.55 70% 3.56 0.20 0.71 3.42 0.16 0.55 3.53 0.16 0.57 Table (5/3) Intensity for developing shooting variables player N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Intensity twcd twcd twcd twcd twcd twcd twcd twcd twcd 100% 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.23 95% 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.25 90% 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.26 85% 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.28 80% 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.30 75% 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.33 0.31 70% 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.35 0.33 TWCD time with constant distance
Table (5/1/1) Volume for developing approach variables player 1 Repetition representative load player 2 Repetition representative load player 3 Repetition representative load Intensity length time (s) effort time (s) repeat (t) ex. Distance ex. Time Intensity length time (s) effort time (s) in 100% 0.83 0.19 0.09 53.57 44.7 5 in 100% 0.74 0.16 0.08 62.50 46.115 5 in 100% 0.83 0.19 0.09 53.57 44.29 5 in 95% 0.83 0.19 0.10 52.21 43.57 5 in 95% 0.72 0.16 0.08 62.50 44.95 5 in 95% 0.81 0.19 0.09 53.57 43.17 5 in 90% 0.83 0.20 0.10 50.82 42.41 5 in 90% 0.70 0.16 0.08 62.50 43.75 5 in 90% 0.78 0.19 0.09 53.57 42.01 5 in 85% 0.83 0.20 0.10 49.39 41.21 5 in 85% 0.68 0.16 0.08 62.50 42.52 5 in 85% 0.76 0.19 0.09 53.57 40.83 5 in 80% 0.83 0.21 0.10 47.92 39.98 5 in 80% 0.66 0.16 0.08 62.50 41.25 5 in 80% 0.74 0.19 0.09 53.57 39.61 5 in 75% 0.83 0.22 0.11 46.39 38.71 5 in 75% 0.64 0.16 0.08 62.50 39.94 5 in 75% 0.72 0.19 0.09 53.57 38.35 5 player 4 Repetition representative load player 5 Repetition representative load player 6 Repetition representative load Intensity length time (s) effort time (s) repeat (t) ex. Distance ex. Time Intensity length time (s) effort time (s) in 100% 0.89 0.19 0.09 53.57 47.725 5 in 100% 0.74 0.16 0.08 62.50 46.23 5 in 100% 0.81 0.19 0.09 53.57 43.33 5 in 95% 0.87 0.19 0.09 53.57 46.52 5 in 95% 0.74 0.16 0.08 60.92 45.06 5 in 95% 0.81 0.19 0.10 52.21 42.23 5 in 90% 0.85 0.19 0.09 53.57 45.28 5 in 90% 0.74 0.17 0.08 59.29 43.85 5 in 90% 0.81 0.20 0.10 50.82 41.10 5 in 85% 0.82 0.19 0.09 53.57 44.00 5 in 85% 0.74 0.17 0.09 57.62 42.62 5 in 85% 0.81 0.20 0.10 49.39 39.94 5 in 80% 0.80 0.19 0.09 53.57 42.69 5 in 80% 0.74 0.18 0.09 55.90 41.35 5 in 80% 0.81 0.21 0.10 47.92 38.75 5 in 75% 0.77 0.19 0.09 53.57 41.33 5 in 75% 0.74 0.18 0.09 54.13 40.03 5 in 75% 0.81 0.22 0.11 46.39 37.52 5 player 7 Repetition representative load player 8 Repetition representative load player 9 Repetition representative load Intensity length time (s) effort time (s) repeat (t) ex. Distance ex. Time Intensity length time (s) effort time (s) in 100% 0.85 0.19 0.09 53.57 45.279 5 in 100% 0.82 0.19 0.09 53.57 43.82 5 in 100% 0.85 0.19 0.09 53.57 45.47 5 in 95% 0.85 0.19 0.10 52.21 44.13 5 in 95% 0.82 0.19 0.10 52.21 42.71 5 in 95% 0.85 0.19 0.10 52.21 44.32 5 in 90% 0.85 0.20 0.10 50.82 42.96 5 in 90% 0.82 0.20 0.10 50.82 41.57 5 in 90% 0.85 0.20 0.10 50.82 43.14 5 in 85% 0.85 0.20 0.10 49.39 41.75 5 in 85% 0.82 0.20 0.10 49.39 40.40 5 in 85% 0.85 0.20 0.10 49.39 41.92 5 in 80% 0.85 0.21 0.10 47.92 40.50 5 in 80% 0.82 0.21 0.10 47.92 39.19 5 in 80% 0.85 0.21 0.10 47.92 40.67 5 in 75% 0.85 0.22 0.11 46.39 39.21 5 in 75% 0.82 0.22 0.11 46.39 37.94 5 in 75% 0.85 0.22 0.11 46.39 39.38 5 repeat (t) repeat (t) repeat (t) ex. Distance ex. Distance ex. Distance ex. Time ex. Time ex. Time Intensity Intensity Intensity length length length time (s) time (s) time (s) effort time (s) effort time (s) effort time (s) repeat (t) repeat (t) repeat (t) ex. Distance ex. Distance ex. Distance ex. Time ex. Time ex. Time
