Sheffield Hallam University Research Archivehttp://shura.shu.ac.uk design through identification of key constraints on competitive behaviours 2 Abstract 24 Analysing performance in competitive environments enables identification of key 25 constraints which shape behaviours, supporting designs of more representative 26 training and learning environments. In this study, competitive performance of 244

The role of elite coaches' expertise in identifying key constraints on long jump performance: how practice task designs can enhance athlete self-regulation in competition. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 1-17.

A major challenge to sport practitioners working across all levels of sport is ensuring that technological platforms are integrated effectively to assist learning along the development pathway. Under the framework of ecological dynamics, we introduce technology as a support opportunity for athletes to learn to become better attuned to, and utilise, key sources of information to self-regulate their actions. Importantly, technology not only supports learning, but also serves as a tool to encourage active engagement in learning from early childhood to late adulthood. Coaches also need to be wary of the potential perils of the mismanagement of technology use and how it can act as a learning rate limiter. Misuse of technological tools may inhibit the learning process by inhibiting an athlete’s ability or willingness to explore and exploit available information in the performance environment, as well as stimulate possible feelings of control and surveillance. By illustrating how technology may complement athlete learning under the guidance of the theoretical framework of ecological dynamics, it is intended that coaches may gain a better understanding of how technological tools can be used more strategically to enhance learning.

No abstract

Weakley, J, McCosker, C, Chalkley, D, Johnston, R, Munteanu, G, and Morrison, M. Comparison of sprint timing methods on performance, and displacement and velocity at timing initiation. J Strength Cond Res 37(1): 234–238, 2023—Sprint testing is commonly used to assess speed and acceleration in athletes. However, vastly different outcomes have been reported throughout the literature. These differences are likely due to the sprint timing method rather than differences in athlete ability. Consequently, this study compared different sprint starting methods on sprint time and quantified the velocity and displacement of the athlete at the moment timing is initiated. Starting in a staggered 2-point stance, 12 team sport athletes were required to accelerate 10 meters for 10 repetitions. During each repetition, 5 independent timing methods were triggered. The methods were (a) triggering a Move sensor; (b) starting 50 cm behind the line; (c) triggering a front-foot switch; (d) triggering a rear-foot switch; and (e) starting with the front foot on the line. Timing for each method was initiated at different points during the acceleration phase, and the displacement and velocity of the centroid of the pelvis at the point of timing initiation was assessed under high-speed motion capture. The Move sensor had the smallest displacement and lowest velocity at the point of timing initiation, whereas the front-foot trigger demonstrated the largest displacement and highest velocities. Trivial to very large effect size differences were observed between all methods in displacement and velocity at the point of timing initiation. Furthermore, small to very large differences in time to 5 m were found. These findings emphasize that sprint outcomes should not be compared, unless starting methods are identical. In addition, to detect real change in performance, consistent standardized protocols should be implemented.