BIOMECHANICAL COMPARISON OF THREE PERCEIVED

EFFORT SET SHOTS IN TEAM HANDBALL PLAYERS

HILLARY A. PLUMMER,1 SARAH S. GASCON,2 AND GRETCHEN D. OLIVER2
1
Division of Biokinesiology and Physical Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and 2School of
Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama

ABSTRACT literature examining injury prevalence in team handball

players is lacking, there is evidence to support the occur-
Plummer, HA, Gascon, SS, and Oliver, GD. Biomechanical
rence of upper extremity injury in this population of ath-
comparison of three perceived effort set shots in team
letes (8,14,23). Seil et al. (23) identified the shoulder as
handball players. J Strength Cond Res 31(1): 80–87, 2017—
the most frequent site to experience overuse symptoms
Shoulder injuries are prevalent in the sport of team handball;
over the course of a year. Shoulder pain in elite German
however, no guidelines currently exist in the implementation of team handball players has been reported to account for
an interval throwing protocol for players returning from an 40% of time lost injuries over a 6-month period (8,14). In
upper extremity injury. These guidelines exist for the sport of addition, a recent survey of Norwegian handball players
baseball, but team handball may present additional chal- revealed that 36% of team handball players had current
lenges due to greater ball mass that must be accounted for. shoulder pain (14). These studies indicate shoulder pain is
The purpose of this study was to examine kinematic differ- prevalent in team handball players, and this is likely due
ences in the team handball set shot at 50, 75, and 100% to the demands placed on the shoulder during throwing.
effort which are common throwing intensities in throwing pro- Previous reports have indicated that team handball play-
tocols. Eleven male team handball players (23.09 6 3.05 ers make approximately 48,000 throws in a season (1,11).
years; 185.12 6 8.33 cm; 89.65 6 12.17 kg) volunteered. Thus, it is not surprising that shoulder overuse injuries
An electromagnetic tracking system was used to collect kine- are prevalent due to the number of throws reported.
With the prevalence of upper extremity injury in team
matic data at the pelvis, trunk, scapula, and shoulder. Kine-
handball players, the need to develop effective rehabili-
matic differences at the shoulder, trunk, and pelvis were
tation protocols and return-to-play criteria becomes vital
observed across effort levels throughout the set shot with
to the care of the athlete. In baseball and softball, it is
most occurring at ball release and maximum internal rotation.
common following an injury to initiate an interval
Significant differences in ball speed were observed between throwing protocol as the athlete progresses through the
all 3 effort level shots (p , 0.001). Team handball players are rehabilitation program (2–4,6,24,31). The interval throw-
able to gauge the effort at which they shoot; however, it can- ing protocol is performed during rehabilitation to pro-
not be assumed that these speeds will be at a certain per- gressively prepare the athlete for the demands of
centage of their maximum. The results of this study provide throwing so that they can successfully return to play
valuable evidence that can be used to prepare a team hand- (24). Typical interval throwing protocols begin with
ball player to return to throwing activities. the athlete throwing from 30 feet or less and gradually
increasing the distance up to approximately 180 feet
KEY WORDS interval throwing protocol, rehabilitation, while also incorporating different levels of perceived
shoulder, throwing effort during throwing (24). Although these protocols
give general guidelines for clinicians to follow, they are
INTRODUCTION vague on when to increase the effort or distance. Clini-

T
eam handball is a popular sport worldwide, and cians may choose to focus on effort initially in the early
according to the International Handball Federa- stages of return to throwing. However, clinicians may
tion (IHF), over 30 million athletes in 183 coun- choose to begin with distance because it is an objective
tries currently play the sport. Although the measure, whereas effort is subjective and is difficult to
quantify. The integration of an interval throwing protocol
Address correspondence to Gretchen D. Oliver, goliver@auburn.edu. is common; however, there is currently no information
31(1)/80–87 regarding return-to-play throwing protocols in team
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research handball. One of the first steps in establishing an interval
Ó 2016 National Strength and Conditioning Association throwing protocol specific to team handball is to gain an
the TM