Table (5/2/1) Volume for developing tack off variables player N 1 player N 2 player N 3 data effort repeat Exercise time high data effort repeat Exercise time high data effort repeat Exercise time high in 100% 62.50 5 0.50 in 100% 66.67 44.44 0.43 in 100% 66.67 44.44 0.41 in 95% 57.70 51.28 0.50 in 95% 62.50 45.83 0.43 in 95% 62.50 45.83 0.41 in 90% 53.59 52.38 0.50 in 90% 58.82 47.06 0.43 in 90% 58.82 47.06 0.41 in 85% 50.03 53.33 0.50 in 85% 55.56 48.15 0.43 in 85% 55.56 48.15 0.41 in 80% 46.90 54.16 0.50 in 80% 52.63 49.12 0.43 in 80% 52.63 49.12 0.41 in 75% 44.15 54.89 0.50 in 75% 5 5 0.43 in 75% 5 5 0.41 70% 41.70 55.55 0.54 70% 47.62 50.79 1.43 70% 47.62 50.79 0.41 player N 4 player N 5 player N 6 data effort repeat Exercise time high data effort repeat Exercise time high data effort repeat Exercise time high in 100% 55.56 51.85 0.63 in 100% 62.50 33.33 0.35 in 100% 62.50 5 0.49 in 95% 52.63 52.63 0.63 in 95% 57.69 35.90 0.35 in 95% 57.69 51.28 0.49 in 90% 5 53.33 0.63 in 90% 53.57 38.10 0.35 in 90% 53.57 52.38 0.49 in 85% 47.62 53.97 0.63 in 85% 5 4 0.35 in 85% 5 53.33 0.49 in 80% 45.45 54.55 0.63 in 80% 46.88 41.67 0.35 in 80% 46.88 54.17 0.49 in 75% 43.48 55.07 0.63 in 75% 44.12 43.14 0.35 in 75% 44.12 54.90 0.49 70% 41.67 55.56 0.63 70% 41.67 44.44 0.35 70% 41.67 55.56 0.49 player N 7 player N 8 player N 9 data effort repeat Exercise time high data effort repeat Exercise time high data effort repeat Exercise time high in 100% 71.43 47.62 0.43 in 100% 71.43 47.62 0.41 in 100% 71.43 47.62 0.42 in 95% 63.83 49.65 0.43 in 95% 66.67 48.89 0.41 in 95% 66.67 48.89 0.42 in 90% 57.69 51.28 0.43 in 90% 62.50 5 0.41 in 90% 62.50 5 0.42 in 85% 52.63 52.63 0.43 in 85% 58.82 50.98 0.41 in 85% 58.82 50.98 0.42 in 80% 48.39 53.76 0.43 in 80% 55.56 51.85 0.41 in 80% 55.56 51.85 0.42 in 75% 44.78 54.73 0.43 in 75% 52.63 52.63 0.41 in 75% 52.63 52.63 0.42 Table (5/3/1) Volume for developing shooting variables player 1 player 2 player 3 data effort repeat Exercise time data effort repeat Exercise time data effort repeat Exercise time in 100% 42.01 40 in 100% 42.59 40 in 100% 42.88 40 in 95% 39.20 40 in 95% 39.75 40 in 95% 40.02 40 in 90% 36.75 40 in 90% 37.27 40 in 90% 37.52 40 in 85% 34.59 40 in 85% 35.08 40 in 85% 35.31 40 in 80% 32.67 40 in 80% 33.13 40 in 80% 33.35 40 in 75% 30.95 40 in 75% 31.39 40 in 75% 31.60 40 player 4 player 5 player 6 data effort repeat Exercise time data effort repeat Exercise time data effort repeat Exercise time in 100% 41.66 40 in 100% 42.33 40 in 100% 42.56 40 in 95% 38.89 40 in 95% 39.50 40 in 95% 39.72 40 in 90% 36.46 40 in 90% 37.04 40 in 90% 37.24 40 in 85% 34.31 40 in 85% 34.86 40 in 85% 35.05 40 in 80% 32.40 40 in 80% 32.92 40 in 80% 33.10 40 in 75% 30.70 40 in 75% 31.19 40 in 75% 31.36 40 player 7 player 8 player 9 data effort repeat Exercise time data effort repeat Exercise