CHAPTER 1

1
CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

The most powerful nations of the world namely USA, Russia, France,

Australia, China etc are strong enough not only in world economics, arm-forces

or in science technology but these are also advanced in the field of sports,

therefore it is quite apparent that to exist strongly on world map nation has to be

advance in the field of sports also. To achieve the same adoption of new

techniques and methodology is highly required in sports sciences and physical

education. Kim L. (1993) studied the kinematical analysis of the flight phase in

the long jump. It was found that many kinematical variables like Knee and

elbow joints contributes in gaining good flight phase in long jump. Mr.

Muralitharan’s spin bowling action was analyzed in the Biomechanical

Laboratory of the school of Human Movement and Exercise sciences of Western

Australia. It was also viewed that wrist abduction was seemed to be the major

reason for production of impressive ‘Dusra’. Motoyasu, Koshiyama and

Katsumata (2009) examined the effects of joint movement on the accuracy of 3-

point shooting in basketball and found that the distance between a ball and the

center of the ring showed significant positive correlations with the ball release

velocity, ball release angle, the ankle plantar flexion angle, hip angular

acceleration, knee angular acceleration and ankle angular acceleration. Ikai M.

and Matsumoto Y. (1984) made scientific investigations on the principles

underlying the various techniques used in Judo, first analyzed the techniques,

2
and made observations on their kinematics, and further wished to synthesize by

adding psychological and physiological investigations. It was found that in the

Hiza- guruma velocity was the lowest with 1.95 m/s. Sciences of applied

mechanism are fulfilling these demands of high technological knowledge for the

enhancement of performance in the field of sports. Physical education reaching

new heights and providing equal to expectations of the demand of this profession

but still lot more is to be done. Inspite of our hectic efforts in the formation of

the front line to achieve excellence in sports, the performance level has not been

seen up to the mark. Therefore, in the latter part of this century, our experts are

concentrating on scientific research to providing adequate information and

proper training along with an effective system of providing better human

resources for future India.

As we know that for enhancement in game and sport its techniques should

be mastered. For improving the techniques or to work upon it, it is very

important to analyze it, so as to know what are the motor and mechanical

variables of the techniques which must be given due attention for improving that

particular technique. This study had been taken to analyze the technique of set

shot while attempting free throws, so that those effective variables could be

known which contributes to the effectiveness of the technique in male

categories. Depending upon those contributing variables, effective training can

be given to players. To identify a movement as an economic one, it is very

essential to analyze the movement first. Sometimes, it is very difficult for a

human eye to analyze all the movements of various body segments and joints at

3
the same time. So, various instruments like still camera, video camera, markers

etc are used to analyze various movements. Further the technology moved the

analysis processes to software also. This is a quantitative method which is very

accurate but at the same time it is very costly and time consuming. The role of

videography and use of motion analysing softwares in biomechanical research is

getting enriched day by day. The role of videography or cinematography in

biomechanical research involved from a simple form of recording motion to a

sophisticated means of computer analysis of motor efficiency.

Biomechanics can be defined as ‘the science that examines forces acting

upon and within a biological structure and effects produced by such forces’. The

‘biological structure’ in this context can be wide spread and covers systems of

different levels: cells, tissue, joints, segments, the entire body or even a complex

system consisting of several bodies or the human body in combination with the

surroundings (water, air, equipment, floor etc.). The main focus of applied sport

biomechanics research is primarily directed to the entire human body in the

complex sport discipline or sport specific situation. Among others,

biomechanical research primarily deals with the following issues:

• gaining a better understanding of human posture, locomotion and

movement

• increasing the understanding of the mechanics, structure and function of

biological structures

• establishing biomechanical principles

• studying the biological response of mechanical loading.

4
 The main goals of biomechanical research are to enhance performance in

movement and to improve subject specific comfort in movement and

locomotion. Biomechanical research is characterized by its interdisciplinary

approach with other related fields such as medicine, neuroscience, physics and

engineering. The content of biomechanics can be separated in three main areas

with substantial overlapping: medicine, engineering as well as movement and

sport science. The area of movement and sport science covers important

interactions with motor control, training science, exercise physiology and

orthopaedics. Due to the wide scope of application, sport biomechanics

represents one of the main subcategories of biomechanics. The sports

biomechanical research primarily covers issues of-

• performance enhancement

• comfort

• injury prevention and

• safety.

As in other scientific disciplines, sports biomechanics can be separated

into basic and applied fields. Basic research deals with aspects to better

understand the mechanics and control mechanisms of human sport movement

and to investigate the response of loading in sport movements on biological

structures. The applied field in sports biomechanics is very wide due to the

manifold of characteristics of movement and locomotion in sports. The most

important issues of the applied research are

5
 • the application of biomechanical knowledge provided from basic research

to sports in general,

• the biomechanical description and analysis of sport movements,

• the development of specific measurement and analysis methodology,

• the development and design of sport equipment,

• the effect of mechanical intervention (e.g. material, surface, equipment)

on movement and motor control.

Due to its specificity, the research of applied sports biomechanics is

confronted with significant and substantial challenges. The specific and partly

very complex circumstances of sport and sport disciplines (e.g. competition area,

surface, material, equipment, partners and/or opponents, etc.) have to be

considered and necessitate the development of appropriate biomechanical

measurement and research methodologies. In close cooperation between

biomechanical research groups and appropriate companies a large number of

measurement devices and software packages have already been developed and

are available on the market. For many very specific research questions and

applications, however, these standard packages often are not adequate and not

sufficient. In these cases innovative and appropriate hardware and software

solutions have to be developed. A large number of sophisticated and useful

solutions to these challenges have already been reported for many sport

disciplines. Worth to mention is that these innovatively developed methods as a

matter of course also have to cover the scientific demands of validity, reliability

and accuracy. Furthermore, the more practical issues like range of usage,

6
transfer, complexity, range of motion to be analyzed, expenditure of time for

data collection and data analysis, handling of the equipment, costs and the

amount of interference of the measuring devices with the athletes have to be

considered if the methodology should be used as a standard tool for training

support and competition preparation. One of the most important challenges in

applied sports biomechanics is to overcome the discrepancy between reliability

and validity of the collected data sets. In general, reliability (accuracy of

determining or measuring the parameter value) and validity (degree to which a

test or system measures what it was designed to measure) are independent from

each other. In applied research fields like sports biomechanics, however, an

interaction between reliability and validity might occur. This conflict often

corresponds to the issue of collecting data in a lab or field situation. Usually,

data collected in the lab are more accurate and reliable, but the validity can be

substantially restricted. This should be explained by an illustrative example.

Simulated take-offs in ski jumping performed on force plates provide very

accurate and reliable data regarding the kinematics and dynamics of the take-off

movement. It has to be considered, however, that in the lab situation the

mechanical conditions are substantially different from hill jumps due to the

differing friction and aerodynamic force situation. In simulated take-offs the

friction between the boots and the surface is high and no aerodynamic forces act

on the jumper. In hill jumps the conditions are vice versa (low friction between

skis and track, high aerodynamic forces). Thus, the validity of the collected data

might be substantially restricted. This has to be considered when the data are

7
interpreted with respect to performance and coordination abilities. Data collected

in the field typically provide the opposite situation: high validity, but the

accuracy and reliability might be restricted due to the lack of appropriate

measurement devices. Up to now no measuring system is available, for example,

to determine the ground reaction forces in hill jumps in three dimensions. In

competitive sport, the highest level of validity can only be guaranteed when data

are collected during competitions; however, the regulations hamper the usage of

biomechanical methodology in competitive conditions substantially. To

overcome these problems data can be collected in semi-competitive situations.

This can be performed in field studies providing conditions as close as possible

to competitive situations, but also by mimicking competitions using simulation

and/or imitation conditions. The ‘golden standard’ is to establish measurement

methods and conditions providing a combination of high validity, reliability and

accuracy. Consequently, sport biomechanists should perform detailed error

estimation in each specific situation of data collection for providing detailed

information on data accuracy. Hence, specifically in complex situations,

differentiated error estimation is challenging due to overlapping of errors from

different sources. It can be distinguished between systematic errors (e.g. image

distortion, calibration errors, placement of markers and electrodes, level of

model abstraction) and random errors (e.g. errors due to signal resolution and

sampling frequency, digitizing errors, cross talk etc.). In general, systematic

errors are harmless when data sets are compared relatively. Although random

errors can be severe, substantial reduction can be achieved by using appropriate

8
filter and/or frequency analysis routines. Careful attention should be given to the

issue of biovariance. As it is well known that repeated movements never can be

performed identically, repeated movements have to be interpreted within a

meaningful range of deviation. Hence, these deviations must not be assessed as

errors. Nevertheless, the range of deviation has to be discussed along with the

optional errors in data acquisition and data analysis. Surprisingly, the report of

accuracy, reliability, error estimation and validity is rather humble in papers

dealing with applied biomechanics topics. These aspects, however, are very

important to prevent researcher, coaches and athletes from misleading or

misinterpretation of collected data.

Biomechanical principles are applied by scientists and professional in a

number of fields in addressing problems related to human health and

performance. Knowledge of basic biomechanical concepts is also essential for

the competent physical education teacher, physical therapist, physician, coach,

personal trainer or exercise instructor. An introductory course in biomechanics

provides foundational understanding of mechanical principles and how they can

be applied in analyzing movements of the human body. The knowledgeable

human movement analyst should be able to answer many basic questions related

to biomechanics like what are the mechanical principles behind variable

resistance exercise machines? What is the safest way to lift a heavy object?

Which movement is more/less economical? At what angle should a ball be

thrown for maximum distance? From what distance and angle is it best to

observe a patient walk down a ramp or a volleyball player execute a service?

9
What strategies can an elderly person or a football lineman employ to maximize

stability?

Sport biomechanists have also directed efforts at improving the technique

components of athletic performance. They have learned, for example, that

factors contributing to superior performance in the long jump, high jump and

pole vault include large horizontal velocity going into takeoff and a shortened

last step that facilitates continued elevation of the total-body center of mass.

Examples of well known athletes easily display the importance of biomechanical

technology in improving performance. In 1996 Summer Olympics held at

Atlanta, Michael Johnson used the golden shoes because of Biomechanical

reasons. Actually he was prepared for the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, but

developed a stress fracture of his left fibula before the U.S. Olympic Trials

began. He did not qualify in the 400 meters and he withdrew from the 200

meters. In fact his feet are different in size. Johnson entered the Olympic finals

donning a custom-designed pair of golden-colored Nike racing spikes made

with Zytel. Biomechanists preferred some specifications in his running spikes.

They preferred spikes weighed 3 ounces (85 g) and the left shoe was a size 10.5

while the right shoe was a US size 11, to account for Johnson's shorter left foot.

Finally he became the first man to win the 200 m and 400 m in the same

Olympics and took 0.34 seconds off his own 200m world record, which he set

two months earlier on the same track at the Olympic trials. Sport biomechanists

have directed efforts at improving technique components of a player to enhance

performance. They have learned, for example, that factors contributing to

10
superior performance in the long jump, high jump and pole vault include large

horizontal velocity going into takeoff and a shortened last step that facilitates

continued elevation of the total-body center of mass. One example of

performance improvement, partially attributed to biomechanical analysis, is the

case of four-time Olympic Discuss champion Al Oerter. Mechanical analysis of

the discus throw requires precise evaluation of the major mechanical factors

affecting the flight of the discus. These factors are the speed of the discus when

it is released by the thrower, the projection angle at which the discus is released,

the height above the ground at which the discus is released and the angle of

attack. By using computing simulating techniques, researchers can predict the

needed combination of values for these four variables that will result in a throw

of maximum distance for an athlete. High-speed cameras can record

performances in great deal and when the film or videotape is analyzed, the actual

projection height, velocity and angle of attack can be compared to the computer-

generated values required for optimal performance. At the age of 43, oerter

bettered his best Olympic performance by 8.2 meters. Although it is difficult to

determine the contributions of motivation and training to such an improvement,

some part of oerter’s success was a result of enhanced technique following

biomechanical analysis.

P T Usha finished first in the semi-finals of the 400 metres hurdles in the

1984 Los Angeles Olympics, but faltered in the finals. In almost a repeat

of Milkha Singh's 1960 feat, there was a nail-biting photo finish for the third

place. Usha lost the bronze by 1/100 th of a second. She became the first Indian

11
woman (and the fifth Indian) to reach the final of an Olympic event. It should

not be misunderstood if said that had Biomechanical analysis done on these

Indian Athletes, India would not have lost by 1/100th of seconds. If a

biomechanical technology can put some contribution in the performance

improvement i.e., 0.34 seconds and 8.2 meters of Olympians. Then, we have to

accept that biomechanics would have improved over Olympians with atleast a

few seconds and distance. Other concerns of sport biomechanists relate to

minimizing sport injuries through both identifying dangerous practices and

designing safe equipment and apparel. In recreational runners, for example,

research shows that the most serious risk factors for overuse injuries are training

errors such a sudden increase in running distance and intensity, running on

cambered surfaces and improper footwear. The complexity of safety-related

issues increases when the sport is equipment-intensive. An area of

biomechanical research with implications of both safety and performance is

sport shoe design. Today sport shoe are designed to prevent excessive loading

and related injuries and to enhance performance. Biomechanics is contributing to

the knowledge base on the full gamut of human movement, from the gait of the

physically challenged child to the technique of the elite athlete. Because of

continuing advances in scientific analysis, the role of biomechanics in

contributing to performance improvements is likely to be increasingly important

in the future.

Kinematics is the study of bodies in motion without regard to the causes

of the motion. It is concerned with the describing and quantifying both the linear

12
and angular positions of the bodies and their time derivatives. Kinematics is the

preferred analytical tool for researchers interested in questions such as, who is

faster? What is the range of motion of a joint? How do two motion patterns

differ? Kinematic analysis may be an end in itself or an intermediate step that

enables subsequent kinetic analysis. The most common method for collecting

kinematic data uses an imaging or motion-caption system to record the motion of

markers affixed to a moving subject, followed by manual or automatic digitizing

to obtain the coordinates of the makers. These coordinates are then processed to

obtain the kinematic variables that describe segmental or joint movements.