80 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

understanding of the ability of team handball players to shot kinematics and kinetics were significantly different
throw at different levels of perceived effort. In a sample of at each of the perceived effort shots. If significant
healthy baseball pitchers, Fleisig et al. (7) evaluated the differences were observed, further post hoc repeated-
ability of the pitchers to throw at 50 and 75% effort. The measures ANOVAs were performed for each variable by
results indicated that the velocities were significantly throwing event. Pairwise comparisons were then ana-
greater than what was suggested by the investigators. lyzed to determine which effort levels were significantly
Although velocity is just one potential indicator of an different.
athlete’s ability to throw at a selected level of perceived
effort, examining the kinematics during the throwing Subjects
motion across trials may be a better indicator of the effec- Eleven male team handball players (23.09 6 3.05 years;
tiveness and the demands of throwing at a certain per- 185.12 6 8.33 cm; 89.65 6 12.17 kg) volunteered to par-
centage of perceived effort. ticipate in this study. The subjects were all members of
From a clinical prospective, concerns exist in team the same National Team training program that trained
handball about how to effectively implement a return to for 2.5 h$d 21 for 5 d$wk 21. This sample included 5 back-
throwing protocol in players with shoulder injuries due to court players (25.2 6 2.8 years; 188.1 6 8.1 cm; 92.8 6
the differences in ball mass between a team handball 9.0 kg; 4.8 6 2.8 years of experience), 3 wing players
(14.99–16.75 oz) and the relevant literature that presents (21.5 6 2.1 years; 179.1 6 5.9 cm; 78.5 6 7.0 kg; 2.3 6
data with a baseball (5.11 oz). With a handball being 1.9 years of experience), and 2 pivot players (21.0 6
approximately 3 times the weight of a baseball, the first 0 years; 189.7 6 9.8 cm; 104.1 6 6.9 kg; 1.8 6 1.1 years
step in the developmental process of an interval throwing of experience). The Auburn University Institutional
protocol is to examine the kinematics at different levels of Review Board approved all testing protocols. Before data
perceived effort, at a common distance that these players collection, all testing procedures were explained to each
throw. The set shot involves a stable base of support and subject, and they were informed of the benefits and risks
contact with the floor and would be implicated early in of the investigation before signing an institutionally
a return to throwing protocol to ensure that the player is approved informed consent document to participate in
focused on using proper shot mechanics before progress- the study.
ing to the more complex jump shot, which is performed
in the air. Early implementation of proper set shot Procedures
mechanics would allow clinicians to work from a standard The MotionMonitor (Innovative Sports Training, Chica-
distance with the focus being on the perceived effort of go, IL, USA) synced with electromagnetic tracking
players. system (Track Star; Ascension Technologies, Inc., Bur-
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the lington, VT, USA) was used to collect data. The electro-
set shot in team handball players at 50, 75, and 100% magnetic tracking system has been validated for tracking
perceived effort to determine whether differences in the humeral movements, producing trial-by trial-interclass
kinematics exist between these effort levels. The goal of correlation coefficients for axial humeral rotation during
this investigation is to use these data to help sports humeral elevation in the scapular plane in both loaded
medicine clinicians assess whether players can successfully and nonloaded conditions in excess of 0.96 (12). With
alter the mechanics of the set shot at less than maximal electromagnetic tracking systems, field distortion has
effort to assist in the development of a sport-specific been shown to be the cause of error in excess of 58 at
interval throwing protocol for team handball players. It a distance of 2 m from an extended range transmitter
was hypothesized that the kinematics of the set shot would (5), but increases in instrumental sensitivity have reduced
be similar with the exception of the segmental angular this error to near 108 before system calibration and 28
accelerations, which would be significantly greater for the after system calibration (5,13,20). Thus before data col-
maximum effort shots. lection, the current system was calibrated using previ-
ously established techniques (5,10,15,16,18–22). After
METHODS calibration, magnitude of error in determining the posi-
Experimental Approach to the Problem tion and orientation of the electromagnetic sensors
We used an exploratory 3-group comparison design to within the calibrated world axes system was less than
examine whether set shot kinematics in team handball 0.01 m and 38, respectively. The collection rate for all
players were different at 50, 75, and 100% perceived effort kinematic data describing the position and orientation
levels. Each subject performed 2 set shots at each effort of electromagnetic sensors was set at 100 Hz
level, and the effort levels were randomized for each (15,17,19,22,30). Raw data were independently filtered
subject. along each global axis using a fourth order Butterworth
A within subjects repeated-measures analysis of vari- filter with a cutoff frequency of 13.4 Hz (15,17,19,22,30).
ance (ANOVA) was performed to determine whether set Force plate data were sampled at a rate of 1,000 Hz.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 81