time data effort repeat Exercise time in 100% 40.12 40 in 100% 41.16 40 in 100% 43.26 40 in 95% 37.44 40 in 95% 38.41 40 in 95% 40.38 40 in 90% 35.10 40 in 90% 36.01 40 in 90% 37.86 40 in 85% 33.04 40 in 85% 33.90 40 in 85% 35.63 40 in 80% 31.20 40 in 80% 32.01 40 in 80% 33.65 40 in 75% 29.56 40 in 75% 30.33 40 in 75% 31.88 40 From tables (5 1, 2, 3 ) clear the ability of the researchers to rationing training load to performance phase in the light of the pre test, biomechanical and energy product system time, an addition distribute the sample to training groups, and that as an answer to purpose(2), and in order to achieve the second goal of the search.
Second: Post tests results Table (6) Biomechanical results for experimental group (N=9) post-test Parameters Experimental group Statistic phase data player N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 max min rang average st.dv approach tack off flay shoot effectiveness approach distance 2.50 2.21 2.48 2.67 2.22 2.43 2.54 2.45 2.55 2.67 2.21 0.46 2.45 0.15 approach time (s) 0.56 0.48 0.56 0.56 0.48 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.48 0.08 0.54 0.04 kinetic energy in approach (J) 739.29 797.47 706.07 854.13 779.97 675.74 738.07 691.11 754.71 854.13 675.74 178.39 748.51 56.09 body velocity in touchdown (m/s) 4.47 4.61 4.43 4.77 4.62 4.33 4.53 4.38 4.55 4.77 4.33 0.44 4.52 0.14 body velocity in tack off (m/s) 3.87 4.01 3.85 4.17 4.04 3.80 3.99 3.80 3.90 4.17 3.80 0.37 3.94 0.12 loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 0.60 0.60 0.58 0.60 0.58 0.53 0.54 0.58 0.65 0.65 0.53 0.11 0.58 0.03 force in tack off (N) 37 451.13 416.63 322.77 531.69 319.51 387.29 418.68 472.46 531.69 319.51 212.18 410.02 69.31 distance push 0.50 0.43 0.41 0.63 0.35 0.49 0.43 0.41 0.42 0.63 0.35 0.28 0.45 0.08 power in tack off (J) 1542.90 1944.69 1724.56 1443.18 2302.91 1299.19 1649.44 1712.72 1995.47 2302.91 1299.19 1003.72 1735.01 307.05 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 643.39 696.85 616.82 749.70 684.76 595.24 652.99 602.43 651.12 749.70 595.24 154.46 654.81 49.44 Cg high in tack off 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.14 1.12 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.13 1.15 1.12 0.03 1.14 0.01 tack off time (s) 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.11 0.02 Flay angel (degree) 25.00 27.00 28.00 3 29.12 27.00 28.32 3 29.00 3 25.00 5.00 28.16 1.63 Flay horizontal distance 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.49 0.44 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.45 0.55 0.44 0.11 0.49 0.04 cg high max in faly 1.24 1.24 1.23 1.26 1.22 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.23 1.27 1.22 0.05 1.25 0.02 flay time (s) 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.04 0.14 0.01 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) 21.00 23.00 22.00 24.00 23.00 2 22.00 21.00 2 24.00 2 4.00 21.78 1.39 Movement range for shooting sowing 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.33 0.31 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.33 0.27 0.06 0.30 0.02 Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) 87.50 95.83 91.67 10 95.83 83.33 91.67 87.50 83.33 10 83.33 16.67 90.74 5.81 Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) 78.00 98.00 