No abstract

No abstract

This study biomechanically quantified the movement patterns for six elite goalkeepers making diving saves to their preferred and non-preferred side at three different dive heights. Synchronised three-dimensional kinematic and kinetic biomechanical data analysis found diving direction to significantly (P < 0.05) influence the movement patterns of the diving save. The non-preferred side displayed greater lateral rotation of the pelvis and thorax at the initiation event. These over-rotational differences were reduced during the time on plate phase with the thorax displaying no significant difference at take-off; although a difference still remained for the pelvis. These over rotations were subsequently linked to greater peak knee joint moments, lower peak ankle joint moments, less hip extension at take-off, and for the centre of mass (COM) to travel slower and less directly to the ball, as measured by the net projection angle at take-off. These results indicate that joint movements in the transverse plane at or before the initiation event for the dive for the pelvis and thorax are the causation for subsequent asymmetries. These observed differences indicate that there is an advantage in having prior knowledge of limb preference in an opposing goalkeeper.

No abstract

Current judging of race walking in international competitions relies on subjective human observation to detect illegal gait, which naturally has inherent problems. Incorrect judging decisions may devastate an athlete and possibly discredit the international governing body. The aim of this study was to determine whether an inertial sensor could improve accuracy, monitor every step the athlete makes in training and/or competition. Seven nationally competitive race walkers performed a series of legal, illegal and self-selected pace races. During testing, athletes wore a single inertial sensor (100 Hz) placed at S1 of the vertebra and were simultaneously filmed using a high-speed camera (125 Hz). Of the 80 steps analyzed the high-speed camera identified 57 as illegal, the inertial sensor misidentified four of these measures (all four missed illegal steps had 0.008 s of loss of ground contact) which is considerably less than the best possible human observation of 0.06 s. Inertial sensor comparison to the camera found the typical error of estimate was 0.02 s (95% confidence limits 0.01-0.02), with a bias of 0.02 (±0.01). An inertial sensor can thus objectively improve the accuracy in detecting illegal steps (loss of OPEN ACCESSSensors 2013, 13 16066 ground contact) and, along with the ability to monitor every step of the athlete, could be a valuable tool to assist judges during race walk events.