Biomechanist interested in improving athletes. It is ideal for the analysis of

single movements or intervals of exercise lasting up to minutes. The most cost-

effective method is qualitative analysis, in which the athletes, coach or sport

scientist simply view the video together and decide immediately how technique

could be improved. The athlete can then attempt any recommended changes and

the filmed for a further round analysis.

Basketball is a team sport in which two teams of 5 active players each try

to score points against one another by placing a ball through a 10 foot (3.048 m)

high hoop (the goal) under organized rules. Basketball is one of the most popular

and widely viewed sports in the world. Points are scored by throwing (shooting)

the ball through the basket from above, the team with more points at the end of

the game wins. The ball can be advanced on the court by bouncing it (dribbling)

or passing it between teammates. Disruptive physical contact (foul) is penalized

and there are restrictions on how the ball can be handled (violations).Through

13
time, basketball has developed to involve common techniques of shooting,

passing and dribbling, as well as player’s positions and offensive and defensive

structures. Typically, the tallest members of a team will play center or one of two

forward positions, while shorter players or those who possess the best ball

handling skills and speed, play the guard positions. While competitive basketball

is carefully regulated, numerous variations of basketball have developed for

casual play. In some countries, basketball is also a popular spectator sport. While

competitive basketball is primarily an indoor sport, played on a basketball court,

less regulated variations played in the outdoors have become increasingly

popular among both inner city and rural groups. Dr. James Naismith was

instrumental in establishing college basketball. He coached at the University of

Kansas for six years, before handing the reins to renowned coach Forrest Phog

Allen. Naismith's disciple Amos Alonzo Stagg brought basketball to the

University of Chicago, while Adolph Rupp, a student of Naismith's at Kansas,

enjoyed great success as coach at the Kentucky. On February 9, 1895, the first

intercollegiate 5-on-5 game was played at Hamline University between Hamline

and the School of Agriculture, which was affiliated with University of

Minnesota. The School of Agriculture won in a 9-3 game. In 1901, colleges,

including the University of Chicago, Columbia University, Dartmouth College,

the University of Minnesota, the U.S. Naval Academy, the University of Utah

and Yale University began sponsoring men's games. In 1905, Theodore

Roosevelt formed a governing body for colleges, resulting in the creation of the

Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States (IAAUS). In 1910, that

14
body would change its name to the National Collegiate Athletic Association

(NCAA). In 1892, the University of California and Miss Head's School played

the first women's inter-institutional game. Berenson's freshmen played the

sophomore class in the first women's intercollegiate basketball game at Smith

College, March 21, 1893. The same year, Mount Holyoke and Sophie Newcomb

College (coached by Clara Gregory Baer) women began playing basketball. By

1895, the game had spread to colleges across the country, including Wellesley,

Vassar, and Bryn Mawr. The first intercollegiate women's game was on April 4,

1896.

Shooting is the act of attempting to score points by throwing the ball

through the basket. While methods can vary with players and situations, the most

common technique is outlined as follows: The player faces the basket with feet

about shoulder-width apart, knees slightly bent, and back straight. The player

allows the ball to rest on the fingertips of the dominant hand (the shooting arm)

slightly above the head, with the other hand supporting the side of the ball. To

aim the ball, the player's elbow should be aligned vertically, with the forearm

facing in the direction of the basket. The ball is shot by extending the bended

knees and straightening the shooting arm; the ball rolls off the finger tips while

the wrist completes a full downward flex motion. The shooting arm, fully

extended with the wrist fully bent, and the fingers pointing downward, is held

stationary for a moment following the release of the ball, this is known as a

follow-through, which when properly done, enhances the accuracy of the shot.

Generally, the non-shooting arm is used only to guide the shot, not to power it.

15
Players often try to put a steady backspin on the ball to deaden its impact with

the rim. The ideal trajectory of the shot is somewhat arguable, but generally

coaches recommend a proper arch. Players may shoot directly into the basket or

may use the backboard to redirect the ball into the basket.

The two most common shots that use the above described set up are the

set shot and the jump shot. The set shot is taken from a standing position, with

neither foot leaving the floor, typically used for free throws. The jump shot is

taken while in mid-air, when the ball is released near the top of the jump. This

provides much greater power and range, and it also allows the player to elevate

over the defender. Failure to release the ball before the feet return to the ground

is considered a traveling violation. Another common shot is called the layup.

This shot requires the player to be in motion toward the basket, and to ‘lay’ the

ball ‘up’ and into the basket, typically off the backboard (the backboard-free,

underhand version is called a finger roll). The most crowd-pleasing, and

typically highest-percentage accuracy shot is the slam dunk, in which the player

jumps very high, and throws the ball downward, straight through the hoop.

Another shot that is becoming common is the "circus shot". The circus shot is a

low-percentage shot that is flipped, heaved, scooped, or flung toward the hoop

while the shooter is off-balance, airborne, falling down, and/or facing away from

the basket.

In basketball not only fast skills, but also technical needs, tactics,

agreement, experience and the potential for contest is shown in a game. The ratio

of aerobic to anaerobic in basketball is 1:9; this show that basketball is an

16
anaerobic and high intensity exercise. Because of the high intensity and

anaerobic property of basketball, one has to give best performance with in the

short period of the game. These performances include the shooting action,

dribbling skill, defense etc. When the coach trains athletes they need to improve

basketball player’s power, muscle endurance, and cardiovascular endurance to

adapt to the high intensity exercise. Shooting is the basic way to get in basketball

and for this reason it is the most frequently used technical action (HAY, 1978).

The free shot is distinguished as the most important of all the shooting actions.

In 2002 the international Basketball Federation (FIBA) decided to decrease the

shot clock violation to 24 seconds that required players to improve their fitness

level and that ultimately lead coaches and sport scientists to find new techniques

and strategies to avoid fatigue and to perform the skills efficiently.

In basketball Players have to execute many techniques i.e., throwing,

passing, shooting, dribbling and holding. Shooting is basically divided into two

main techniques that is jump shot and set shot. In the jump shot players lift his

body in the air and then attempt for the basket. Jump shot is mainly used to

avoid any opponent’s direct restriction while shooting, so in jump shot shooter

tries to overcome the resisting height of the opponent. Set shot is the technique

commonly used for a free throw - an unopposed shot awarded after an opposing

foul, and taken from the free-throw line. Set shot is a shot taken at stationary

position or without jumping. Until the invention of the jump shot (1940) the

most-used shot in basketball was the two-handed set shot. Among the greatest

executors of this shot were Bobby McDermott, Eddie Sailor and Dick Kinder.

17
This shot is used when you are standing still and mainly without an opponent.

Set shot is an uncontested shot commonly taken from free throw line, 15 feet

-4.60 meters- distant from the backboard. A successful free throw is worth one

point. It is no compulsion to use set shot in free throws only, set shot can be used

from anywhere in the ground, but now a days the game is so fast and skilled that

hardly a player get opportunity to deliver set shot before a tall opponent. On the

other hand, set shot therefore mainly used for the free throw attempts. Now a

day’s competition level is very high and no one willing to loose a single point

and here raises the importance of set shot technique. While attempting for the

free throw every player use set shot technique only. The main reason for using

set shot in free throws is the stability and comfort in delivering the skill. The

player while using the set shot also gets optimum opportunity to overcome the

tensed movements of the game and feel some relaxation, as in set shot body

requires very less energy expenditure if compared with jump shot. In set shot the

player stands still and then with the required linear and angular movement

attempts for basket without an opponent. Ultimately all the comfort, less energy

expenditure and easy skilled movement raises the chances of successful attempt,

therefore the importance of set shot can not be avoided. In the set position,

player’s feet were spaced and aligned for balance and comfort and then use that

position for attempt. Set shot is taken without leaving the ground, such as a free

throw. The ball should be 'shot' and not 'thrown', with body balance maintained

throughout the shot. Here are some instructional points to remember while

shooting - Good body balance, Focus on the basket as the bulls-eye picture in the

18
eye, Concentrate and think the ball into the target, follow through, rhythm and

smoothness of motion. While attempting the set shot player easily gains the

given instructions which assists in gaining good successful attempts. Therefore

set shot attempt is a highly skilled movement. Importance of set shot raises more

when the competition becomes neck to neck level and teams even fight for

single points. Importance of set shot or free throw is obviously high, no matter

what the level of tournament or the players. Free throws are taken by adopting

the skill of set shot. Free throw is an unchallenged shot at the basket. Set shot

adopted in free throws is an undefended shot taken from the free throw line.

Players from the two teams line up alternately on both sides of the free throw

line. Free throw is the privilege given to a player to score one, two, or three

points under rule by unhindered throw for a goal from within the free throw

circle and behind the free throw line. Two hand set shot is mainly considered as

effect as in the running game of basketball set shot is typically used free throw

attempts. Free throw shot is therefore also considered as set shot. When a

personal foul is called and the penalty is the awarding of free throw(s), the

player against whom the foul was committed shall be designated by the official

to attempt the free throw. It is on the attempting players to choose the technique

of shooting, but the most preferred is set shot. The free throw shooter shall take a

position behind the free throw line and attempt for the goal.

Players of this game need to posses the suitable biomechanical

techniques which may give greater advantage in executing skills. Biomechanists

are interested in improving athletes. It is ideal for the analysis of single

19
movements or intervals of exercise lasting up to minutes. The most cost-

effective method is qualitative analysis, in which the athletes, coach or sport

scientist simply view the video together and decide immediately how technique

could be improved. The athlete can then attempt any recommended changes and

the filmed for a further round analysis. The C.G. of the body is involved in all

consideration of equilibrium. The position of C.G. of the body is a major factor

in determining the soundness of the stance that is advocated in any technique in

any sports in order to accomplish the desired objective most effectively.

Therefore, this factor must receive more careful attention. Motion pictures and

video have been used for years to study athletic performances. They have

provided to be a tremendous assistance to scientific analysis of the technique

employed by athletics in all phases of sports, as well as an effective means of

demonstrating the mechanical principles involve in athletics competition. The

direction of movement, related body movements, sequence of movements,

speed, force, distance, angles, conditions of equilibrium and so far may be

directly or indirectly determine the means of analysis of motion. However in

order to obtain accurate results from a cinematographic analysis of an activity,

certain basic principals must be followed. Dr. Thomas K. Cureton, has made a

notable contribution in athletic research through cinematography.

During this technical and advanced century, advances in the sciences of

human motions seem to have been not only due to improvements in

instrumentation, but also to be development of better and more creative methods

of using theses instruments. Fundamental to the study of human motion is

20
measurement of the displacement of the body and its segments. Today, advances

in kinematics analysis have been greater then in most other aspects of research.

Traditionally, cinematography analysis of relative high speed films has been the

technique used to obtain kinematic data. However, the raw displacement of data

thus acquired usually contains inherent error that can cause large inaccuracies in

the velocities and accelerations determined by direct differentiation. For this

reason, various methods of smoothing the displacement data have been

employed. The two most successful are digital filtering and use of spline

function by wood and Jennings, Zernicke. Methods of three dimensional

cinematographic analysis have been developed and refined during the 1970s to

improve the accuracy of studying complex human motions, but these techniques

not yet been implemented completely according to Miller.

The use of optoelectronic devices to acquire displacement data is a

particularly promising development that may replace cinematography in the near

future and it will be good to say is slowly becoming popular. Among these new

techniques that have emerged in the recent years are (1) automatic image

analysis in which a television image or a cine film is scanned by computer to

determine the X and Y coordinates of anatomical landmarks and (2) light spot

position measurements, which uses optoelectronic devices such as the selspot to

obtain the information about the three dimensional coordinates of small, active

light sources attached to the human body or the Human Markers. Although

considerable progress has been made in the descriptive (kinematic) analysis of

human motion, the area of kinetics has received relatively limited attention.

21
Miller expressed the belie that future research must expand its concern with the

kinetic and kinematic analysis of human motion. Cinematography and now a day

digital vediography is the most frequently used in sports biomechanics research

for obtaining a record of human movements. These film records are

quantitatively analyzed to obtain linear and angular displacement, time data and

segmental movements. Typically, the basic displacement time, functions of a

motion do not provide sufficient information to describe fully the activity thus

these data are further treated mathematically to determine the respective velocity

and acceleration functions.

The sciences of kinesiology and bio-mechanics have grown from applied

anatomy and mechanics. It is recommended that the coach should take time to

study these sciences. Recently videography has begun to replace conventional

motion picture for teaching and coaching purpose. Since video recordings are

enabling, reusable does not require any developing, it is more economical than

film. The relatively inexpensive portable recorders have significant potential for

instruction. Pictures taken of students performing motor skill can provide them

with further insight into their own actions, a greater appreciation of the

mechanics of sports skill and increased interest in improving their performance.

Quantitative analysis involves digitization of the video images to permit

calculation of spatial and temporal relationships in the movement. Several

hardware software packages are available for the purpose. Simple but effective

digitizing is also possible with minimal extra hardware and software. This

procedure is the time consuming and loses the benefit of immediate feedback to

22
 the athlete, but it allows detailed comparisons of one athlete with another or of

one athlete before and after an intervention. Video has also been used for time

motion or rotational analysis, in which times spent in various modes of activity

or in moving at various speeds are estimated from time and distance

measurements taken from the video. Biomechanics is of fundamental importance

to analyze and evaluate the technique or skill of an athlete with proper

application and implementation of applicable mechanical principles for the

enhancement of performance in sports and games. Various body angles on

ground and in space, center of gravity of an athlete in specific positions, velocity

of the released object, angle of release, height of release etc plays an importance

role in the performance hence true mastery comes only after serious study of the

mechanical principles involved. Sport does not simply involve physical activities

but components of physics, mathematics, biology, psychology, sociology and

many more. It is actually engineering, which needs regular updated scientific

approaches in all the factors. Standard video graphic motion analysis is

preferably used in biomechanical analysis process. Special computers capture

the human motion and then analyze the motion patterns.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of the study is two dimentional kinematical analysis of set

shot among basketball players.