96.00 99.00 84.00 8 78.00 95.00 84.00 99.00 78.00 21.00 88.00 8.87 Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 325.00 408.33 40 412.50 35 333.33 325.00 395.83 35 412.50 325.00 87.50 366.67 36.98 Shooting velocity (m/s) 351.00 441.00 432.00 445.50 378.00 36 351.00 427.50 378.00 445.50 351.00 94.50 396.00 39.93 angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 10200.0 14848.8 15633.9 15294.5 11679.5 11004.6 9466.0 13376.9 11377.1 15633.9 9466.0 6168.0 12542.4 2306.7 shooting high (cm) 252.54 248.33 253.94 252.54 248.33 251.14 252.54 252.54 248.33 253.94 248.33 5.61 251.14 2.22 shooting angel (deg) 2 24.00 3 28.00 27.00 29.00 3 27.00 3 3 2 1 27.22 3.35 accuracy mentoring (deg) 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 8.56 0.53
Table (7) Biomechanical results for control group post-test Parameters control group Statistic phase data player N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 max min rang average st.dv approach tack off flay shoot effectiveness approach distance 2.35 2.49 2.74 2.66 2.72 2.71 2.17 2.78 2.79 2.79 2.17 0.62 2.60 0.22 approach time (s) 0.56 0.56 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.48 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.48 0.16 0.60 0.06 kinetic energy in approach (J) 651.13 693.71 668.93 630.14 648.11 654.64 757.60 689.08 702.07 757.60 630.14 127.46 677.27 38.43 body velocity in touchdown (m/s) 4.20 4.45 4.28 4.16 4.24 4.24 4.53 4.35 4.36 4.53 4.16 0.37 4.31 0.12 body velocity in tack off (m/s) 3.47 3.61 3.21 3.18 3.10 3.23 3.55 3.14 3.27 3.61 3.10 0.52 3.31 0.19 loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 0.72 0.84 1.08 0.98 1.15 1.01 0.98 1.21 1.08 1.21 0.72 0.49 1.00 0.15 force in tack off (N) 381.58 366.63 435.97 511.00 458.40 408.80 453.25 551.15 445.64 551.15 366.63 184.53 445.82 58.55 distance push 0.54 0.65 0.67 0.51 0.66 0.67 0.65 0.60 0.69 0.69 0.51 0.17 0.63 0.06 power in tack off (J) 1462.98 1478.60 1632.06 1872.82 1682.33 1525.23 1828.86 2061.85 1699.69 2061.85 1462.98 598.87 1693.82 199.29 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 543.90 569.28 511.50 490.28 484.88 508.09 602.41 510.82 538.22 602.41 484.88 117.52 528.82 38.47 Cg high in tack off 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.08 1.06 1.08 1.06 1.10 1.10 1.06 0.04 1.08 0.01 tack off time (s) 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.16 0.02 Flay angel (degree) 31.02 31.62 28.47 24.33 25.64 26.41 36.12 24.66 25.00 36.12 24.33 11.79 28.14 4.03 Flay horizontal distance 0.73 0.80 0.82 0.94 0.93 0.90 0.50 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.45 0.83 0.15 cg high max in faly 1.22 1.24 1.21 1.17 1.17 1.16 1.23 1.14 1.20 1.24 1.14 0.10 1.19 0.03 flay time (s) 0.25 0.26 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.17 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.17 0.16 0.29 0.05 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.08 0.29 0.04 Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) 2 21.00 2 21.00 22.00 23.00 22.