Search Results

You are looking at 111 - 120 of 331 items for :

  • "locomotor" x
Clear All
Restricted access

Jared A. Bailey, Paul B. Gastin, Luke Mackey and Dan B. Dwyer

Context:

Most previous investigations of player load in netball have used subjective methodologies, with few using objective methodologies. While all studies report differences in player activities or total load between playing positions, it is unclear how the differences in player activity explain differences in positional load.

Purpose:

To objectively quantify the load associated with typical activities for all positions in elite netball.

Methods:

The player load of all playing positions in an elite netball team was measured during matches using wearable accelerometers. Video recordings of the matches were also analyzed to record the start time and duration of 13 commonly reported netball activities. The load associated with each activity was determined by time-aligning both data sets (load and activity).

Results:

Off-ball guarding produced the highest player load per instance, while jogging produced the greatest player load per match. Nonlocomotor activities contributed least to total match load for attacking positions (goal shooter [GS], goal attack [GA], and wing attack [WA]) and most for defending positions (goalkeeper [GK], goal defense [GD], and wing defense [WD]). Specifically, centers (Cs) produced the greatest jogging load, WA and WD accumulated the greatest running load, and GS and WA accumulated the greatest shuffling load. WD and Cs accumulated the greatest guarding load, while WD and GK accumulated the greatest off-ball guarding load.

Conclusions:

All positions exhibited different contributions from locomotor and nonlocomotor activities toward total match load. In addition, the same activity can have different contributions toward total match load, depending on the position. This has implications for future design and implementation of position-specific training programs.

Restricted access

Ali Brian, Sally Taunton, Lauren J. Lieberman, Pamela Haibach-Beach, John Foley and Sara Santarossa

Fundamental motor skills (FMS) are the building blocks to more complex movement patterns ( Clark & Metcalfe, 2002 ). FMS are often subdivided into include object control (now referred to in the Test of Gross Motor Development-3 [TGMD-3] as ball skills) and locomotor skills ( Gallahue, Ozumn

Restricted access

Stephanie Field, Jeff Crane, Patti-Jean Naylor and Viviene Temple

higher locomotor proficiency than boys do ( Barnett et al., 2015 ; LeGear et al., 2012 ; Liong et al., 2015 ; Robinson, 2011 ), recent review evidence suggests that the sex of a child is not associated with locomotor skill proficiency ( Barnett, Lai, et al., 2016 ). While the relationship between

Restricted access

Guilherme M. Cesar, Rebecca Lewthwaite and Susan M. Sigward

-related differences in performance of athletic locomotor tasks have been observed between pre-pubertal children and young adults. During running and cutting tasks, children re-direct their momentum using larger impact forces (i.e., body weight-normalized ground reaction forces) than young adults ( Sigward, Pollard

Restricted access

Ryan D. Burns, Youngwon Kim, Wonwoo Byun and Timothy A. Brusseau

Fundamental gross motor skills facilitate physical health, well-being, and performance in activities of daily living for the developing child. 1 , 2 Fundamental gross motor skills manifest from rudimentary phases of infancy to complicated locomotor and manipulative movements and serve as building

Restricted access

Steven van Andel, Michael H. Cole and Gert-Jan Pepping

target on the ground known as locomotor pointing ( Lee, Lishman, & Thomson, 1982 ). The mechanisms of locomotor pointing have been established in research concerning the long jump approach ( De Rugy, Montagne, Buekers, & Laurent, 2000 ; De Rugy, Taga, Montagne, Buekers, & Laurent, 2002 ; Lee et

Restricted access

Vítor Pires Lopes, Linda Saraiva, Celina Gonçalves and Luis P. Rodrigues

; Barnett, Morgan, van Beurden, & Beard, 2008 ; Goodway & Rudisill, 1997 ; LeGear et al., 2012 ; Robinson, 2011 ). However, boys’ locomotor proficiency has been reported as lower ( Barnett et al., 2008 ; van Beurden, Zask, Barnett, & Dietrich, 2002 ), similar ( Goodway & Rudisill, 1997 ), higher

Restricted access

Ross D. Neville, Fergal Lyons, Brendan Doyle and Kimberley D. Lakes

manipulation—or, more formally, locomotor (i.e., running, skipping, galloping, sliding, hoping, bounding) and object-control (i.e., catching, throwing, rolling, kicking, bouncing, balancing, striking) skills ( Ulrich, 2000 ). Failure to develop proficiency in one or more of these areas is known to severely

Open access

Viviene A. Temple, Dawn L. Lefebvre, Stephanie C. Field, Jeff R. Crane, Beverly Smith and Patti-Jean Naylor

Motor Development (TGMD-2; Ulrich, 2000 ) was used to assess the locomotor (run, hop, slide, leap, gallop, and horizontal jump) and object control (strike, catch, dribble, throw, kick, and underhand roll) skills of the children and to provide an estimate of each child’s current level of gross motor

Restricted access

Mathieu Lacome, Ben Simpson, Nick Broad and Martin Buchheit

physiological responses (or more simply generic models of work efficiency, ie, output/cost relationships) may represent the first advances to assess training status from data collected routinely in elite players. The simplest way to assess players’ locomotor work efficiency is likely to use ratios between