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Rate of Perceived Effort in Team Handball Players

Subjects had a series of 11 electromagnetic sensors (9,25). The shoulder joint center was calculated from
(Track Star; Ascension Technologies, Inc.) attached at the the rotation between the humerus relative to the scapula,
following locations: (1) first thoracic vertebra (T1) and the hip joint center was from the rotation of the
spinous process; (2) pelvis at sacral vertebrae 1 (S1); (3) femur relative to the pelvis. The rotation method was
deltoid tuberosity of the throwing arm humerus; (4) implemented with the joint stabilized and then passively
throwing arm wrist, between the radial and ulnar styloid moved in 10 positions in a small circular pattern (9). The
processes; (5) acromioclavicular joint of the throwing variation in the measurement of the joint center had to
arm; (6) third metacarpal of the throwing hand; (7–8) have a root mean square error of less than 0.003 m to be
bilateral shank centered between the head of the fibula accepted.
and lateral malleolus; (9–10) bilateral lateral aspect of the Raw data regarding sensor orientation and position
femur (15,17,18,32); and (11) third metatarsal of the stride were transformed to locally based coordinate systems for
leg foot. Student researchers, who were trained in the each of the respective body segments. Two points
application techniques, applied the sensors. Sensors were described the longitudinal axis of each segment, and the
affixed to the skin using PowerFlex cohesive tape (And- third point defined the plane of the segment (15). The
over Healthcare, Inc., Salisbury, MA) to ensure the sen- second axis was perpendicular to the plane, and the third
sors remained secure throughout testing. Following the axis was defined as perpendicular to the first and second
application of the sensors, an additional sensor was axes. The world axis was defined as the y-axis in the ver-
attached to a stylus and used for digitization following tical direction, horizontal and to the right of y was the
previously established guidelines (15,17,18,32). Subjects x-axis, and posterior was the z-axis (15,17–19,22). Euler
stood in anatomical position during digitization to guar- angle decomposition sequences were used to describe
antee accurate bony landmark identification. The medial both the position and orientation of the body segments
and lateral aspect of each joint was digitized, and the (15,17–19,22).
midpoint of the 2 points was calculated to determine
the joint center (15,17,18,21,22,32). A link segment model Throwing Protocol
was developed through digitization of joint centers for After digitization, subjects were allotted an unlimited
the ankle, knee, hip, shoulder, thoracic vertebrae 12 time to warm up and become familiar with the testing
(T12) to lumbar vertebrae 1 (L1), and C7 to thoracic protocols. A standardized warm-up was not used because
vertebrae 1 (T1). The spinal column was defined as the the investigators wanted to ensure that each subject felt
digitized space between the associated spinous processes, that they were properly ready to perform the requested
whereas the ankle and knee were defined as the midpoints shots. Once a subject deemed himself ready, the testing
of the digitized medial and lateral malleoli, medial and protocols began. Subjects performed 2 maximal perceived
lateral femoral condyles, respectively. The shoulder effort set shots, 2 set shots at 75% perceived effort, and 2
and hip joint centers were estimated using the rotation shots at 50% perceived effort from a distance of 8 m, using
method. This method of calculating a joint center has an IHF size 3 team handball (26–28). The number of set
been reported as providing accurate positional data shots at each level of perceived effort was arbitrarily cho-
sen. The order in which each
subject completed each shot
was randomized. Only accu-
rate shots that hit the center
of a 1 3 1 m2 target at
a height of 1.75 m were saved
(26–28).

Statistical Analyses
The throwing motion was
divided into the events of
stride foot contact (FC),
maximum shoulder external
rotation (MER), ball release
(BR), and maximum shoulder
internal rotation (MIR)
(Figure 1). The mean data
were compiled for the 2 trials
Figure 1. The events of the set shot throwing motion in team handball players. at each perceived effort level.
All kinematic and kinetic
the TM

82 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Set shot ball speed statistics at 3 levels of perceived effort in team handball players.