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 2 3.00 21.33 1.00 Movement range for shooting sowing 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.33 0.28 0.05 0.29 0.01 Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) 83.33 87.50 62.50 65.63 68.75 71.88 91.67 65.63 68.75 91.67 62.50 29.17 73.96 10.69 Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) 84.00 94.00 87.00 82.00 92.00 91.00 78.00 99.00 83.00 99.00 78.00 21.00 87.78 6.70 Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 35 391.67 271.88 256.25 287.50 284.38 325.00 309.38 259.38 391.67 256.25 135.42 303.94 45.04 Shooting velocity (m/s) 378.00 423.00 293.63 276.75 310.50 307.13 351.00 334.13 280.13 423.00 276.75 146.25 328.25 48.65 angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 14702.5 14449.9 6893.32 6253.87 7116.16 8118.77 10836.2 8222.29 6431.83 14702.5 6253.87 8448.60 9224.98 3328.68 shooting high (cm) 223.75 225.00 225.00 225.00 227.50 227.50 226.25 225.00 231.25 231.25 223.75 7.50 226.25 2.25 shooting angel (deg) 21.00 22.00 24.00 23.00 25.00 21.00 2 22.00 24.00 25.00 2 5.00 22.44 1.67 accuracy mentoring (deg) 6.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 6.00 2.00 7.00 0.87 From tables (6, 7) clear that there are affect differences between the two groups in pot test in research variables in direction of the experimental group in (20) variables, except distance approach, tack off force and its power, flay angle, angular rang of shoulder and elbow joint, angular range of shooting movement.
tack off approach flay shoot Table (8) Significance of differences between the two measurements (pre-post) for experimental group parameters Pre test Pot test m St.dv± m st.dv± approach distance 2.32 0.19 2.45 0.15 approach time (s) 0.60 0.06 0.54 0.04 kinetic energy in approach (J) 559.09 45.05 748.51 56.09 body velocity in touchdown (m/s) body velocity in tack off (m/s) 3.91 0.13 4.52 0.14 3.04 0.13 3.94 0.12 loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 0.87 0.07 0.58 0.03 force in tack off (N) 362.56 59.65 410.02 69.31 distance push 0.62 0.08 0.45 0.08 power in tack off (J) 1259.27 209.87 1735.01 307.05 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 441.96 38.93 654.81 49.44 Cg high in tack off 1.07 0.01 1.14 0.01 tack off time (s) 0.18 0.02 0.11 0.02 Flay angel (degree) 29.16 2.92 28.16 1.63 Flay horizontal distance 0.82 0.15 0.49 0.04 cg high max in flay 1.18 0.02 1.25 0.02 flay time (s) 0.31 0.06 0.14 0.01 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) Movement range for shooting sowing Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 0.28 0.04 0.24 16.78 0.94 21.78 1.39 0.23 0.01 0.30 0.02 60.36 10.88 90.74 5.81 55.89 12.79 88.00 8.87 203.59 64.76 366.67 36.98 Shooting velocity (m/s) 219.88 69.94 396.00 39.93 Total ranks 36.00 21.00 14.00 7.00 15.00 Signal direction + -8.00 =1.00 +6.00 - =3.00 + = + = + = +9.00 - = + = +9.00 - = + = + = + = +9.00 - = +4.00-2.00 =3.00 +9.00 - = + = +9.00 - = +5.00 - =4.00 + = + = + = + = + = + = Average ranks Z P.O.E 4.50-2.52 0.01 3.50-2.45 0.01 5.00-2.67 0.01 5.00-2.67 0.01 5.00-2.71 0.01 5.00-2.72 0.01 3.50 3.50-0.73 0.46 5.00-2.67 0.01 5.00-2.67 0.01 3.00-2.24 0.03 5.00-2.68 0.01 5.00-2.70 0.01