DELIMITATIONS

1. The study was delimited to the male Basketball players of three different

height groups i.e.,

23
 Group I: Five feet five inches to five feet eight inches (5’5’’ to 5’8’’).

Group II: Five feet nine inches to six feet (5’9” to 6’).

Group III: Six feet one inch to six feet four inches (6’1” to 6’4”).

2. The study was delimited to male national and inter-varsity players only.

3. The study was delimited to right handed basketball players of 18 to 30

years of age.

4. The study was delimited to set shot while performing free throws only.

5. In the study digital video cameras or camcorders was used for the

determination of the technique.

6. The selected Kinematical variables at moment of stance and moment of

release of ball were as follows:

A.i. Angle at right ankle joint.

A.ii. Angle at left ankle joint.

A.iii. Angle at right knee joint.

A.iv. Angle at left knee joint.

A.v. Angle at right shoulder joint.

A.vi. Angle at left shoulder joint.

A.vii. Angle at right hip joint.

A.viii. Angle at left hip joint.

A.ix. Angle at right elbow joint.

A.x. Angle at left elbow joint.

A.xi. Angle at right wrist joint.

A.xii. Angle at left wrist joint.

24
 A.xiii. Angle of release of the ball.

A.xiv. Height of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of

stance.

A.xv. Height of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of

release of ball.

A.xvi. Time to perform the course.

A.xvii. Displacement of center of gravity.

LIMITATIONS

1. Non-availability of sophisticated devices was the major limitation of the study.

2. The factors like environment, temperature, atmosphere pressure etc were beyond

the control of the investigator, which might have affected the performance of the

subjects.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1. To find out the correlation between the selected kinematical variables and

the performance of the subjects in set shot.

2. To study the significance of difference in selected kinematical variables

among three different height groups while performing set shot.

3. The study was designed to prepare an ideal model for the technique of the

skill of set shot in basketball.

DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE TERMS

Kinematics: It is that branch of Biomechanics i.e. concerned with describing

the motion of body. Thus, Kinematics deals with such things as how far a

body moves, and how consistently it moves. It is not concerned at all with

25
what causes a body to move in the way it does. Kinematics analysis motion

in terms of time, displacement, velocity or acceleration.

Videography: It refers to the process of capturing moving images. The term

involves methods of electronic production. It is equivalent of cinema

autography, but with images recorded on electronic media instead of film

stock. The word ‘videography’ consists by combination of two Greek words,

‘video’ and ‘graphy’. The Greek word ‘video’ means ‘I see’ or ‘I apprehend’

and the word ‘graphy’ means, ‘to write’. Videography covers many more

fields than just shooting videos with a camera. It includes digital animation,

gaming, web streaming, video blogging, still slideshows, spatial imaging,

medical imaging and in general the production of most bitmap and vector

based assets.

Set Shot: The two most common shots used in basketball are the set shot and

the jump shot. The set shot is taken from a standing position, with neither

foot leaving the floor, typically used for free throws. Set shot is mainly

attempted from the line of 5.80mtrs for free throw shot in basketball and for

each conversion one point is awarded to the converter. In this study, set shot

is analyzed when attempted as free throw.

Center of Gravity: The center of gravity of any object is that point at which

all of the weight of an object may be concentrated. The center of gravity is

referred as the point of balance of a body and it is either stated or implied that

it is possible for it to be balanced or supported.

26
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The results of the study would be significant to biomechanists, Sport

scientists, physical education teachers, players and coaches in the following

ways:

1. The results may indicate the variables, which might be considered as

factors affecting the performance of basketball players while shooting.

2. The results may provide a model for the technique of skill for analyzing

the performance of the players.

3. Results will be helpful in the preparation of training schedules for

basketball players more effectively.

4. The study may add a new dimension in literature of basketball.

5. The results will be helpful in preparing how effectively and efficiently the

free throw shot has been made.

6. The knowledge of the scientific basis of set shot may help in teaching and

coaching of set shot.

27
CHAPTER 2

28
CREVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The investigator has attempted in this chapter to locate the

literature related to this study. A summary of the writings of recognized

authorities and of previous research provides evidence with what is already

known and what is still unknown and interested. A careful review of research

through journals, books, dissertations, internet and other sources of

information in the problem to the investigation provide the important steps in

the planning of any research study. The relevant studies gained from various

sources which the research scholar has come across are cited below.

29
 Motoyasu, Koshiyama and Katsumata (2009) made an afford to know the

effects of joint movement on the accuracy of 3-point shooting in Basketball. The

purpose of this study was to clarify characteristics of players who possess high

accuracy of a 3-point shot with respect to joint movements and the ball

trajectory. 12 experienced male basketball players (9 right-handed and 3 left-

handed) participated in the experiment. The goal of task was to shoot the ball

from a line 6.25m from the backboard into the basket. All participants were

requested to shoot the ball through the ring. A high speed camera (sampling

frequency: 250Hz, shutter speed: 1/2000; Nac, HSV-500) was positioned at the

right or left side of the player’s shooting position, perpendicular to the plane of

intended ball motion. The following 8 points were digitized: Right and left

humeral line, elbow, wrist, 3rd metacarpophalangeal, hip, knee and ankle joints,

30
distal end of right and left feet. The coordinates of the external markers were

used to calculate the following variables: release height, release speed, release

angle of the ball, and the angle, angular velocity and angular acceleration of

joints. From the investigation it was found that the distance between a ball and

the center of the ring showed significant positive correlations with the ball

release velocity, ball release angle, the ankle plantar flexion angle, hip angular

acceleration, knee angular acceleration and ankle angular acceleration. That

distance also showed significant negative correlations with the ball release

height, vertical jump height, and the wrist flexion angle. Good shooters were

able to achieve a low release speed by shooting a ball at the optimal release

angle. Good shooters were also characterized by a lower jump height, a larger

wrist flexion angle, and smaller joint movements of the lower limb compared

with poor shooters.

31
(balance break) and kake (execution) with selected kinematic variables were: in

angular kinematics at the moment of kuzushi left ankle joint (-0.46), right ankle

(0.522), left hip joint (-0.103), right hip joint (-0.40), left shoulder joint (-0.139),

right shoulder joint (0.056), left elbow joint (0.072), right elbow joint (0.154),

and at the moment of tsukuri left ankle joint (0.37), left hip joint (-0.739), right

hip joint (-0.515), left shoulder joint (0.34), right shoulder joint (0.248), left

elbow joint (0.059), right elbow joint (-0.04). In linear kinematics at the moment

of kuzushi the height of CG was 0.236 and at moment of tsukuri &kake height of

CG was 0.051. There was insignificant value of coefficient of correlation in case

of all joints. Based on the interpretation of findings it was concluded that the

Kinematic variables namely analysis angles of joints i.e ankle, knee, hip,

shoulder, elbow etc and linear kinematics height of CG have insignificant

relationship with the performance of Harai-Make-Komi, when other mechanical

parameters were not considered.

Abdoddaleh, Asal and Mohammad (2008) conducted a comparative study

of equilibrium between old athletes (active) and no athletes (non-active). This

research was done with the aim of equilibrium studying and comparison of old

athletes (active) group and no athletes (non-active) group. 20 old men who were

65 years old and used to perform physical activity (morning sports) and

expanding leisure time in Iranshahr Park (Iran) and 23 old men no athletes (non-

active) were attended voluntarily as statistical sample. Motor and biomechanical

specifications of the samples like flexibility, reaction time, height, and mean of

the thigh and leg size (research variables) and isotonic equilibrium variables

32
 Bhardwaj R. (2008) conducted a comparative study of kinematic analysis

of vertical jump of boys of different age group. The purpose of the study was to

kinematically analyze and compare the vertical jump performance of

boys belonging to two age groups of 10 to 20 years and 21 to 24 years.

Kinematic analysis employed sequence photography and considered height of

the centre of gravity during four phases of vertical jump performance namely

standing reach, crouch, jump & reach and landing as well as its vertical

displacement (distance between standing reach and jump & reach). Centre of

gravity in each phase was located using segmentation method. Along with

centre of gravity the angular modification during four phases of vertical

jump performance was considered. For angular measurements elgon stick

figures were developed. To compare the kinematic variables of the four given

phases of vertical jump of the both age groups t-test was applied and was

tested at 0.05 level of significance. Results revealed that the height of the CG

during standing ranged from 1.14m to 1.39m. The height of the CG during

crouch ranged from 1.02m to 1.15m. It was also found that the displacement

of CG during vertical jump ranged from 0.41m to 0.91m The height of the

vertical jump ranged from 38cm to 58cm. Results also revealed that the

difference in the means of two age groups with respect to

33
 Chi-Yang, Tsai (2006) conducted a study on the Kinematic analysis

of Basketball three point shoot after high intensity program. The purpose of

this study was to analyze Kinetic and kinematic characteristics of three

points shooting by high speed camera. Basketball players have to finish

the high intensity program which was designed from simulative basketball

games. The high intensity testing program includes dribbling, sprint, jump

shooting and three points shooting. The results of the experiments indicated

that elbow, wrist, hip and ankle joints angle velocities would decrease, expect

the knee joint, after the high intensity programme. The Knee angle of take

off was also increased. It indicated that the upper limb joints angular velocity

decreased and player as had to increase knee joint angular velocity to

maintain original power. Time durations also played influential role in the

performance. The times from take off to ball release also decreased that

means that there was a change in the

34
coordinates in Knee joint and elbow joint. Improvement in the power for the shot

exhibited to be dependent on knee and ankle joint to much extent. After high

intensity program the elbow and Knee joint extension were effective enough and

closed to produce more power for the shot.

35
 Rojas F.J., Cepero and Gutierrez (2000) conducted a study on kinematic

adjustments in the basketball jump shot against an opponent. The aim of

this study was to analyze the adjustments in technique made by a basketball

player when shooting against an opponent. The subjects used were 10 male,

active professional basketball players from the First Division of the Spanish

Basketball League (ACB) who volunteered to take part. All were right-

handed and specialists in mid- and long-distance shooting. The mean age

was 23.36 years with a mean height of 1.95 m and a mean mass of 90.43 kg.

Two video cameras were used at 50 Hz to record the performance of the shots.

The first was placed at a distance of 10 m from where the shot was to be made

with an orientation of

36
458 to the direction of the shot, and the second was situated 11 m from the shot

with an orientation of 458 to the direction of the shot and 90 degree to the

orientation of the first camera. The cameras were started approximately 3

seconds prior to the beginning of each shot and were not switched off until the

ball passed through the hoop to ensure the recording of a sufficient portion of the

performance to permit analysis of release variables. After positioning the

cameras, and before filming the shots, a reference object was filmed. The

reference object was so oriented that the x-axis was in line with the direction of

the shot, the z-axis was perpendicular and horizontal to the direction of the shot

and the y-axis was perpendicular to the plane of the floor. In the study it is found

that the release angle of the ball increased significantly in the presence of an

opponent and this helped the player to avoid the possible interception of the ball

by the opponent’s hand. The mean release angle of the ball in this study was 45

degrees. The velocity of ball release was not significantly different between the

opponent and non-opponent conditions. In conclusion, it was stated that players

attempted to release the ball more quickly and from a greater height when

confronted with an opponent. This strategy lessens the chance of the opponent

intercepting the ball. The greater initial knee position restricted the ability of the

player to jump and therefore player performed a quicker but less powerful jump,

while the more rapid upward movement of the ball helps to increase the joint

angles at shoulder and elbow at release and this, combined with a more upright

trunk, helps the ball to attain a greater height and a more vertical angle of

projection. This interpretation was supported by significant differences and

37
trends in the biomechanical data collected. The differences in technical

execution of the skill had implications for practice.

38
 S. Dhannanjoy (1990) the purpose of the study was to develop suitable

and feasible criteria for the evaluating different variations of Seoi Nage and to

find out the contributing biomechanical, anthropometric flexibility and motor

fitness factors for effective execution of different variation of Seoi Nage and

Ippon seoi. The subjects were 28 male judoka, who were well experienced and

well skilled and their age ranged between 18 to 30 years. Selected

Biomechanical variables were recorded in pre-determined variation of the

shoulder throw, at N.S.N.I.S., Patiala by using two dimensional cinematography

method. In the study sixteen mm movie camera was used. After processing the

filming were analysed on film analyzer in the biomechanical laboratory of

N.S.N.I.S., Patiala. Following conclusions were drawn, (i) the angle at the ankle

joint found not to be significantly correlated with total time. (ii) left elbow joint,

39
right knee joint and center of gravity at the basic stances prefer no correlation

with the seoi nage perfecton (iii) angular velocity at hip formed by right shoulder

when knee is extended from flexed position and total right hip in Ippon Seoi

Nage should greater to reduce the total time of performance. (iv) execution time

and total time taken in Ippon Seoi Nage were found to be linearly related to each

other and strong predictor as well. (iv) to reduce the total time, the time of knee

flexion from start of throw should be reduced in Ippon Seoi Nage. (v) the time of

leg extension to belt in vertical was having a critical effect i.e. little reduction of

the same reduces total time greatly in Ippon Seoi Nage.

40
The values were compared with western studies. It was observed that increased

body height shifts the C.G. towards the head, whereas, the C.G. is shifted

downward if the height is unaltered but body weight is increased. It also

concluded that age has particular no influence over the change in the C.G.

41
 Higgins F. (1972) studied the mechanical factors that contribute to

the vertical jumping height of four basketball players. The investigation

included analysis of angular measurements of the elbow, shoulder, knee, hip and

ankle. In addition to angular measurements the velocities of the arm movement,

order of the position, velocity and acceleration of body parts during the

selected jump were also investigated. Movie picture were taken of 4

professional basketball players performing vertical jump. Each subject’s best

and poorest jump from a series of seven trials were selected and analyzed. It

was found that during the

42
poorest jump, all the subjects showed lower hyper extension of the arm at the

preparatory position, less shoulder flexion at the point of take-off. At the apex of

jump: the knee, hip and ankles displayed equal or less extension of the point of

take-off while the angle of body lean was equal to or greater at this same point. A

slower rate of arm velocity was displayed prior to take-off while on the other

hand the rate of arm velocity was faster at the point of tale-off. From the study it

was concluded that arm position, velocity and acceleration of hip and knee

extension were important factor in the performance of vertical jump. It is also

further concluded that the range of arm motion assisted in attaining maximum

height during the jump.