%Effort Mean (mph) Velocity (m$s21) SD F Significance Partial h2

50 37.5 16.8 4.4 23.5 p , 0.001 0.701

75 44.1 19.7 3.7
100 48.7 21.8 5.6

data for this study were reduced using MotionMonitor Shoulder Kinematics
(Innovative Sports Training) software. All statistical anal- Shoulder elevation was significantly different at MIR (p ,
yses were performed using SPSS software (version 20.0; 0.01). Also at the shoulder, plane of elevation was signifi-
SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), with an alpha level set cantly different at BR (p , 0.01).
a priori at p # 0.05. Next, a within-subjects repeated-
Trunk Kinematics
measures ANOVA was used to determine whether set
Trunk flexion was significantly different between the 3 effort
shot kinematics and kinetics were significantly different
levels at BR (p , 0.01) and MIR (p = 0.001). Also, trunk
at each of the perceived effort shots. If significant
lateral flexion was significantly different at BR (p = 0.001)
differences were observed, further post hoc repeated-
and MIR (p , 0.001), and pelvis axial rotation (p , 0.001)
measures ANOVAs were performed for each variable
was significantly different across the 3 shots. Pelvis lateral
by throwing event. Pairwise comparisons were then
flexion was significantly different at FC (p , 0.001) and
analyzed to determine which effort levels were signifi-
MER (p = 0.010). At MER, there was significantly less pelvis
cantly different.
lateral flexion in the 50% shots compared with the 75% shots
RESULTS (p = 0.010).
Set shot ball speed data are presented in Table 1. Significant Segmental Velocity
differences in ball speed were observed between all 3 effort When examining segmental velocities, significant differences
level throws. Descriptive kinematic and kinetic data are pre- were observed for trunk rotational velocity, humerus rota-
sented in Tables 2–4. tional velocity, and forearm rotational velocity. Trunk

TABLE 2. Trunk and pelvis kinematics during the 50, 75, and 100% effort set shots in team handball players,
mean (SD).

Trunk lateral Trunk axial Pelvis lateral Pelvis axial rotation

Effort Trunk flexion (8) flexion (8) (+) rotation (8) (+) flexion (8) (+) (8) (2) is
Event (%) (2) is flexion is to the right is to the left is to the right to the right

Foot 50 10.3 (7.1) 9.9 (10.8) 271.1 (16.0)*† 6.6 (5.2)*† 244.7 (20.9)*†
contact 75 11.4 (6.5) 10.8 (10.8) 277.9 (16.4)* 8.2 (5.4)*z 250.4 (21.1)*z
100 12.3 (6.2) 11.4 (10.4) 285.5 (16.3)† 10.0 (4.3)†z 259.2 (23.7)†z
Maximum 50 2.3 (6.4) 7.6 (10.7) 222.8 (12.8) 1.3 (5.3)* 25.7 (24.4)
external 75 2.0 (7.5) 9.2 (10.9) 224.7 (20.1) 2.9 (5.1)* 212.2 (25.2)
rotation 100 21.1 (8.3) 7.4 (10.4) 223.7 (12.8) 3.1 (4.7) 211.0 (21.5)
Ball release 50 29.2 (8.0)† 216.2 (14.1)† 14.1 (14.5) 21.5 (7.3) 8.9 (18.3)
75 211.5 (7.5)z 218.3 (15.6)z 13.3 (16.8) 21.2 (7.7) 8.4 (17.9)
100 217.5 (8.8)†z 225.2 (14.4)†z 17.8 (16.6) 22.7 (8.0) 11.7 (17.3)
Maximum 50 214.7 (8.1)*† 220.0 (13.5)*† 22.2 (14.6) 22.5 (8.5) 12.3 (14.0)
internal 75 220.3 (9.7)*z 224.8 (14.2)*z 21.8 (17.1) 22.6 (9.0) 11.6 (15.2)
rotation 100 229.0 (11.2)†z 232.1 (13.6)†z 20.4 (19.0) 24.5 (9.5) 12.8 (15.1)

*50 and 75% were significantly different (p # 0.05).

†50 and 100% were significantly different (p # 0.05).
z75 and 100% were significantly different (p # 0.05).

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 83

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Rate of Perceived Effort in Team Handball Players

TABLE 3. Scapula and shoulder kinematics during the 50, 75, and 100% effort set shots in team handball, mean
(SD).