effective approach tack off angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 4300.21 2246.12 12542.36 2306.67 shooting high (cm) 205.85 1.82 251.14 2.22 shooting angel (deg) 13.43 1.42 27.22 3.35 accuracy mentoring (deg) 4.89 0.78 8.56 0.53 + = + = + = + = 5.00-2.70 0.01 5.00-2.76 0.01 Seen from the table (8) and the presence of statistically significant differences between the scores of the two measurements pre and post experimental group in biomechanical variables under discussion since all the values of probability of error less than 0.05 level of significance in the direction of dimensional measurement. Table (9) Significance of differences between the two measurements (pre-post) for control group parameters Pre test Pot test m St.dv± m st.dv± approach distance 2.36 0.19 2.60 0.22 approach time (s) 0.60 0.06 0.60 0.06 kinetic energy in approach (J) body velocity in touchdown (m/s) body velocity in tack off (m/s) loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 557.46 34.75 677.27 38.43 3.91 0.12 4.31 0.12 3.00 0.17 3.31 0.19 0.91 0.13 1.00 0.15 force in tack off (N) 374.18 55.11 445.82 58.55 distance push 0.61 0.06 0.63 0.06 power in tack off (J) 1292.38 193.20 1693.82 199.29 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 435.68 33.31 528.82 38.47 Cg high in tack off 1.08 0.01 1.08 0.01 tack off time (s) 0.18 0.02 0.16 0.02 Flay angel (degree) 28.14 4.03 28.14 4.03 Total ranks 6.00 15.00 21.00 Signal direction + = + - =9.00 + = + = + = + = + = +3.00-3.00 =3.00 + = + = + - =9.00 +6.00 - =3.00 + - =9.00 Average ranks Z P.O.E 5.00-2.75 0.01 1.00 5.00-3.00 5.00-2.68 0.01 5.00-2.68 0.01 2.00 5.00-0.95 0.34 1.00 3.50-2.45 0.01 1.00
Flay horizontal distance 0.83 0.15 0.83 0.15 + - =9.00 1.00 flay cg high max in flay 1.17 0.04 1.19 0.03 + = 5.00-2.69 0.01 flay time (s) 0.32 0.06 0.29 0.05 +9.00 - = 5.00-2.68 0.01 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) 0.29 0.04 0.29 0.04 + - =9.00 1.00 Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) 16.11 1.05 21.33 1.00 + = 5.00-2.69 0.01 Movement range for shooting sowing 0.22 0.01 0.29 0.01 + = 5.00-2.68 0.01 Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) 56.02 9.63 73.96 10.69 + = shoot Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) 52.56 17.64 87.78 6.70 + = Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 183.56 66.10 303.94 45.04 + = Shooting velocity (m/s) 198.25 71.39 328.25 48.65 + = angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 3841.60 2065.82 9224.98 3328.68 shooting high (cm) 208.15 2.07 226.25 2.25 + = + = 5.00-2.69 0.01 effectiveness shooting angel (deg) 13.44 1.67 22.44 1.67 accuracy mentoring (deg) 5.00 0.87 7.00 0.87 + = + = 5.00-3.00 5.00-3.00 Seen from the table (9) the presence of statistically significant differences between the scores of the two measurements prior and subsequent to the control group in the variables biomechanical under discussion since all the values of the likelihood of error less than the significance level 0.05 and in the direction of dimensional measurement with the exception of variables ( approaching " time approaching," upgrading " a distance of payment, the high point of upgrading, corner of aviation, " aviation " distance Aviation horizontal, " correction " time -weighted front to correction " ) came as a result of these variables, the existence of differences not statistically significant between the scores of the two measurements prior and subsequent to the control group, where the values of the likelihood of error those variables is greater than the significance level 0.05, through tables (8.9) clear answer to the third hypothesis.