43
CHAPTER 3

44
 CHAPTER – III
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter the selection of subjects, selection of variables, criterion

measures, administration of set shot, reliability of data, filming protocol, analysis

of the film, collection of data and the statistical techniques employed for analysis

of data have been described.

SELECTION OF SUBJECTS

Sixty inter-varsity or national level male basketball players of three

different height groups i.e.

Group I: 5’5’’ to 5’8’’

Group II: 5’9” to 6’

Group III: 6’ 1” to 6’4”

(20 in each group) were selected as subjects for the study. Subjects found

in between any two height groups, were considered under the nearest height

group. Most of them were regular participants in the Inter-varsity and national

level basketball championships. Some of them were national medal holders and

even were in the Indian junior and senior team. The subjects were undergone

training for a considerable period of time. Therefore it was ascertained that

subjects possess reasonable level of technique. The age of the subjects ranged

between 18 to 30 years. The subjects were explained about the objective of the

study. The data was obtained with the help of two given positions of any

successful attempt:

45
 (a) Moment of stance in set shot.

(b) Moment of release of ball in set shot.

SELECTION OF VARIABLES

The researcher had gone through the available literature in detail

pertaining to the game of basketball. Keeping the feasible criteria in mind,

especially availability of instruments and software, the following kinematical

variables were chosen for the two mentioned positions in set shot.

A.xviii. Angle at right ankle joint.

A.xix. Angle at left ankle joint.

A.xx. Angle at right knee joint.

A.xxi. Angle at left knee joint.

A.xxii. Angle at right shoulder joint.

A.xxiii. Angle at left shoulder joint.

A.xxiv. Angle at right hip joint

A.xxv. Angle at left hip joint

A.xxvi. Angle at right elbow joint.

A.xxvii. Angle at left elbow joint.

A.xxviii. Angle at right wrist joint.

A.xxix. Angle at left wrist joint.

A.xxx. Angle of release of the ball.

A.xxxi. Height of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of

stance.

46
 A.xxxii. Height of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of

release of ball.

A.xxxiii. Time to perform the course.

A.xxxiv. Displacement of center of gravity

CRITERION MEASURE
The criterion measure for this study was the performance of the subjects

in set shot in basketball.

Total of ten attempts were given to each subject and the successful shots

marked as score out of ten. The performance of each trial was judged accurately

and total score was recorded.

ADMINISTRATION OF SET SHOT

All the selected subjects were asked to perform the set shot from the free

throw line. The performers were well directed and informed about the study and

were well prepared for the study. They were asked to perform the set shot in the

natural way as they actually perform. It was ascertained that subjects possess

reasonable level of technique. Most of the selected subjects were senior national

players and had performed in the 60th Senior National basketball championships

hosted by the Punjab Basketball Association at Ludhiana at the Guru Nanak

Indoor Stadium from December 27th 2009 to January 3rd, 2010. Players were

videographed in the indoor and outdoor basketball ground with systematic

filming method as required. The shooter was asked to take a position behind the

free throw line and attempt for the goal. Subjects were asked to attempt ten shots

and after every attempt the ball was supplied to him for next attempt. For the

47
purpose of analysis two moments were selected i.e. Moment of stance in set shot

and Moment of release of ball in set shot. The performance of each subject was

obtained as mentioned in criterion measure. Sufficient numbers of practice trials

were also given. Subjects were also asked to go for complete movement of set

shot i.e. from initial position to execution and then follow-through.

RELIABILITY OF DATA

To obtain variable measurements, standard and calibrated equipments like

Digital Video Cameras, Steel tape, stop watches, geometric instruments and

specialized motion analyzing software (Motion pro: advanced coach edition)

were used. All the equipments and software were supplied by standard agencies

and companies and their accuracy was ensured by the experts and suppliers. All

the measurements pertaining to the kinematical variables were taken by the

researcher under the expert’s guidance. Digital video cameras (Sony 2100

series), were operated by expert professional videographers. So the data

collected by using these instruments and software were considered reliable for

the purpose of this study.

FILMING PROTOCOL
Four Digital Video cameras of sony 2100 series were used in order to

register the technique of set shot while attempting free throw in Basketball. For

the purpose of analysis two moments were selected i.e.

1. Moment of stance in set shot.

2. Moment of release of ball in set shot.

48
 All the four advanced digital video cameras were used in filming the two

selected moments. Each video camera was specifically placed for more accurate

filming.

49
Figure 01: Highlighting position of cameras for videography while
performing setshot in basketball.

Basketball Court

C=Camera

50
 Camera ‘C1’ was filming the subject specifically, camera ‘C2’ filmed the

subject and path of the ball, camera ‘C3’ filmed the ring with respect to the

attempted ball and camera ‘C4’ filmed the whole action of set shot with respect

to subject, ball, ring and ground. ‘C4’ camera was mainly responsible for

calibration which assisted in checking the accuracy of the recording. Camera

‘C1’ was placed at the distance of 11 meters in respect to shooters and was fixed

at 1.52 meters height.

ANALYSIS OF FILM AND COLLECTION OF DATA

Videographic technique was used in this study. The films were analyzed

by using standard motion analyzer software (Motion Pro: Advanced Coach

Edition) approved by Human kinetics. Only two selected moments were

analyzed. Quick snap shots through ‘motion pro’ software for analysis of

selected variables are presented below.

51
Fig. 02: Segmentation of moment of stance in set-shot taken through
Motion Pro software.

52
 Fig. 03: Segmentation shot of moment of release of ball in set-shot taken
through Motion Pro software.

PROCEDURE OF MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Mechanics plays a vital role in attaining high technical performance. It

helps in identifying faults in performing the technique very precisely. There are

53
two methods by which a motor skill can be analyzed i.e. qualitative and

quantitative method. The quantitative method is more valid in case of many

specified skills. The best means to evaluate the technique quantitatively is

through videography and importing those videos into the motion analyzing

software. Software having facilities to analyze the videos in motion and still

(quick snap shot) mode. In the present study videos were recorded and analyzed

through motion analyzer software (Motion Pro: Advanced Coach Edition) to

measure time to perform the course and all related angles. Software assisted

Quick snap shot were used for joint point method in order to locate center of

gravity of the subjects in the selected moments.

Measuring time to perform the course:

To check the time taken by the performer to perform the set shot, ‘set-

timer’ option in the software was used. Time gets started from the moment of

stance and stops at the moment of release of ball by the performer.

54
Fig. 04: Display of elapsed time from mark-in through motion pro software.

Measurement of body angles:

55
 On the basis of application of mark beg and mark end technique in the

motion pro software on the selected videos, elgons were developed. In order to

receive the complete segmental diagram ‘angle finding’ option was selected in

the software and marks of demanded joints were connected. After completing the

marking by joining different highlighted marks on the selected body joints

software automatically present the measurements of required angles. Different

segments were drawn to find out different angles of the body. For knee joint,

segment was drawn from heel axis to hip axis through knee axis. For ankle joint,

segment was drawn from pterion to knee axis through heel axis. For shoulder

joint, segment was drawn from hip axis to elbow axis through shoulder axis. For

hip joint, segment was drawn from knee axis to shoulder axis through hip axis.

For elbow joint, segment was drawn to shoulder axis to knuckle III through

elbow axis of respective sides.

56
Fig. 05: Segmentation shot for analysis of selected angles of moment of
stance in set-shot taken through Motion
Pro software.

57
Fig. 06: Segmentation shot for analysis of selected angles of moment of
release of ball in set-shot taken through Motion Pro software.

58
Measurement of angle of release

Angle of release of ball is measured in the motion pro software. After

configuring the basket-ball with the software, software located the center of the

ball and followed the path of the ball by point display method that shows

demanding angle of release, when segmented.

Fig. 07: Point display method to get the direction and angle of released ball.

59
Location of C.G.

On the basis of quick snap shot obtained by the software, researcher

developed stick figures, with the help of which the location of center of gravity

during the moment of stance and moment of release of ball in set shot was

found. The elgons were developed by using the joint-points method and c.g. of

the whole body was found out by using segmental method as follow:

1. Mark on the quick snap, the position of those references point (table-01)

associated with each segment. The position of reference points obscured

by other body parts should be estimated carefully.

2. Constant a stick figure representation of the subject by ruling lines

between appropriate reference points. (The trunk line is obtained by

joining the mid point of the line between the right and left hip joint to the

mid point of the trunk at the level of suprasternal notch).

3. Measure the length of each segment line and divide these various lengths

in the appropriate ratio as divide these various lengths in the appropriate

ratio as indicated in table-02. Mark the point of division (i.e. the center of

gravity of the segments) on their respective lines.

4. Rule two arbitrary axes (OY and OX), one to the left and one below the

stick figure.

5. Prepare a form such as shown in table-03, and in column 1 enter the

weight of the weights of the segments.

60
6. For each segment, measure the perpendicular distance from c.g. to the

line OY, and enter this distance in the appropriate place on the form (table

3, column 2).

7. To find the moments about OY, multiply the weight of each segment by

the distance of its c.g. from the lines and enter these values on the form

(table 3, column 3).

8. Find the sum of moments about OY by adding the contents of column 3

on the form.

9. Add the content 1. If the procedure outlined has been correctly followed,

all parts of the body have also been taken into account then this total will

be equal to 1. (i.e. sum of the weight of all the body parts, expressed in

terms of the total body weight).

Then, since the moment of the resultant weight about OY is equal to 1

multiplied by some unknown distance X, and since this is equal to the sum of

moments of the segments considered separately, X is equal to the sum found in

step 8.

10. Rule a line O’Y’ parallel to OY and at a distance of X from it. The c.g. of

the subject lies on this line.

11. Repeat steps 5 to 10, taking moments about OX now. The c.g. of the

subjects lies on the O’X’ drawn parallel to OX and at a computed distance

from it.

61
 And finally, because the c.g. lines on O’X’ and O’Y’ and these two lines

have only one point in common (i.e. where they intersect) this is the point where

the c.g. is situated.

62
 Table - 1
Weight of body segments relative to total body weight

Segment Relative Weight

Head
0.073
Trunk
0.507
Upper Arm
0.026
Forearm
0.016
Hand
0.007
Thigh
0.103
Calf
0.043
Foot
0.015

63
 Table – 2
Location of C.G. of body segments

Segment C.G. Location Expressed as % of Total Distance

Between Reference Points

Head
46.4 % to vertex; 53.6 % to Chin-neck intersects

Trunk
43.8 % suprasternal notch; 56.2 % to hip axis

Upper Arm
49.1 % to shoulder axis; 50.9 % to elbow axis

Forearm
41.8 % to elbow axis; 58.2 % to wrist axis

Hand
82.0 % to wrist axis; 18.0 % to knuckle III

Thigh
40.0 % to hip axis; 60.0 % to knee axis

Calf
41.8 % to knee axis; 58.2 5 to ankle axis

Foot
44.9 % to heel axis; 55.1 % to tip of long toe

Table - 3
Form for computation of center of gravity

64
Segment Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Segment Distance Moments Distance Moments
to OY about OY to OX about OX
weight (cm) (cm)

Head 0.073

Trunk 0.507

Right upper arm 0.026

Right forearm 0.016

Right hand 0.007

Left upper arm 0.026

Left forearm 0.016

Left hand 0.007

Right thigh 0.103

Right calf 0.043

Right foot 0.015

Left thigh 0.013

Left calf 0.043

Left foot 0.015

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA

With regard to purpose of the study product moment correlation was

calculated between selected kinematical variables with the performance of

65
CHAPTER 4

66
subjects in set shot in basketball. Further to check the impact of the significant

related variables regression was applied. Technique of analysis of variance (One

way ANOVA) was also used to study the significance of difference in selected

kinematic variables among three different height groups with mean comparisons

of different groups through post hoc test while performing set shot. In order to

check the significance, level of significance was set at 0.05.

CHAPTER – IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND RESULTS OF
THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was two dimentional kinematical analysis of set

shot among basketball players. Various Kinematical variables chosen for the two

mentioned positions in set shot were angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle

67
joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at right knee joint,

angle at left knee joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left shoulder joint,

angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at right wrist joint,

angle at left wrist joint, angle of release of the ball, height of center of gravity of

the shooter at moment stance, height of center of gravity of the shooter at

moment of release of ball, time to perform the course and displacement of

center of gravity. The data were collected on sixty basketball players of three

different height groups following the standard procedure. The criterion measure

for this study was the performance of the subjects in set shot in basketball.

Relationship of kinematical variables with the performance in set shot at

the moment of stance and release
In the present study Product moment correlation was used to find out the

relationship of the selected Kinematical variables with the performance of

Basketball players in set shot. Further to find out the impact of the significant

variables on the performance, regression was also run in SPSS. In order to check

the significance, level of significance was set at 0.05.

Table-4

Showing coefficient of correlation of selected kinematical variables with the

performance in set shot
at the moment of stance (N=60)

Sl.No. Variables Coefficient of

Correlation
1 Angle at right ankle joint. 0.022
2 Angle at left ankle joint. 0.021
3 Angle at right knee joint. 0.093
4 Angle at left knee joint. 0.091

68
 5 Angle at right shoulder joint. -0.086
6 Angle at left shoulder joint. -0.020
7 Angle at right hip joint 0.067
8 Angle at left hip joint 0.070
9 Angle at right elbow joint. -0.053
10 Angle at left elbow joint. -0.071
11 Angle at right wrist joint. 0.083
12 Angle at left wrist joint. 0.205
13 Height of center of gravity of the shooter -0.074
at moment stance.

Note: All values are not significant at 0.05 level

Tabulated value : .250 of 58 df at .05 level
In table 4 the values of coefficient of correlation of selected kinematical

variables i.e. angle at right ankle joint (0.022), angle at left ankle joint (0.021),

angle at right knee joint (0.093), angle at left knee joint (0.091), angle at right

shoulder joint (-0.086), angle at left shoulder joint (-0.020), angle at right hip

joint (0.067), angle at left hip joint (0.070), angle at right elbow joint (-0.053),

angle at left elbow joint (-0.071), angle at right wrist joint (0.083), angle at left

wrist joint (0.205) and height of center of gravity of the shooter (-0.074) with the

performance in set shot of different height groups in basketball at the moment of

stance are presented.