Scapula Scapula up/ Scapula Plane of Shoulder

interal/external down anterior/ elevation (8) 0 is elevation (8) 0 = Shoulder
rotation (8) (+) rotation (8) posterior tilt abductionn and full abduction rotation (8)
Effort is internal (+) down (8) (+) is 90 is forward while 290 = 90 (+) is internal
Event (%) rotation rotation posterior tilt flexion abduction rotation

Foot 50 14.5 (11.2) 219.9 (11.3) 23.8 (11.2) 2.3 (13.5) 289.2 (12.9) 240.0 (26.9)
contact 75 15.4 (10.9) 220.1 (11.6) 25.5 (12.2) 0.7 (14.7) 0.7 (14.7) 290.3 (11.0)
100 14.4 (12.5) 219.1 (11.1) 24.9 (13.8) 21.2 (12.0) 288.4 (10.8) 234.2 (28.5)
Maximum 50 21.7 (14.4) 225.4 (9.1) 24.1 (13.2) 23.48 (15.3) 86.5 (62.7) 263.0 (42.0)
External 75 22.1 (11.6) 224.8 (10.9) 25.9 (17.0) 18.9 (13.3) 285.4 (64.2) 260.9 (46.6)
rotation 100 20.0 (10.0) 226.9 (10.4) 23.0 (15.5) 17.0 (11.7) 285.3 (65.0) 264.0 (46.6)
Ball 50 34.3 (17.5) 213.0 (8.3) 211.9 (11.5) 38.1 (18.0)* 273.9 (50.1) 243.4 (31.6)
release 75 32.2 (14.0) 214.6 (7.7) 211.2 (10.2) 31.7 (17.8)* 274.4 (51.6) 244.3 (33.4)
100 31.6 (15.4) 213.1 (8.4) 213.5 (12.1) 29.0 (17.5)† 274.0 (53.4) 239.3 (38.4)
Maximum 50 45.1 (15.1) 27.1 (9.0) 214.4 (11.5) 53.2 (21.3) 275.9 (9.2)* 2.3 (14.1)
internal 75 46.0 (16.6) 26.5 (9.5) 215.3 (11.6) 49.7 (23.0) 278.1 (7.2)*z 21.7 (11.8)
rotation 100 46.8 (16.8) 27.6 (9.8) 216.9 (11.0) 49.9 (21.1) 282.5 (8.5)z 24.0 (12.8)

*50 and 75% were significantly different (p # 0.05).

†50 and 100% were significantly different (p # 0.05).
z75 and 100% were significantly different (p # 0.05).

segmental velocity was significantly different at MER (p , Humerus velocity was significantly different across 3 effort
0.001) and BR (p , 0.001). Humerus velocity was signifi- levels at MIR. Lastly, forearm velocity was significantly
cantly different at the events of MER (p , 0.001), BR (p , different at MER (p = 0.006) and MIR (p , 0.001) of the
0.001), and MIR (p , 0.001) during the 3 set shots. throwing motion.

TABLE 4. Angular rotational velocities during the 50, 75, and 100% effort set shots in team handball players, mean
(SD).

Effort HIP velocity Trunk velocity Humerus velocity Forearm velocity

Event (%) (degrees$s21) (degrees$s21) (degrees$s21) (degrees$s21)

Foot contact 50 173.2 (101.0) 223.6 (144.0) 457.6 (181.3) 680.0 (205.1)
75 193.3 (122.6) 279.5 (180.7) 509.3 (230.2) 746.4 (254.9)
100 228.6 (144.0) 332.3 (224.4) 559.3 (227.6) 776.5 (261.5)
Maximum external 50 305.5 (95.2) 535.7 (104.1)* 774.9 (123.2)* 797.4 (101.1)*
rotation
75 377.8 (86.9) 629.0 (111.7)† 858.2 (152.4) 933.0 (196.9)
100 488.6 (118.7) 786.8 (103.0)*† 984.0 (120.1)* 974.3 (90.6)*
Ball release 50 127.2 (94.8) 297.0 (136.0)*z 960.8 (315.3)*z 1,735.0 (290.2)
75 156.3 (96.4) 410.2 (141.7)z 1,087.6 (294.3)†z 1,687.8 (355.6)
100 152.7 (82.7) 440.1 (162.8)* 1,267.5 (217.9)*† 1,898.5 (394.6)
Maximum internal 50 73.5 (41.8) 174.4 (58.2) 739.7 (92.0)*z 771.3 (130.7)*z
rotation
75 103.5 (59.3) 209.8 (82.9) 873.5 (89.1)†z 918.0 (198.4)†z
100 116.1 (52.39) 245.6 (102.54) 967.1 (94.29)*† 984.7 (128.95)*†

*50 and 75% were significantly different (p # 0.05).