Table (10) Significance of differences between the mean of two post measurements to experimental and control groups in the biomechanical variables under discussion by parametric Mann Whitney way (n = 18) parameters Ex. group (n=9) Co. group (n=9) m St.dv± m st.dv± Total ranks Signal direction Average ranks Z P.O.E approach distance 2.45 0.15 2.60 0.22 7.33 11.67 21.00 66.00-1.72 0.09 approach approach time (s) 0.54 0.04 0.60 0.06 kinetic energy in approach (J) 748.51 56.09 677.27 38.43 6.67 12.33 12.78 6.22 15.00 6-2.46 0.01 11.00 56.00-2.60 0.01 body velocity in touchdown (m/s) 4.52 0.14 4.31 0.12 12.94 6.06 9.50 54.50-2.74 0.01 body velocity in tack off (m/s) 3.94 0.12 3.31 0.19 14.00 5.00-3.58 loss velocity in tack off (m/s) 0.58 0.03 1.00 0.15 5.00 14.00-3.59 force in tack off (N) 410.02 69.31 445.82 58.55 8.22 10.78 29.00 74.00-1.02 0.31 tack off distance push 0.45 0.08 0.63 0.06 power in tack off (J) 1735.01 307.05 1693.82 199.29 5.33 13.67 9.89 9.11 3.00 48.00-3.32 37.00 82.00-0.31 0.76 kinetic energy in tack off (J) 654.81 49.44 528.82 38.47 13.89 5.11 1.00 46.00-3.49 Cg high in tack off 1.14 0.01 1.08 0.01 14.00 5.00-3.60 tack off time (s) 0.11 0.02 0.16 0.02 5.11 13.89 1.00 46.00-3.56 Flay angel (degree) 28.16 1.63 28.14 4.03 10.17 8.83 34.50 79.50-0.53 0.60 Flay horizontal distance 0.49 0.04 0.83 0.15 5.44 13.56 4.00 49.00-3.23 flay cg high max in flay 1.25 0.02 1.19 0.03 13.28 5.72 6.50 51.50-3.02 flay time (s) 0.14 0.01 0.29 0.05 5.06 13.94 0.50 45.50-3.55 Frontal sowing time in shoot (s) 0.24 0.29 0.04 6.50 12.50 13.50 58.50-2.92 Shoulder angular range in shoot (deg) 21.78 1.39 21.33 1.00 10.33 8.67 33.00 78.00-0.68 0.50 Movement range for shooting sowing 0.30 0.02 0.29 0.01 10.28 8.72 33.50 78.50-0.63 0.53 Average of angular velocity for shoulder joint(deg/s) 90.74 5.81 73.96 10.69 13.00 6.00 9.00 54.00-2.80 0.01 shoot Angular range for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg) 88.00 8.87 87.78 6.70 9.61 9.39 39.50 84.50-0.09 0.93 Average angular velocity for elbow joint in shooting sowing (deg/s) 366.67 36.98 303.94 45.04 12.89 6.11 1 55.00-2.70 0.01 Shooting velocity (m/s) 396.00 39.93 328.25 48.65 12.89 6.11 1 55.00-2.70 0.01 angular kinetic energy for arm in shooting (J) 12542.36 2306.67 9224.98 3328.68 shooting high (cm) 251.14 2.22 226.25 2.25 12.44 6.56 14.00 5.00 14.00 59.00-2.34 0.02-3.62 effect shooting angel (deg) 27.22 3.35 22.44 1.67 accuracy mentoring (deg) 8.56 0.53 7.00 0.87 12.83 6.17 13.33 5.67 10.50 55.50-2.67 0.01 6.00 51.00-3.19