Since the obtained values of coefficient of correlation for 58 degree of

freedom shown in table-4, were less than the required value (.250) for 0.05 level

of significance, therefore the selected variables have shown no significant

relationship with the performance in set shot of different height groups in

basketball at the moment of stance. In the present case this can be stated that

there is no significant relationship between the selected kinematic variables and

69
the performance in set shot of different height groups in basketball. Therefore it

can be explained that these variables put no impact on the performance in set

shot of different height groups in basketball at the moment of stance.

Table - 5
Showing coefficient of correlation of selected kinematical variables with the
performance in set shot
at the moment of release of ball (N=60)

Sl.No. Variables Coefficient of

Correlation

1 Angle at right ankle joint. 0.382**

2 Angle at left ankle joint. 0.379**
3 Angle at right knee joint. 0.375**
4 Angle at left knee joint. 0.360**
5 Angle at right shoulder joint. 0.306*
6 Angle at left shoulder joint. -0.054
7 Angle at right hip joint 0.162
8 Angle at left hip joint 0.166
9 Angle at right elbow joint. 0.012
10 Angle at left elbow joint. -0.039
11 Angle at right wrist joint. 0.348**
12 Angle at left wrist joint. 0.184
13 Angle of release of the ball. 0.538**

14 Height of center of gravity of the shooter at 0.013

moment of release of ball.

Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level

* - Significant at 0.05 level
Tabulated value : .250 of 58 df at .05 level

70
 In table 5 the values of coefficient of correlation of selected kinematical

variables i.e. angle at right ankle joint (0.382), angle at left ankle joint (0.379),

angle at right knee joint (0.375), angle at left knee joint (0.360), angle at right

shoulder joint (0.306), angle at left shoulder joint (-0.054), angle at right hip

joint (0.162), angle at left hip joint (0.166), angle at right elbow joint (0.012),

angle at left elbow joint (-0.039), angle at right wrist joint (0.348), angle at left

wrist joint (0.184), angle of release of the ball (0.538) and height of center of

gravity of the shooter at moment of release of ball (0.013) with the performance

in set shot of different height groups in basketball at the moment of release are

presented. Out of the fourteen selected variables the values of coefficient of

correlation of the seven variables namely angle at right ankle joint, angle at left

ankle joint, angle at right Knee joint, angle at left Knee joint, angle at right

shoulder joint, angle at right wrist joint and angle of release of the ball found

significantly related with the performance in set shot at the moment of release.

However, all the significant variables at the moment of release have shown

positive correlation with the performance in set shot of different height groups in

basketball. Rest of the selected variables namely angle at left shoulder joint,

angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at

left elbow joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of center of gravity of the

shooter at moment of release of ball were found not significantly related with the

performance in set shot of different height groups in basketball at the moment of

release of the ball.

71
 Table 5 reveals that the obtained values of coefficient of correlation of

angle at right ankle joint (0.382), angle at right ankle joint (0.382), angle at left

ankle joint (0.379), angle at right knee joint (0.375), angle at left knee joint

(0.360), angle at right wrist joint (0.348) and angle of release of ball (0.538)

were significant at .01 level. Whereas the obtained value of coefficient of

correlation of angle at right shoulder joint (.306) has shown .05 level of

significance. Therefore, these variables have shown significant relationship with

the performance in set shot in basketball at the moment of release of ball. It was

found that these significant variables at moment of release of ball were in

positive relationship with the performance of set shot and therefore it can be

explained that these significant variables put impact on the performance in set

shot of different height groups in basketball at the moment of release of ball.

As shown in table 5 the values of coefficient of correlation of angle at left

shoulder joint (-0.054), angle at right hip joint (0.162), angle at left hip joint

(0.166), angle at right elbow joint (0.012), angle at left elbow joint (-0.039),

angle at left wrist joint (0.184) and height of center of gravity of the shooter at

moment of release of ball (0.013) for 58 degree of freedom were not more than

the required value (.250) for 0.05 level of significance, therefore the selected

variables have shown no significant relationship with the performance in set shot

in basketball at moment of release of ball. In the present case this can be stated

that there is no significant relationship between the selected kinematic variables

and the performance of set shot of different height group players in basketball.

Therefore it can be explained that these insignificant variables put no impact on

72
the performance in set shot of different height groups in basketball at the

moment of release of ball.

Table - 6
Showing coefficient of correlation of time to perform the course and
displacement of center of gravity with the Performance in set shot (N=60)

Sl.No. Variables Coefficient of

Correlation
1 Time to perform the course -.261*

2 Displacement of center of gravity 0.090

Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level

Tabulated value : .250 of 58 df at .05 level

In table 6 the values of coefficient of correlation of selected kinematic

variables i.e. time to perform the course of set shot (-.261) and displacement

of center of gravity from the moment of stance to the moment of release of ball

(0.090) with the performance in set shot of different height group players in

basketball is presented.

As shown in table 6 the obtained value of coefficient of correlation of the

time to perform the course for 58 degree of freedom (-.261) is more than the

required value (.250) for 0.05 level of significance, therefore the selected

variable have shown significantly low relationship with the performance in set

shot in basketball. However, the selected variable has shown negative correlation

with the performance in set shot. In the present case this can be stated that there

is significant relationship between the time to perform the course and the

performance in set shot of different height group players in basketball. Whereas

the obtained value of coefficient of correlation of the variable displacement of

73
center of gravity for 58 degree of freedom (0.090) is less than the required value

(.250) for 0.05 level of significance, therefore the selected variable have shown

no significant relationship with the performance in set shot in basketball. In the

present case this can be stated that there is no significant relationship between

the selected kinematical variable i.e. displacement of center of gravity with the

performance in set shot of different height groups in basketball and therefore, the

selected variable puts no impact on the performance.

Impact of each significantly related kinematical variable on the

performance in set shot
The impact of the all the significant selected kinematical variables on the

performance in set shot were examined individually with the help of Regression,

taking individual kinematical variable as independent and performance as

dependent variable.

Table - 7

Showing regression analysis of angle at right ankle joint (ARAJ) as

independent variable and performance as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R square Standardized Sig.

Coefficients
Beta
ARAJ .382 .146 .131 .382 .003**

Constant: Angle at right ankle joint.

Dependent Variable: Performance.
** Sig. at 0.01 level

The above model summary depicts R at .382 and R square at .146. This

indicates that 15% variation in the performance was being caused by right ankle

joint. The Beta coefficient has arrived at .382 (significance at .01 level), so it

signifies that angle at right ankle joint affects performance.

74
 Table - 8

Showing regression analysis of angle at left ankle joint (ALAJ) as

independent variable and performance as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.

Coefficients
square
Beta
ALAJ .379 .144 .129 .379 .003**
Constant: Angle at left ankle joint.
Dependent Variable: Performance.
** Sig. at 0.01 level

Table 8 shows that the R existed at .379 and R square at .144. This

highlights that 14% variation in the performance was being caused by angle at

left ankle joint. The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at .379 (significance at .

01 level), so it signifies that angle at left ankle joint affects performance.

Table - 9

Showing regression analysis of angle at right knee joint (ARKJ) as

independent variable and performance as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.

Coefficients
square
Beta
ARKJ .375 .141 .126 .375 .003**

Constant: Angle at right knee joint.

Dependent Variable: Performance.
** Sig. at 0.01 level

In the table 9, R exists at .375 and R square at .141. This Indicates that

14% variation in the performance was being caused by angle at right knee joint.

The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at .375 (significance at .01 level), so it

signifies that angle at right knee joint affects performance.

75
 Table – 10
Showing regression analysis of angle at left knee joint (ALKJ) as
independent variable and performance as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.

Coefficients
square
Beta
ALKJ .360 .130 .115 .360 .005**
Constant: Angle at left knee joint.
Dependent Variable: Performance.
** Sig. at 0.01 level

The above model summary depicts R at .360 and R square at .130.

Indicating that 13% variation in the performance was being caused by angle at

left knee joint. The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at .360 (significance at .

01 level), so it signifies that angle at left knee joint affects performance.

Table-11

Showing regression analysis of angle at right shoulder joint (ARSJ) as

independent variable and performance as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.

Coefficients
square
Beta
ARSJ .306 .094 .078 .306 .017*
Constant: Angle at right shoulder joint.
Dependent Variable: Performance.
* Sig. at 0.05 level
Table 11 shows R at .306 and R square at .094. This highlight that 9%

variation in the performance was being caused by angle at right shoulder joint.

The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at .306 (significance at .05 level), so it

signifies that angle at right shoulder joint affects performance.

Table -12
Showing regression analysis of angle at right wrist joint (ARWJ) as
independent variable and performance as dependent variable

76
 Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.
Coefficients
square
Beta
ARWJ .348 .121 .106 .348 .005**
Constant: Angle at right wrist joint.
Dependent Variable: Performance.
** Sig. at 0.01 level

The above model summary depicts R at .348 and R square at .121.

Indicating that 12% variation in the performance was being caused by Angle at

right wrist joint. The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at .348 (significance at

.01 level), so it signifies that Angle at right wrist joint affects performance.

Table - 13
Showing regression analysis of angle of release of the ball (ARB) as
independent variable and performance as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.

Coefficients
square
Beta
ARBH .538 .289 .277 .538 .000**
Constant: Angle at release of ball.
Dependent Variable: Performance.
** Sig. at 0.01 level
Above table depicts R at .538 and R square at .289. This Indicates that

29% variation in the performance was being caused by angle of release of the

ball. The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at .538 (significance at .01 level),

so it signifies that angle of release of the ball affects performance.

Table - 14
Showing Regression analysis of time to perform the course (TPC) as
independent variable and performance
as dependent variable

Model R R square Adjusted R Standardized Sig.

Coefficients

77
 square Beta
TPC .261 .068 .052 -.261 .044*
Constant: Time to perform the course.
Dependent Variable: Performance.
* Sig. at 0.05 level

Table 14 depicts R at .261 and R square at .068. Indicating that 7%

variation in the performance was being caused by time to perform the course.

The value of Beta coefficient has arrived at -.261 (significant at .05 level), so it

signifies that time to perform the course affects performance.

78
Regression model and prediction equation
Table - 15
Multiple Regression analysis of selected kinematical variables and
performance of Set-Shot in Basketball

Dependent Selected Regression R R Contributed Standardized

Variable Independent Coefficient Square percentage in Coefficients
Variables for performance
entered step wise
Multiple Regression
analysis

ARB .292 .538a .289 29% .507

ARB,ARWJ .095 .625b .391 39% .300
Performance
ARB,ARWJ,ARSJ 45%
.165 .675c .455 .255
of Set Shot

a. Predictors: (constant), ARBH=Angle of release of ball

b. Predictors: (constant), ARBH, ARWJ=Angle at right wrist joint at moment of
release
c. Predictors: (constant), ARBH, ARWJ, ARSJ=Angle at right shoulder joint at
moment of release.
d. Dependent variable: Performance
e. Constant=Y= -47.123
f. Std. Error= 9.845.

In order to examine collective effect of kinematic variables on the

performance, Multiple Regression was performed with step-wise method (Table

15) through SPSS. Generated model included three kinematical variables and

deleted rest of the variables. The model summary reveals the R and R square

values at .675 and .455 indicating that about forty five per cent of the variation

in dependent variable is caused by three independent variables namely angle of

release of the ball (ARB), angle at right wrist joint at moment of release (ARWJ)

and angle at right shoulder joint at moment of release (ARSJ).

Table 15 illustrates the Multiple Regression analysis performed to

develop equation for the prediction of performance in set shot on the basis of X 1,

79
X2 and X3 kinematical variables and the resulted multiple regression equation in

score form is:

Y= A+B1X1+ B2X2+ B3X3

Y= -47.123+.292X1+.095X2+.165X3

Where, Y is predicted performance score in set shot

X1= Angle of release of the ball (ARB).

X2= Angle at right wrist joint at moment of release (ARWJ).

and X3= Angle at right shoulder joint at moment of release (ARSJ).

Height wise Analysis of Kinematical Variables

In the present study the investigator employed one-Way Analysis of

Variance to study the significance of difference in selected kinematical variables

among three different height groups while performing set shot at moment of

stance and moment of release. Further to find out the significant difference

between pair of means among the three groups post hoc test was run on SPSS.

80
 Table - 16
Showing F values of selected kinematical variables of three different height
groups at the moment of stance

Sources of SS Df MS F
Variance

Angle at right ankle SS Between 1460.1 2 730.050

joint (ARAJ)
SS with in 2164.7 57 37.978 19.223**

Angle at left ankle SS Between 1460.1 2 730.050

joint (ALAJ)
SS with in 2164.7 57 37.978 19.223**

Angle at right knee SS Between 7153.200 2 3576.6

joint (ARKJ)
SS with in 3781.650 57 66.345 53.909**

Angle at left knee SS Between 7127.433 2 3563.7

joint (ALKJ)
SS with in 3795.150 57 66.582 53.524**

Angle at right SS Between 16.633 2 8.317

shoulder joint
(ARSJ) SS with in 60.100 57 1.054 7.888**

Angle at left shoulder SS Between 1.233 2 .617

joint (ALSJ)
SS with in 109.100 57 1.914 .322

Angle at right hip SS Between 132.933 2 66.467

joint
1.488
SS with in 2545.250 57 44.654
(ARHJ)

Angle at left hip joint SS Between 100.233 2 50.117

(ALHJ) SS with in 2521.500 57 44.237 1.113

Angle at right elbow SS Between 2031.633 2 1015.81

joint (AREJ)
SS with in 20917.30 57 366.970 2.768

Angle at left elbow SS Between 1193.233 2 596.617

joint (ALEJ)
SS with in 22060.95 57 387.034 1.542

Angle at right wrist SS Between 433.633 2 216.817

joint (ARWJ)
SS with in 4363.300 57 76.549 2.832

Angle at left wrist SS Between 3522.900 2 1761.450

81
joint (ALWJ) SS with in 6836.500 57 119.939 14.686**

Height of c.g. SS Between 1440.120 2 720.060

(HCGms)
SS with in 1539.537 57 27.009 26.660**

Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level

* - Significant at 0.05 level
Tabulated value 3.15

Table 16 shows that the value of F-ratio for the angle at right ankle joint,

angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee joint, angle at

right shoulder joint, angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at

left hip joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at right

wrist joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of center of gravity of the shooter

of three different height groups in the moment of stance while performing set

shot.