†50 and 100% were significantly different (p # 0.05).
z75 and 100% were significantly different (p # 0.05).

the TM

84 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

DISCUSSION the slower segmental velocities observed are in agreement

When developing return-to-play criteria for throwing ath- with the kinematics observed in the upper extremity. When
letes, it is important to understand the demands that are examining the differences in ball speed, statistical signifi-
placed on the upper extremity during throwing. Interval cance was observed between all 3 shots. Although significant
changes were observed, the speed at which the team
throwing protocols are typically integrated into an athlete’s
handball players threw did not equal 50 or 75% of their
rehabilitation program to progressively prepare the athlete
maximum. The results are similar to what was reported in
for the demands of throwing (24). Although defined interval
baseball pitchers (31). The average set shot speeds were 37.5
throwing protocols have been established for the sport of
mph (16.8 m$s21), 44.1 mph (19.7 m$s21), and 48.7 mph
baseball, the literature is scarce for the sport of team hand-
(21.8 m$s21) for the 3 effort levels, respectively. These results
ball. The aim of this study was to examine kinematic data for
indicate that team handball players are able to gauge the
the set shot at 3 progressively increasing effort levels to build
effort at which they shoot. However, it cannot be assumed
a foundation for future research in a sport-specific interval
that these speeds will be at a certain percentage of their
throwing protocol for team handball athletes. Thus, to the
maximum.
authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt to quanti-
Based on the current data, when specifically examining
tatively describe set shot kinematics at 3 different effort levels
effort levels, set shot kinematic differences were isolated
in team handball athletes. These data are paramount because
from BR to MIR at 100–50% effort. Whether or not these
throwing distance parameters have been established in base-
differences are advantageous are unknown. These observed
ball literature, but effort level is subjective and may affect the
kinematic differences might indicate that there is more focus
kinematics that a player uses during a shot.
at BR and follow-through vs. altering total throwing
Kinematic differences at the shoulder, trunk, and pelvis
mechanics. This could be a positive finding in that the play-
were observed across effort levels throughout the set shot
ers remained consistent getting into the throwing position of
throwing motion. Shoulder elevation at MIR was signifi- MER. The follow-through, BR to MIR, is an important
cantly less for 50 and 75% effort shots compared with the aspect of any overhand throwing motion because it func-
100% effort set shots. This was the only event of the tions to safely decelerate the body after BR. Therefore, if
throwing motion where shoulder elevation differences were kinematics are altered at the proximal segments (pelvis and
observed. The event of MIR is during the follow-through trunk) of the kinetic chain, then compensations can occur
phase of throwing. It is speculated that when one tries to distally at the upper extremity.
throw at less effort, they may place more emphasis in This study aimed to examine kinematic differences in the
attempting to slow their arm after BR. This may result in set shot at 3 different effort levels; however, it is speculated
a player not following through toward the target as they that similar results would be observed for the jump shot as
would if throwing at 100% effort. A follow-through toward well. The jump shot is a commonly performed shot in team
the desired target would result in lower humeral elevation. handball practice and competition (26). Previous literature
Plane of shoulder elevation can also be an indicator of has observed similar upper extremity kinematics in maximal
follow-through direction. It was found that at BR there was effort set shots and jump shots in experienced team handball
a significant difference in plane of shoulder elevation from players (29). Because similar upper kinematics have been
100 to 50% effort. Meaning, when asked to throw at 50%, observed between the 2 shot types, it may be a safe pro-
there was an obvious lack of follow-through across the body gression to advance from set shots to jump shots in an inter-
and in the direction of the target. The trunk was positioned val throwing protocol.
with less flexion and lateral flexion in the lower effort level Although this study provides valuable data on set shot
shots compared with the 100% effort shots at BR and MIR. kinematics, it is important to note some limitations exist.
These results indicate that the trunk was in a more upright Recruiting male participants who play team handball on
and neutral position for the submaximal effort shots. The a regular basis proved difficult in the United States, which
follow-through phase of any overhead throwing motion is resulted in a small sample size. Because of this, it is
critical for decelerating the body after the release of the ball. important to note that concerns regarding the external
By shooting at a lower effort level, the team handball athlete validity of the present results exist and should be inter-
may place greater emphasis on their throwing mechanics preted with caution. In addition, the variability in playing
resulting in significantly different kinematics compared with experience (1–8 years) of the participants who volunteered
when they shoot at greater effort levels. is a limitation. Because of the variability in team handball
Segmental rotational velocities were most affected by playing experience, it is possible that the observed differ-
throwing at 3 different effort levels, as expected. When ences cannot be generalized to more experienced players.
a player attempts to throw a ball with less effort, it can be Only 2 accurate shots at each effort level were examined,
speculated that they will try to slow their entire throwing and it is possible that intraindividual variation may have
motion down, which will result in segmental velocities affected the results of this study. It is currently unknown
throughout the kinetic chain being decreased. In addition, the ideal number of throwing trials that need to be

