Constructing Norms for Basic Movement Pattern as a Measure for Sports Selection among netball Players

Himanshu Sharma

Abstract


The purpose of this study was to construct for basic movement pattern (i.e., running speed, running agility, jumping ability and throwing ability) among netball players. A group of forty eight randomly selected male intercollege level netball players of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar between the age group of 18-25 years (Mean ± SD: age 22 ± 1.833 years, height 5.881 ± 2.330 ft, body mass 73.306 ± 4.8177 kg) volunteered to participate in this study. The 50- yard dash test (AAPHER 1976) was used to measure, “running speed”, shuttle run test (AAPHER 1976) was used to measure, “running agility”, standing long jump test (AAPHER 1976) was used to measure, “jumping ability”, and netball throw for distance test (Disch et al. 1977) was used to measure, “throwing ability”. In speed, the scores above 25.629 are considered very poor, from about 16.203 - 25.629 is considered poor, (-2.649) - 16.203 is considered average, (-2.649) - (-12.075) is considered good and the scores below (-21.501) are considered very good. In running agility, the scores above 13.173 are considered very poor, from about 12.056-13.173 is considered poor, 9.822- 12.056 is considered average, 8.705 - 9.822 is considered good and the scores below 7.588 are considered very good. In jumping ability, the scores below 2.712 are considered very poor, from about 2.712 - 4.189 is considered poor, 4.189 - 7.143 is considered average, 7.143 - 8.62 is considered good and the scores above 10.097 are considered very good. In throwing ability, the scores below 23.295are considered very poor, from about 36.384 - 49.473 is considered poor, 49.473- 75.651 is considered average, 75.651 - 88.74 is considered good and the scores above 101.829 are considered very good.


Keywords


Norms, Speed, Running Agility, Jumping Ability, Throwing Ability.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Trninic S, Dizdar D. System of the performance evaluation criteria weighted per positions in the netball game. CollAntropol 2000 Jun; 24 (1): 217-34.

Hoare DG, Warr CR. Talent identification and women’s soccer: an Australian experience. J Sports Sci 2000 Sep; 18 (9): 751-8.

Bale P. Anthropometric, body composition and performance variables of young elite female netball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1991 Jun; 31 (2): 173-7.

Fry A, Kraemer W. Physical performance characteristics of American collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 1991; 5 (3): 126-38.

Black W, Roundy E. Comparisons of size, strength, speed, and power in NCAA Division 1-A football players. J Strength Cond Res 1994; 8 (2): 80-5.

Abrantes C, Ma¸cas V, Sampaio J. Variation in football players’ sprint test performance across different ages and levels of competition. J Sports Sci Med 2004 Nov; 3 (YISI 1): 44-9.

Quarrie KL, Handcock P, Waller AE, et al. The New Zealand rugby injury and performance project. III: anthropometric and physical performance characteristics of players. Br J Sports Med 1995 Dec; 29 (4): 263-70.

Young WB, Pryor L. Relationship between pre-season anthropometric and fitness measures and indicators of playing performance in elite junior Australian Rules football. J Sci Med Sport 2007; 10 (2): 110-8.

Keogh JW, Weber CL, Dalton CT. Evaluation of anthropometric, physiological, and skill-related tests for talent identification in female field hockey. Can J Appl Physiol 2003 Jun; 28 (3): 397-409.

Gualdi-Russo E, Zaccagni L. Somatotype, role and performance in elite volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001; 41 (2): 256-62.

Drinkwater EJ, Hopkins WG, McKenna MJ, et al. Modelling age and secular differences in fitness between netball players. J Sports Sci 2007; 25 (8): 869-78.

Hoare DG. Predicting success in junior elite netball players: the contribution of anthropometric and physiological attributes. J Sci Med Sport 2000 Dec; 3 (4): 391-405.

Davis D, Barnette B, Kiger J, et al. Physical characteristics that predict functional performance in division I college football players. J Strength Cond Res 2004 Feb; 18 (1): 115-20.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.