Review of table 16 shows that the values of F-ratio of the angle at right

ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee

joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of center of

gravity of the shooter of three different height groups in moment stance while

performing set shot were significant at .01 level. In other words, it can be

stated that there are significant differences among three different

height groups at moment of stance in following kinematical

variables namely angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at

right knee joint, angle at left knee joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left

wrist joint and height of center of gravity of the shooter.

82
 Table 16 also showed that the values of F ratio of the angle at left

shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at right elbow

joint, angle at left elbow joint and angle at right wrist joint of three different

height groups in moment stance while performing set shot were insignificant at .

05 level. Therefore, it can be stated that there are insignificant

differences among three different height groups at moment of stance

in following kinematical variables namely angle at left shoulder joint,

angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at

left elbow joint and angle at right wrist joint. To know which group means were

different, Post hoc test was run.

83
 Table – 17

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right

and left ankle joint at the moment of stance

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right ankle I II 2.70000
joint III 11.55000**
II I -2.70000
III 8.85000**
III I -11.55000**
II -8.85000**
Angle at left ankle joint I II 2.70000
III 11.55000**
II I -2.70000
III 8.85000**
III I -11.55000**
II -8.85000**
Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 17 shows that there was a significant difference between two pair of

means: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 6’1” to 6’4”, p=.000 (<0.01); b. 5’9” to 6’ and 6’1” to

6’4”, p=.000 (<0.01). It means that the third height group players i.e. 6’1” to

6’4” were significantly different from the other two height group players in

angle at right and left ankle joint at the moment of stance in set shot.

Table - 18

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right

and left knee joint at the moment of stance

84
 Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right knee I II 14.70000**
joint III 26.70000**
II I -14.70000**
III 12.0000**
III I -26.70000**
II -12.0000**
Angle at left knee joint I II 14.70000**
III 26.650000**
II I -14.70000**
III 11.95000**
III I -26.65000**
II -11.95000**
Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 18 reveals that all the three group means were significantly

different from one another: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.000 (<0.01); b.

5’9” to 6’ and 6’1” to 6’4”, p=.000 (<0.01); c. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 6’1” to 6’4”,

p=.000 (<0.01). It means that all the three height group players were

significantly different in angle at right and left knee joint at the moment of

stance in set shot.

Table – 19

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right

shoulder joint at the moment of stance

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right shoulder I II -1.25000**

85
 joint III -.90000*
II I 1.25000**
III .35000
III I .90000*
II -.35000
Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level,*- Significant at 0.05 level.
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 19 shows that there was a significant difference between two pair of

means in angle at right shoulder joint: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.000

(<0.01); b. 5’5” to 5’8’’ and 6’1” to 6’4”, p=.027 (<0.05). This indicates that first

height group players i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the other

two height group players in angle at right shoulder joint at the moment of stance

in set shot.

Table – 20

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at left

wrist joint and height of center of gravity at the moment of stance

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at left wrist joint I II -17.85000**
III -13.95000**
II I 17.85000**
III 3.90000

86
 III I 13.95000**
II -3.90000
height of center of I II -9.46500**
gravity III -11.12150**
II I 9.46500**
III -1.65650
III I 11.12150**
II 1.65650
Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level.
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 20 reveals that that there was a significant difference between two

pair of means: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.000 (<0.01); b. 5’5” to 5’8’’ and

6’1” to 6’4”, p=.001 (<0.01). This also indicates that first height group players

i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the other two height group

players in angle at left wrist joint and height of the c.g. at the moment of stance

in set shot.

Table - 21

Showing F values of selected kinematical variables of three different height

groups at the moment of release of ball.
Sources of SS Df MS F
Variance

Angle at right ankle SS Between 361.733 2 180.867

joint (ARAJ)
SS with in 2320.200 57 40.705 4.443*

Angle at left ankle SS Between 350.633 2 175.317

joint (ALAJ)
SS with in 4.299*
2324.350 57 40.778
Angle at right knee SS Between 130.833 2 65.417
joint (ARKJ)
SS with in 1846.150 57 32.389 2.020

Angle at left knee SS Between 90.133 2 45.067

joint (ALKJ)
SS with in 2088.850 57 36.646

87
 1.230

Angle at right SS Between 126.033 2 63.017

shoulder joint (ARSJ)
SS with in 929.700 57 16.311 3.864*

Angle at left shoulder SS Between 159.600 2 79.800

joint (ALSJ)
SS with in 773.250 57 13.566 5.882**

Angle at right hip SS Between 195.700 2 97.850

joint (ARHJ)
SS with in 35271.150 57 61.880 1.581

Angle at left hip joint SS Between 186.133 2 93.067

(ALHJ)
SS with in 3548.850 57 62.261 1.495

Angle at right elbow SS Between 691.300 2 345.650

joint (AREJ)
SS with in 4329.550 57 75.957 4.551*

Angle at left elbow SS Between 3797.433 2 1898.717

joint (ALEJ)
SS with in 4013.300 57 70.409 26.967**

Angle at right wrist SS Between 1148.233 2 574.117

joint (ARWJ)
SS with in 3237.700 57 56.802 10.107**

Angle at left wrist SS Between 933.100 2 466.550

joint (ALWJ)
SS with in 2620.300 57 45.970 10.149**

Angle of release of SS Between 93.333 2 46.667

ball (ARB)
SS with in 1250.400 57 21.937 2.127

Height of c.g. SS Between 5017.348 2 2508.674 231.536**

(HCGmr)
SS with in 617.591 57 10.835

Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level

* - Significant at 0.05 level
Tabulated value 3.15

Table 21 shows that the value F-ratio of the angle at right ankle joint, angle

at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee joint, angle at right

shoulder joint, angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip

88
joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at right wrist joint,

angle at left wrist joint, angle of release of the ball and height of center of gravity

of the shooter of three different height groups in the moment of release of ball

while performing set shot.

Table 21 shows that the values of F-ratio of angle at left shoulder joint,

angle at left elbow joint, angle at right wrist joint, angle at left wrist joint and

height of center of gravity of the shooter of three different height groups in the

moment of release of ball while performing set shot were significant at .01 level.

Whereas the angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right

shoulder joint and angle at right elbow joint of three different height groups in

the moment of release of ball while performing set shot were significant at .05

level. It can be stated that there are significant differences among

three different height groups at the moment of release in following

kinematical variables namely the angle at right ankle joint, angle at left

ankle joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left shoulder joint and angle at

right elbow joint angle at left elbow joint, angle at right wrist joint, angle at left

wrist joint and the height of center of gravity of the shooter.

The Table 21 also shows that the values of F ratio of the angle of right

knee joint, angle of left knee joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint

and the angle of release of ball of three different height groups in the moment of

release while performing set shot were not significant at .05 level. Therefore, it

can be stated that there are insignificant differences among three

different height groups at moment of stance in following

89
kinematical variables namely the angle of right knee joint, angle of left

knee joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint and the angle of release

of ball. To know which group means were different, Post hoc test was run.

Table – 22
Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right
ankle joint at the moment of release

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right ankle I II .90000
joint III 5.60000*
II I -.90000
III 4.70000
III I -5.60000*
II -4.70000
Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Above table showed that there was significant difference between a pair

of means: a. 5’5” to 5’8’’ and 6’1” to 6’4”, p=.027 (<0.05). This indicates that

first height group players i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the

third height group players i.e. 6’1” to 6’4” in angle at right ankle joint at the

moment of release in set shot.

Table - 23
Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at left
ankle joint at the moment of release

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at left ankle joint I II .85000
III 5.50000*
II I -.850000
III 4.650000
III I -5.50000*
II -4.650000
Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

90
 Table 23 shows that there was significant difference between a pair of

means: a. 5’5” to 5’8’’ and 6’1” to 6’4”, p=.031 (<0.05). This shows that first

height group players i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the third

height group players i.e. 6’1” to 6’4” in angle at left ankle joint also at the moment

of release in set shot.

Table – 24

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right

shoulder joint at the moment of release

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right shoulder I II -3.45000*
joint III -2.45000
II I 3.45000*
III 1.00000
III I 2.45000
II -1.00000
Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 24 reveals that there was significant difference between a pair of means:

a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.032 (<0.05). This shows that first height group

players i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the second height

group players i.e. 5’9” to 6’ in angle at right shoulder joint at the moment of

release in set shot.

91
 Table – 25

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at left

shoulder joint at the moment of release

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at left shoulder I II -3.60000*
joint III -.30000
II I 3.60000*
III 3.30000*
III I .30000
II -3.30000*
Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 25 shows that there was significant difference between two pair of

means: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.012 (<0.05) b. 5’9” to 6’ and 6’ 1” to

6’4”, p=.023 (<0.05). This proves that second height group players i.e. 5’9” to 6’

were significantly different from the other two height group players in angle at

left shoulder joint at the moment of release in set shot.

92
 Table - 26

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right

and left elbow joint at the moment of release

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right elbow I II 7.25000*
joint III 7.15000*
II I -7.2500*
III -.10000
III I -7.15000*
II .10000
Angle at left elbow I II 14.95000**
joint III 18.30000**
II I -14.95000**
III 3.35000
III I -18.30000**
II -3.35000
Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level.
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 26 shows that there was significant difference between two pair of

means at angle of right elbow joint: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.038

(<0.05); b. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 6’1” to 6’4”, p=.042 (<0.05).Above table also

reveals that there was significant difference between same two pair of means at

angle at left elbow joint: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.000 (<0.01); b. 5’5’’

to 5’8’’ and 6’ 1” to 6’4”, p=.000 (<0.01).Therefore, it can be said that first

height group players i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the other

two height group players in angle at left and right elbow joint at the moment of

release in set shot.

Table - 27

93
 Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in angle at right
and left wrist joint at the moment of release.

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Angle at right wrist joint I II -4.85000
III 5.85000
II I 4.85000
III 10.70000**
III I -5.85000
II -10.70000**
Angle at left wrist joint I II -4.45000
III 5.20000
II I 4.45000
III 9.65000**
III I -5.20000
II -9.65000**
Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level.
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Above table reveals that there was significant difference between a pair of

means in angle at right and left wrist joint: a. 5’9” to 6’ and 6’ 1” to 6’4”, p=.000

(<0.01). This shows that second height group players i.e. 5’9” to 6’ were

significantly different from the 3rd height group players i.e. 6’1” to 6’4” in angle

at right and left wrist joint at the moment of release in set shot.

Table – 28
Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in height of center
of gravity at the moment of release.

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Height groups in height I II -15.87600**
of center of gravity III -21.62250**
II I 15.87600**
III -5.74650**

94
 III I 21.62250**
II 5.74650**
Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 28 shows that all the three group means were significantly different

from one another: p=.000 (<0.01). It means that all the three height group

players were significantly different in height of center of gravity at the moment

of release in set shot.

Table-29

Showing F value of time to perform the course and displacement of center of gravity of
three different height groups while performing set shot in basketball.

Sources of SS Df MS F
Variance

Time to SS Between
3.386 2 1.693
perform the
course (TPC) SS with in 1.021
94.486 57 1.658
Displacement SS Between
1120.713 2 560.357
of center of
gravity (DCG) SS with in 16.304**
1959.024 57 34.369

Note: ** - Significant at 0.01 level

Tabulated value 3.15
Table 29 shows that the value of F-ratio of time to perform the course and

displacement of center of gravity of three different height groups while

performing set shot in basketball. Above table depicts that the value of F-ratio

for the time to perform the course of three different height groups while

performing set shot was insignificant at .05 level. It means that there was no

significant difference in the time to perform the course of three different height

group players while performing set shot. Table 29 also shows that the value of

F-ratio for the displacement of center of gravity of three different height groups

95
while performing set shot was significant at .01 level. It indicates that there was

significant difference in the displacement of center of gravity of three different

height groups while performing set shot.

Table – 30

Showing multiple comparison of different height groups in displacement of

center of gravity

Group Group MD
(s) (j)
Displacement of center of I II -6.41250**
gravity
III -10.50100**
II I 6.41250**
III -4.08850
III I 10.50100**
II 4.08850
Note: * - Significant at 0.05 level
Height groups: I=5’5’’ to 5’8’’, II=5’9” to 6’, III=6’1” to 6’4”

Table 30 shows that there was significant difference between two pair of

means: a. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 5’9” to 6’, p=.004 (<0.01); b. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’ and 6’ 1”

to 6’4”, p=.000 (<0.01). This also indicates that first height group players i.e.

5’5’’ to 5’8’’ were significantly different from the other two height group players

in displacement of center of gravity.

Discussion of the Findings

The results of the study have shown that none of the kinematical variables

i.e. angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint,

angle at left knee joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left shoulder joint,

angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at

left elbow joint, angle at right wrist joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of

96
center of gravity of the shooter exhibited significant relationship with the

performance of set shot at moment of stance. Though it is generally assumed that

the stance plays an important role in good execution of any skill, but in this

investigation it was found that kinematical variables at the moment of stance of

set shot put no impact on the performance. It was also found that the kinematical

variables i.e. angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip

joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at left wrist joint

and height of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of release of ball have

no significant relationship with the performance of set shot at moment of release

of the ball. It was also found that the displacement of center of gravity of the

shooter have no relationship with the performance of set shot in basketball.