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 85

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Rate of Perceived Effort in Team Handball Players

completed to limit intraindividual variation. In a similar 7. Fleisig, GS, Zheng, N, and Barrentine, SW. Kinematic and Kinetic
study in baseball pitchers, Slenker et al. (2014) examined Comparison of Full Effort and Partial Effort Baseball Pitching. Atlanta,
GA: American Society of Biomechanics, 1996.
kinetics during 60, 80, and 100% effort level pitches and
8. Gohlke, F, Lippert, MJ, and Keck, O. Instability and impingement of
only collected 3 trials for each condition. the shoulder of the high performance athlete in overhead stress [in
These results indicate that team handball players are German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden 7: 115–121, 1993.
able to gauge the effort at which they shoot. However, it 9. Huang, YH, Wu, TY, Learman, KE, and Tsai, YS. A comparison of
cannot be assumed that these speeds are at a certain throwing kinematics between youth baseball players with and without
a history of medial elbow pain. Chin J Physiol 53: 160–166, 2010.
percentage of their maximum. Caution should be observed
10. Keeley, DW, Oliver, GD, and Dougherty, CP. Shoulder kinematics
during the later stages of rehabilitation to prescribe during pitching: Comparing the slide step and traditional stretch
throwing at different effort levels while using a radar gun deliveries. Hum Mov Sci 31: 1191–1199, 2012.
as an assessment tool for effort. Future research should 11. Langevoort, G. Glenohumeral Instability. In: G Langenvoort (ed).
aim to examine the kinetics about the shoulder and elbow Sports Medicine and Handball. Vol 7. Basel, Switzerland: Beckmann,
1996. pp. 39–44.
when team handball players attempt to shoot at different
effort levels because this could ultimately relate to the risk 12. Ludewig, PM and Cook, TM. Alterations in shoulder kinematics
and associated muscle activation in people with symptoms of
of reinjury. Also, examining the effect of effort level on shoulder impingement. Phys Ther 80: 276–291, 2000.
other commonly used team handball throwing motions 13. Meskers, CGM, Fraterman, H, van der Helm, FCT,
such as passing and jump shots should be examined in the Vermeulen, HM, and Rozing, PM. Calibration of the “Flock of
future. Birds” electromagnetic tracking device and its application in
shoulder motion studies. J Biomech 32: 629–633, 1999.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS 14. Myklebust, G, Hasslan, L, Bahr, R, and Steffen, K. High prevalence
of shoulder pain among elite Norwegian female handball players.
The results of this study provide a solid foundation for future Scand J Med Sci Sports 23: 288–294, 2013.
research into the development of an interval throwing 15. Oliver, GD. Relationship between gluteal muscle activation and
program for team handball players. By establishing the role upper extremity kinematics and kinetics in softball position players.
Med Biol Eng Comput 52: 265–270, 2014.
that different effort level shooting has on mechanics,
16. Oliver, GD, Dwelly, PM, and Kwon, YH. Kinematic motion of the
clinicians can use these results when gauging a player’s read-
windmill softball pitch in prepubescent and pubescent girls.
iness to progress into sport-specific throwing activities. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2400–2407, 2010.
Future research should examine the role of shot distance 17. Oliver, GD and Keeley, DW. Gluteal muscle group activation and its
on the kinematics and kinetics associated with the throwing relationship with pelvis and torso kinematics in high-school baseball
motion. The distance that a player shoots may be a better pitchers. J Strength Cond Res 24: 3015–3022, 2010.
indicator than effort level when developing return-to-play 18. Oliver, GD and Keeley, DW. Pelvis and torso kinematics and their
relationship to shoulder kinematics in high-school baseball pitchers.
throwing criteria in team handball, as effort level is very J Strength Cond Res 24: 3241–3246, 2010.