Previous study with the purpose to investigate the pattern of motion of the

striking arm and muscular/joint activities responsible for it during the arm swing

phase of the volleyball spike (Soo Chung, 1998) also showed that the elbow

muscles and joint contains no significant value in strengthening respective arm

rotation and performance directly. Previous research to develop suitable and

feasible criteria for the evaluating different variations of seoi nage and to find

out the contributing biomechanical, anthropometric flexibility and motor fitness

factors for effective execution of different variation of seoi nage (S. Dhananjoy,

1990) also shown that (i) left elbow joint, right knee joint and center of gravity

at the basic stances prefer no correlation with the seoi nage perfecton and (ii) the

angle at the ankle joint found not to be significantly correlated with total time as

it was less effective too.

97
 The results of the study have shown that some of the selected kinematical

variables i.e. angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right

knee joint, angle at left knee joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at right

wrist joint and angle of release of the ball exhibited a significant relationship

with the performance of set shot at moment of release. The significant relation

between ankle joint (right and left) at the moment of release in set shot and

performance may be because of the fact that ankle joint also contributes in

bearing body weight during execution of any skill. 15% and 14% of contribution

in the performance at the moment of release was made by right and left ankle

joint respectively. It was also found that these significant variables as like right

and left ankle joint at the moment of release in set shot had impact on the

performance at different rates. Optimum movement in the knee joint contributes

in gaining balanced movement during execution of skills that leads to good

performance. In this study 14% and 13% variation in the performance was being

caused by the angle formed at right and left knee joint respectively at the

moment of release. Optimum duration of time to perform any skill is highly

recommended (Hay, 1978), so in this study also 7% variation in the performance

was being caused by time to perform the course. Angle of release of the ball

decides its path that plays important role in accuracy. It was found that 29% of

variation in the performance was being caused by angle of release of the ball. At

the time of execution angle of release of the ball also depends on the related

wrist action. Therefore as like angle of release of ball, angle at right wrist joint

98
also found significant with 12 percent contribution in the performance at

moment of release of ball.

In Previous research on the kinematic analysis of Basketball three point

shoot after high intensity program (Chi-Yang, 2006) found that Improvement in

the power for the shot exhibited to be dependent on knee and ankle joint to much

extent. Previous research on kinematical analysis of the flight phase in the long

jump (Kim L., 1993) also confirmed that many kinematical variables like knee

and elbow joint contributes in gaining good flight phase in long jump. Mr.

Muralitharan’s spin bowling action was analyzed in the biomechanical

laboratory of the school of Human movement and exercise sciences of Wester

Australia (The Hindu, 2004) and it was finalized by the experts that wrist

abduction seemed to be the major reason for production of impressive ‘Dusra’.

In another previous research study on the relationship of kinematic variables

with the performance of standing broad jump (Ruhal A.S. and Ruhal G.S, 2009)

it was found that the angle at knee joints and angle at ankle joints were

significantly related with the performance in broad jump. In the same study it

was also found that the time taken to perform the broad jump was not

significantly related with the performance in broad jump. In the present study it

was found forty five percent of the variation in dependent variable was caused

by three independent variables only namely angle of release of the ball (ARB),

angle at right wrist joint at moment of release (ARWJ) and angle at right

shoulder joint at moment of release (ARSJ). In the present study during the

course of set shot target was fixed at certain height and above the releasing point.

99
It was found that angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left

hip joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint and angle at right

wrist joint of three different height groups at moment stance were not

significantly different. At the moment of release angle at right knee joint, angle

at left knee joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint and angle of

release of ball of three height groups were not found significantly different. Time

to perform the course also showed no significant difference among the three

different height groups. It was analyzed that 7% of contribution in the

performance of set shot was caused by time to perform the course but when we

consider players of different heights, time period among different height players

may not be different in performing the skill of set shot. The study further showed

that all the three groups were significantly different in angle of right and left

knee joint at moment of stance and height of center of gravity at moment of

release. Since the three groups were of different height, it was obvious that

height of their c.g must be different when executing the ball without leaving the

floor. Different height group players bend their body at different rates from the

ankle and knee joints in order to get suitable position for the stance. As third

group players were more heighted than the rest of the two groups, therefore they

were in the requirement to bend their ankle and knee joint differently from the

less heighted players. In the study third group (6’1” to 6’4”) was found

significantly different from the other two groups in angle of right and left ankle

joint at moment of stance. Present study exhibited that first group (5’5’’ to 5’8’’)

was significantly different from the other two groups in angle of right shoulder

100
joint, left wrist joint and height of center of gravity at moment of stance. It was

found that first and third group was significantly different in angle of right and

left ankle joint at moment of release of ball. In the angles of right and left

shoulder joint at the moment of release of the ball first and second group was

found significantly different. It is generally found that short height players

having less arm length as compared to tall players and the difference of first

group from the third group was about four feet, which increased the chances of

significant differences. It was found that in the angles of right and left elbow

joint at moment of release of ball first group was significantly different from

other two groups. First height group was also found significantly different from

other two groups in displacement of center of gravity of the shooter. The present

study also exhibited that second and third group was significantly different in

angle at right and left wrist joint during moment of release of ball.

101
CHAPTER 5

102
 CHAPTER – V
SUMMARY
The purpose of the study was two dimentional kinematical analysis of set

shot among basketball players. Sixty inter-varsity or national level male

basketball players of three different height groups i.e. 5’5’’ to 5’8’’, 5’9” to 6’

and 6’ 1” to 6’4” (20 in each group) were selected as subjects for the study. The

age of the subjects ranged between 18 to 30 years. The subjects were explained

about the objective of the study. The data was obtained from two given

positions of any successful attempt: i. Moment of stance in set shot and ii.

Moment of release of ball in set shot. kinematical variables chosen for the two

mentioned positions in set shot were angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle

joint, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee joint, angle of right hip joint,

angle of left hip joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left shoulder joint,

angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at right wrist joint,

angle at left wrist joint, angle of release of the ball, height of center of gravity of

the shooter at moment stance, height of center of gravity of the shooter at

moment of release of ball, time to perform the course and displacement of

center of gravity. Total ten attempts were given to each subject and the

successful shots marked as score out of ten as criterion measure of performance

in the study. Four Digital Video cameras Sony 2100 series were used in order to

103
register the technique of set shot while attempting free throw in Basketball. The

films were analyzed by using standard motion analyzer. Only two selected

moments were analyzed. The purpose of the study was further extended to find

out the correlation between the selected kinematical variables and the

performance of the subjects in set shot and to study the significance of difference

in selected kinematic variables among three different height groups while

performing set shot. With regard to purpose of the study techniques of product

moment correlation, regression, one way ANOVA and post hoc were applied.

Level of significance was fixed at 0.05.

The study revealed that the selected variables have no significant

relationship with the performance in set shot in basketball at moment of stance.

Results also found that the variables i.e. angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right

hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow

joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of center of gravity of the shooter at

moment of release of ball have no significant relationship with the performance

in set shot in basketball at the moment of release of ball. The obtained value of

coefficient of correlation of the displacement of center of gravity too exhibited

no significant relationship with the performance of set shot of different height

group players in basketball. The results revealed that the some variables i.e.

angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint, angle

at left knee joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at right wrist joint and angle

of release of the ball have significant relationship with the performance in set

104
shot in basketball at moment of release and put impact on performance of set

shot.

Height wise analyses of kinematical variables revealed that angle at right

ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee

joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of center of

gravity of the shooter at moment of stance were significantly different. Whereas

angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at

right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint and angle at right wrist joint were

found not significant at moment of stance in relation to height differences among

three different height groups. The study revealed that height groups in angle at

right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at

left shoulder joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at

right wrist joint, angle at left wrist joint and height of center of gravity of the

shooter at moment of release were significantly different. The obtained F value

of the displacement of center of gravity too exhibited significant difference

among different height group players in basketball. Whereas angle of release of

ball, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee joint, angle at right hip joint and

angle at left hip joint were found not significantly different during moment of

release of ball. Study of height wise analysis of time to perform the course also

showed no significant difference among three different height groups. It was

found that all the three groups were significantly different in angle of right and

left knee joint at moment of stance and height of center of gravity at moment of

release. In the study third group (6’1” to 6’4”) was found significantly different

105
from the other two groups in angle of right and left ankle joint at moment of

stance. First group (5’5’’ to 5’8’’) was found significantly different from the

other two groups in angle of right shoulder joint, left wrist joint and height of

center of gravity at moment of stance. Study exhibited that first and third group

was significantly different in angle of right ant left ankle joint at moment of

release of ball. In the angles of right and left shoulder joint at moment of release

of ball first and second group (5’9” to 6’) was found significantly different. It

was also found that in the angles of right and left elbow joint at moment of

release of ball first group was significantly different from other two groups. First

group was also found significantly different from other two groups in

displacement of center of gravity of the shooter. Second and third group was

found significantly different in angle at right and left wrist joint during moment

of release of ball.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the analysis and within the limitations of the study following

conclusions were drawn:

1. It was observed that there was no significant relationship between

selected biomechanical variables at the moment of stance and the

performance of set shot of different height group players in basketball.

Therefore, these selected variables at moment of stance put no impact on

the performance of set shot.

2. There was no significant relationship between the variables i.e. angle at

left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint, angle at

106
 right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint, angle at left wrist joint, height

of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of release of ball and the

performance of set shot of different height group players in basketball.

Therefore, these selected variables at moment of release of ball put no

impact on the performance of set shot.

3. Some of the selected biomechanical variable i.e. angle at right ankle joint,

angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee joint, angle at left knee joint,

angle at right shoulder joint, angle at right wrist joint and angle of release

of the ball at moment of release of the ball were found significantly

related with the performance of set shot of different height group players

in basketball and therefore, these selected variables at moment of release

of ball put there impact on the performance of set shot.

4. Significant relationship was observed between time to perform the course

and the performance of set shot of different height group players in

basketball. Therefore, selected variable puts impact on the performance of

set shot.

5. There is no significant relationship found between the displacement of

center of gravity and the performance of set shot of different height group

players in basketball and therefore, the selected variable puts no impact

on the performance of set shot.

6. Angle of release of the ball made highest impact (29%) in the

performance.

7. Time to perform the course had lowest impact (7%) in the performance.

107
8. Multiple regression analysis revealed that predictions regarding

performance in set shot can be made, by developing multiple regression

equations on the basis of selected kinematical variables.

9. Collective impact of angle of release of the ball, angle at right wrist joint

at moment of release and angle at right shoulder joint at moment of

release in performance was about forty five percent.

10. Significant difference among different height groups were found in

angle at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right knee

joint, angle at left knee joint, angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left

wrist joint and height of center of gravity of the shooter at moment of

stance.

11. Third group (6’1” to 6’4”) was significantly different from the other two

groups in angle at right and left ankle joint at the moment of stance in set

shot.

12. Angle of knee joint (right and left) at the moment of stance was

significantly different among three groups.

13. First group (5’5’’ to 5’8’’) was significantly different from the other two

groups in angle at right shoulder joint, angle at left wrist joint and height

of the c.g. at the moment of stance in set shot.

14. No significant difference among different height groups were found in

angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right hip joint, angle at left hip joint,

angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow joint and angle at right wrist

joint at moment of stance.

108
15. Significant difference among different height groups were found in angle

at right ankle joint, angle at left ankle joint, angle at right shoulder joint,

angle at left shoulder joint, angle at right elbow joint, angle at left elbow

joint, angle at right wrist joint and angle at left wrist joint at moment of

release of ball.

16. Height of center of gravity during the moment of release in set shot of all

the three groups was significantly different from one another.

17. A significant difference was found between first (5’5’’ to 5’8’’) and third

group (6’1” to 6’4”) at the angle of right and left ankle joint during the

moment of release in set shot.

18. A significant difference was found between first (5’5’’ to 5’8’’) and

second group (5’9” to 6’) at the angle of right shoulder joint during the

moment of release.

19. Left shoulder joint angle at the moment of release in set shot was

significantly different in second group (5’9” to 6’) from the other two

groups.

20. Significant difference was found in first group (5’5’’ to 5’8’’) from the

other two groups at the angle of left and right elbow joint during the

moment of release.

21. A significant difference was found between second group ( 5’9” to 6’) and

third group (6’1” to 6’4”) at the angle of right and left wrist joint during the

moment of release.

109
22. At the angle of release of ball, right knee joint, left knee joint, right hip

joint and left hip joint during the moment of release of ball no significant

difference among the groups were found.

23. Displacement of center of gravity was significantly different in first group

(5’5’’ to 5’8’’) from the other two groups.

24. Time to perform the course was not significantly different among three

groups.

110
RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the conclusions drawn in this study the following

recommendations have been made:

1. Similar Studies can also be conducted on female basketball players.

2. The study may be undertaken with large number of variables like

velocity, equilibrium as the factors contributing to performance.

3.

4. Similar study may be under taken to analyze the other techniques of

basketball and other games.

5. Similar study may be conducted by using more sophisticated equipments

of different level.

6. This study can be conducted on national and international teams.

111
CHAPTER 6

112
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Clarke, H. (1976). Application of Measurement to Health and Physical

Education, 5th ed., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Clarke, YH. Harrison and Clarke, David H. (1972). Advanced Statistics with
Applications to Physical Education, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, Inc.

Comery, A.L. (1973). A First Course in Factor Analysis, New York: Academic
Press.

Cron Banch, L.J. (1960). Essentials of Psychological Testing, New York: Harper
and Ron Publishers.

Cureton, T.K. (1951). Physical Fitness of Champion Athletes, Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Degaray, A.L., Levine, L. and Carter, J.E.L. (1974). Genetic and

Anthropological Studies of Olympic Athletes, New York: Academic Press
Inc.

Dick, F.W. (1980). Sports Training Principles, London: Henry Kimpton

Publishers Ltd.

Dull, Charless E. (1960). Modern Physics, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston Incorporated.

Fidelus, K. (1978). Applied Biomechanics in Sport: Basic Book of Sports

Medicine, Olympic Solidarity of the International Olympic Committee.

Fleishman, Edwin A. (1964). The Structure and Measurement of Physical

Fitness, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc.

113
Grieve, D.W. (1975). Techniques for the Analysis of Human Movement, London:
an Associated Company of Henry Kimpton Ltd.

Gupta, S.C. (2009). Fundamentals of Statistics, ed. Indra Gupta, Delhi:

Himalaya Publishing House.

Harnian, H.H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis Chicago, University of Chicago

Press.

Harter, R.A. and Bates, B.T. (1985). Kinematic and Temporal Characteristics of
Judo Hip Throws-Biomechanics in Sports, ed. Terauds, J. and Barham
J.N., California: Academic Publishers.

Hay, James G. (1978). The Bio-mechanics of Sports Techniques, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Hebbeflinck, M. and Ross, W.D. (1974). Kinanthropometry and Bio- mechanics,

Biomechanics IV, Ed. Nelson, Richard C. and Morehouse, Chauncey A.,
Baltimore: University Park Press.

Hochmuth, G. and Marhold, G.(1978). The Further Development of

Biomechanical Principles, Biomechanics VI-B Ed. Asmussen, E. and
Jorgensen, K. Baltimore: University Park Press.

114
Jaeger, Richard M. (1983). Statistics - A Spectator Sport, New Delhi/ London/
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Jaric, S. (1985). A New Method for Determining the Force-Velocity Relationship

in Human Quadriceps Muscle, Biomechanics IX-A ed. Winter, David A.,
Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetic Publishers.

Johnson, B.l. and Nelson, J.K. (1982). Practical Measurements For Evaluation
in Physical Education, Delhi: Surjeet Publication.

Mathews, D.K. (1978). Measurement in Physical Education, 5th ed.,

Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.

Nelson M. (1973). Biomechanics of Sports, Great Britain: London, Henry

Kimpton.

Sahu, K. (2004). Statistics in Psychology & Education, 1st ed., New Delhi:
Kalyani Publishers.

Sharma, R.N. (2003). Statistics Techniques in Educational Research, 1st ed.,

Delhi: Surjeet Publications.

Tittel, Kurt (1978). Sports Anthropometry - Basic Book of Sports Medicine,

Olympic Solidarity of the International Olympic Committee.

Zatziorskyk, V.M. (1974). Studies of Motion and Motor Abilities of Sportsmen,

Biomechanics IV ed. Morehouse, C.A., Baltimore University Park Press.

JOURNALS AND PERIODICALS

Aboub, M.A. (1963). “A Biomechanical Model for the Upper Extremity Using
Optimizational Structure of Kinesiology”, Journal of Physical Education,
Pb., Vol. 20, pp.120-121.

Anndrews, J.G. (1985). “Strength Curves for Multiple - Joint Single Degree of
Freedom Exercises”, Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 18, p.226.

115
Aydin, Bergün and Mensure (2009). “Kinematic Analysis of Over Arm
Movements for Different Sports”, Journal of Kinsiology, Vol. 41, pp.105-
111.

Beach, Clark Richard (1984). “Kinematic Analysis of Spatial and Temporal

Errors in Rapid Timing Tasks”, Dissertation Abstract International, Vol.
44, p.270-A.

Boyson, J.P. (1977). “Interactive Computer Graphics in the Study of Human

Body Planner Motion under Free Fall Conditions”, Journal of
Biomechanics, Vol. 10, pp.783-787.

4992.

Cook, E.B. and Wherry, R.J. (1950). “A Statistical Evaluation of Physical

Fitness Tools”, Research Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp.94-111.

116
Dapena, Jesus (1985). “Systematic Error in Three-Dimensional Coordinates
within a Large Object - Space when Using DLT & NLT Methods of Three
Dimensional Cinematography”, Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 18, p.230.

Deol, N.S., S. Mandeep and Gill, M. (2009). “Physical Education for Special
People: A Kinematical Analysis”, HPE Forum Bi-annual Professional
Journal, Vol. 08, pp.47-50.

Greenwald, Rosca and Morra (2009). “Assessment of Influence of

Contemporary Knee Design on High Flexion”, Human Mov. Sci., Vol. 16,
pp.457–467.

Greeve, D.W. (1969). “A Device Called The Polon for the Measurement of the
Orientation of Parts of the Relative to a Fixed Externalo Axis”, Journal of
Physiology, Vol. 07, p.201.

Guimaraes R. and Cliquet (2009). “Kinematic Analysis of the Knee when

Climbing up/down Stairs in Patellofemoral Instability”, Acta. Ortop.
Bras., pp.157-154.

117
Harnvey, W.R. (1985). “A Comparison of One and Two Camera Procedure for
the Bio-Mechanical Analysis of Human Performance”, Dissertation
Abstracts International, Vol. 45, p.133.

Higgins F. (1972). “Analysis of Mechanical Factors that Contribute to the

Vertical Jumping Height of Four Basketball Players”, Sports Review, Vol.
7, p.25.

Kaiser, H.F. (1958). “The Varimax Criterion for Analytic Rotation in Factor
Analysis”, Psychometria, Vol. 23, pp.187-200.

118
Kim L. (1993). “Kinematical Analysis of the Flight Phase in the Long Jump”,
Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 12, pp.147-157.

Kitagawa, Onishi and Kato (2001). “Kinematical Variables of Underwater

Running and Walking”, IEEE Annual Int. Conf. on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Charlottesville, VA.

Lusin, G.F. (1979). Gajdosik, R.L. and Miller, K.E., “Goniometry: A Review of
the Literature”, Athletic Training, Vol. 14, pp.161-164.

Martin, Thomas P. and Stull, Alan G. (1969). “Effects of Various Knee Angle
and Foot Spacing Combinations on Performance of the Vertical Jump.”
Research Quarterly, Vol. 40, p.324.

Matsumoto, Y. (1978). “Analysis of the Kuzushi in the Nagewaza”, Bulletin of

the Association for the Scientific Studies on Judo, Vol. V, p. 957.

Matasumoto, Y. (1963). “Studies on Judo Techniques with Respect to

Distribution on Body Weight”, Bulletin of the Association for the
Scientific Studies on Judo, Vol. II, p. 785.

Mclaughlin, T.M. (1977). “Biomechanical Analysis with Cubic Spline

Functions”, Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp.659-658.

Miller, D.I. (1979). “Modeling in Biomechanics: Overview”, Medicine and

Science in Sports, Vol. 11, pp.115-112.

Miller, D.I. (1978). “Biomechanics of Running what should the Future Hold”,
Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, Vol. 3, pp.229-236.

Motoyasu, Koshiyama and Katsumata (2009). “Effects of Joint Movement

on

the Accuracy of 3-point Shooting in Basketball”, Journal of Sports

Sciences, Vol. 17, pp.85-93.

119
Papesy, Frank Eduard (1969). “The Effect of Understanding A Specific

Mechanical Principle Upon Learning A Physical Education Skill”,

Dissertation Abstract International, Vol. 30, pp.236-A.

Payne, A. (1968). “The Use of a Force Platform in the Study of Athletic

Activities: A Preliminary Investigation”, Ergonomics, pp.123-143.

Pezzack, J.C. (1977). “An Assessment of Derivation Determining Techniques

used for Motion Analysis”, Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 10, pp.377-
382.

Plagenhoef, Stanley C. (1966). “Methods for Obtaining Kinetic Data to Analyse

Human Motions”, Research Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp.103-113.

Rashed S. (1980). “Biomechanical Cinematographic Analysis of Selected Full

Twisting Movement in Gymnastics”, Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, pp.11-
15.

Ray, G.G. and Sen, R.N. (1983). “Determination of Whole Body Centre of
Gravity in Indians”, Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 27, pp.745-748.

Rojas F.J., Cepero and Gutierrez (2000). “Kinematic Adjustments in the

Basketball Jump Shot Against An Opponent”, Annual Ergonomics, Vol.
43, pp.1651-1660.

120
Scureton, T.K. and Sterling, L.F. (1964). “Factor Analysis of Cardiovescular Test
Variables”, Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 4, pp.5-14.

Shaw, Dhananjoy (1990). “A Comparative Study of Ippon Seoi and Morote Seoi
Nage - A Biomechanical Approach,” NIS Scientific Journal, Vol. 13,
pp.22-29.

Shaw, Dhananjoy (1989). “Inter-Relationship between Physical Characteristics

and Partial Timings in different Phases of Morote Seoi Nage”, NIS
Scientific Journal, Vol. 12.

Sira, David Ben (1978). “A Simple Procedure for Event Marking when Filming
with One or Two cameras”, Research Quarterly, Vol. 49, pp.381-384.

S. Mandeep (2010). “Evaluation and Improvement of Sports Techniques through

Biomechanical Updated Analyzing Technology”, University News -
Special Issue, Association of Indian University, Vol. 48, pp.54-57.

Smith R., Bake M. and Fiatarone (2009). “Gait and Posture in Arthritic and
Healthy Knees”, Scientia Iranica, Vol. 3, pp.257-261.

Completed Research in Health, Physical Education and Recreation, Vol.

10, pp.78-79.

Winter, D.A. (1974). “Measurement anpd Reduction of Noise in Kinematics of

Locomotio”, Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 7, pp.157-159.

121
Wood, J.A. and Jennings, L.S. (1979). “One the Use of Spline Function for Data
Smoothing”, Journal of Biomechanics, Vol. 12, pp.477-479.

Yokobori, Sakae and Suzuki F. (1957). “Studies on the Appraisal of Body types
by Sheldon’s Triangula Scheme Method - Part 3 on the Body Types of
Sports Students in American Football, Karate, Tennis, Ping-pong, Judo
and Gymnastics”, The Japanese Journal of Physical Fitness, Vol. 6,
pp.52-57.

Zernicke, R.F. (1976). “Fitting Biomechanical Data with Cubic Spline

Functions”, Research Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp.9-19.

NEWS PAPER
Elliot Bruce (2004). “Bowling Report - Mr. Muttiah Muralitharan”, The Hindu,
May 07, 2004, late ed.

WEB SITE

http://www.basketballteacher.com/index/skill-shot.htm
http://www.growtall.com/improve-your-setshot.htm
http://en.mimi.hu/basketball/shot.htmls

MISCELLANEOUS
Abdoddaleh, Asal and Mohammad (2008). “Equilibrium Studying and

Comparison Old Athletes and No Athletes”, Abstract Book: III

International Congress on Sports Medicine, Exercise Science, Physical
Education and Yoga Sciences, L.N.I.P.E-Gwalior, 12-15 Feb. 2008 ,p.199.

A.S. Sajwan (2008). “Biomechanical Analysis of Block Start in 100 Meters

Sprint”, Abstract Book: III International Congress on Sports Medicine,

122
 Exercise Science, Physical Education and Yoga Sciences, L.N.I.P.E-
Gwalior, 12-15 Feb. 2008, p.195.

Bezodis E. (2008). “Understanding Elite Sprint Start Performance through an

Analysis of Joint Kinematics”, ISBS Conference Proceeding, Seoul,
Korea, 14-18 Jul. 2008, pp.498-500.

Bhardwaj R. (2008). “Kinematic Analysis of Vertical Jump of Boys of Different

Age Group”, Abstracts - National Conference on Holistic Approach to
Health and Fitness, Punjabi University Patiala,18-19 Feb. 2008,p.63.

Chi-Yang, Tsai (2006). “The Kinematic Analysis of Basketball Three Point

Shoot after High Intensity Program”, XXIV ISBS Symposium, Salzburg,
Austria, pp.276-279.

Deol. N.S. and S. Mandeep (2010). “Analysis of Application of Principles of

Forces in High Drive Kicks”, Abstracts - 4th National Conference on
Multidisciplinary Approach in Physical Education, Punjabi University
Patiala,12-13 Feb. 2010, p.48.

Flesishman, E.A., Kremer, E.J. and Soup, G.W. (1961). “The Dimensions of
Physical Fitness-programe”, Department of Industrial Administration and
Psychology, Vale University, New Haven, Connectient.

Fleishman, E.A., Thomas, P. and Munroe, P. (1961). “The Dimensions of

Physical Fitness - A Factor Analysis of Speed, Flexibility, Balance and
Coordination Tests”, Department of Industrial Administration and
Psychology, Vale University, New Haven, Connnectient.

123
K. Sarkar and S. Bhowmick (2008). “Influence of Some Selected
Anthropometric and Mechanical Parameters on Running Performance
with Primary Boys as Subjects”, Abstract Book: III International
Congress on Sports Medicine, Exercise Science, Physical Education and
Yoga Sciences, L.N.I.P.E-Gwalior, 12-15 Feb. 2008, pp.191-196.

N. Pothiwala and C. Poonam (2008). “Kinematic Analysis of Technique

of

Penalty Corner in Field Hockey”, Abstract Book: III International

Congress on Sports Medicine, Exercise Science, Physical Education and
Yoga Sciences, L.N.I.P.E-Gwalior, 12-15 Feb. 2008, p.194.

124
Rao, V.S.S.M. (1982). “New Frontiers of Identifying Top Sportsmen” Abstracts:
International Congress of Sports Sciences, Patiala.

Ruhal A.S. and Ruhal G.S. (2009). “Relationship of Kinematic Variables with

Analysing the Selected Techniques in Combative Sports - A

Biomechanical Study,” Abstract of Papers, Asian Conference on Sports
Medicine, p.765.

125
Shaw, Dhananjoy (1989). “Prediction of Dynamic Movement Amplitude (HIP)
by Selected Static Goniometric Measurements”, Proceedings of the 76th
Session of the Indian Science Congress, Part IV, Madurai,pp.34-56.

S. James (2008). “Relationship between Changes in Electromyography and

Kinematic Measurements during Exhaustive Running”, Abstract Book:
III International Congress on Sports Medicine, Exercise Science,
Physical Education and Yoga Sciences, L.N.I.P.E-Gwalior, 12-15 Feb.
2008, pp.45-46.

S. Kehkashan and P. Vikas (2008). “Relationship of Selected Kinematic

Variables with the Performance of Harai-Make-Kom”, Abstract Book: III
International Congress on Sports Medicine, Exercise Science, Physical
Education and Yoga Sciences, L.N.I.P.E-Gwalior, 12-15 Feb.
2008,pp.197-199.

S. Mandeep (2010). “Biomechanical Applications in Sports and Performance -

Putting Value of Science in Sports”, Abstracts - 5th JK Science Congress,
University of Jammu, J&K, 8-10 Feb. 2010,p.328.

126