subjective between individuals. When beginning throwing 19. Oliver, GD and Plummer, H. Ground reaction forces, kinematics,
after an upper extremity injury, it is likely best to focus more and muscle activations during the windmill softball pitch. J Sports Sci
on using proper throwing mechanics from a short distance 29: 1071–1077, 2011.
and then slowly progressing to greater distances as an athlete 20. Perie, D, Tate, AJ, Cheng, PL, and Dumas, GA. Evaluation and
calibration of an electromagnetic tracking device for biomechanical
adapts to the demands of throwing. analysis of lifting task. J Biomech 35: 293–297, 2002.
21. Plummer, HA and Oliver, GD. Quantitative analysis of kinematics
and kinetics of catchers throwing to second base. J Sports Sci 31:
REFERENCES 1108–1116, 2013.
1. Almeida, GP, Silveira, PF, Rosseto, NP, Barbosa, G, Ejnisman, B, 22. Plummer, HA and Oliver, GD. The relationship between gluteal
and Cohen, M. Glenohumeral range of motion in handball players muscle activation and throwing kinematics in baseball and softball
with and without throwing-related shoulder pain. J Shoulder Elbow catchers. J Strength Cond Res 28: 87–96, 2014.
Surg 22: 602–607, 2013.
23. Seil, R, Rupp, S, Tempelhof, S, and Kohn, D. Sports injuries in team
2. Axe, M, Hurd, W, and Snyder-Mackler, L. Data-based interval handball. A one-year prospective study of sixteen men’s senior
throwing programs for baseball players. Sports Health 1: 145–153, 2009. teams of a superior nonprofessional level. Am J Sports Med 26: 681–
3. Axe, MJ, Wickham, R, and Snyder-Mackler, L. Data-based interval 687, 1998.
throwing programs for little league, high school, college, and 24. Slenker, NR, Limpisvasti, O, Mohr, K, Aguinaldo, A, and
professional baseball pitchers. Sports Med Arthrosc 9: 24–34, 2001. ElAttrache, NS. Biomechanical comparison of the interval throwing
4. Axe, M, Windley, TC, and Snyder-Mackler, L. Data-based interval program and baseball pitching: Upper extremity loads in training
throwing programs for collegiate softball players. J Athl Train 37: and rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 42: 1226–1232, 2014.
194–203, 2002. 25. Veeger, HEJ. The position of the rotation center of the
5. Day, J, Murdoch, D, and Dumas, G. Calibration of position and glenohumeral joint. J Biomech 33: 1711–1715, 2000.
angular data from a magnetic tracking device. J Biomech 33: 1039– 26. Wagner, H, Buchecker, M, von Duvillard, SP, and Muller, E.
1045, 2000. Kinematic description of elite vs. low level players in team-handball
6. Fleisig, GS, Bolt, B, Fortenbaugh, D, Wilk, KE, and Andrews, JR. jump throw. J Sports Sci Med 9: 15–23, 2010.
Biomechanical comparison of baseball pitching and long-toss: 27. Wagner, H and Muller, E. The effects of differential and variable
Implications for training and rehabilitation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther training on the quality parameters of a handball throw. Sports
41: 296–303, 2011. Biomech 7: 54–71, 2008.
the TM

86 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

28. Wagner, H, Pfusterschmied, J, Klous, M, von Duvillard, SP, and 31. Wilk, KE, Meister, K, and Andrews, JR. Current concepts in
Muller, E. Movement variability and skill level of various throwing rehabilitation of the overhead throwing athlete. Am J Sports Med 30:
techniques. Hum Mov Sci 31: 78–90, 2012. 136–151, 2002.
29. Wagner, H, Pfusterschmied, J, von Duvillard, SP, and Müller, E. 32. Wu, G, Siegler, S, Allard, P, Kirtley, C, Leardini, A,
Performance and kinematics of various throwing techniques in Rosenbaum, DA, Whittle, M, D’Lima, DD, Cristofolini, L,
team-handball. J Sports Sci Med 10: 73–80, 2011. Witte, H, Schmid, O, and Stokes, I. ISB recommendation on
30. Wicke, J, Keeley, DW, and Oliver, GD. Comparison of pitching definitions of joint coordinate systems of various joints for the
kinematics between youth and adult baseball pitchers: A meta- reporting of human joint motion-part I: Ankle, hip, and spine.
analytic approach. Sports Biomech 12: 315–323, 2013. J Biomech 35: 543–548, 2002.

VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 1 | JANUARY 2017 | 87

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.