|
Running
Soccer Throw-In
vs.
Standing Soccer Throw-In
By: Michael
Zahorski & Brian Jones
Introduction
Only twice in the game of soccer is a player,
other than the goalkeeper, allowed to touch the ball with their hands. One is during
dead-ball situations to set a free kick; the other is a throw-in. Since a throw-in is the
time when a player is actually able to propel the ball with his hands, it is key that they
are able to throw the ball with velocity and accuracy. We are going to concern ourselves
with the generation of velocity, since the greater the velocity the greater the chance to
achieve maximum range.
There are two types of throw-ins that a
player can perform legally since both feet must touch the ground. The first, and most
widely used, is the standing throw-in. The other type is the running throw-in. Many youth
players use the running throw-in because it is believed that it creates more velocity and
that they are able to throw the ball further. In youth leagues, many players can only see
forward, and not backwards, thus the reason for wanting to throw the ball far down the
field. Professionals tend to use the standing throw-in since they are able to produce more
velocity and variability from the standing versus running position.
With the difference in preference between the
two types, we decided to look at the two and see which generates more velocity. According
to Lees & Nolan (1998), Kollath and Schwirtz found that the running throw-in generates
more velocity than does the standing throw, and that this greater velocity was due to the
forward momentum of the player. We intend to show that the standing throw-in can generate
the same amount of velocity as the running throw-in. We believe that the ability of the
standing throw-in to create the same amount of velocity is generated through a greater
range of motion at the hip.
The purpose of this study is to allow youth
coaches the knowledge of which throw-in style should be taught and emphasized. It will
also allow the players to understand what creates greater velocity and how to perfect
their throw-ins.
Methods
Subject
The participant was a twenty-four year old
male who weighed 733.96 N (74.84 kg) and was 1.83 m tall. The participant has an advanced
level of soccer experience playing at the high school varsity level and some limited
Division I collegiate experience. The participant demonstrated a mastery of both types of
throw-ins. He wore only soccer shorts to allow accurate joint marker movements. He also
wore soccer cleats and short socks. The joint markers were placed lateral malleolus,
lateral epicondyle of the knee, greater trochanter, acromion process, lateral epicondyle
of the elbow and ulnar styloid process.
Data
Acquisition
The data was collected on a grass infield at
Bellis Park in Buena Park, CA. We used a high-8 video camera that filmed at a rate of 30
frames/sec. The camera was placed perpendicular to the participant’s sagittal plane
of motion. The participant was instructed to attempt to throw the ball over a fence 25m
away and 1.5m tall. The participant was instructed to not go beyond the last reference
marker. The participant was given 5 trials for each style of throw-in. The trials for
analysis were selected on 1) visibility of all the joint markers throughout the entire
movement, 2) the participants ability to not go off the frame of reference, 3) the clarity
of motion, and 4) which trials were successful at going over the fence.
The tape was then transferred from the high-8
tape onto a VHS tape at a rate of 30frames/sec. The videotape was then taken to the motion
analysis lab at Cal State Fullerton to be digitized. Using ApplePlayer each image was
saved as a PICT file. Each picture represented 1/30th of second. Once all
images were digitized Motion Capture was used to digitize all the joint markers throughout
the entire movement. Joint marker coordinate data were exported in spreadsheet format to
excel for biomechanical analysis using MotionAnalyse.
Results
Temporal
Analysis
For the determination of temporal analysis of
the movement, we had to examine the movement from the time the participant was in full
prep to the point of release since the initial movement for the running throw-in was out
of the frame. The prep was considered the point in which the ball was at its furthest
point back, just prior to moving forward. The temporal cycle for the running throw-in was
.1s and was .17s for the standing throw-in. Total time for each movement, the points that
were digitized, was .833s for the running throw-in and 1.599s for the standing throw-in.
The throwing motion for the running throw occupies 12% of the temporal cycle, while the
standing throw-in throwing motion occupies a similar 11% of the temporal cycle.
Qualitative Analysis
The running throw-in and standing throw-in
are very contrasting. They do have the same arm movements, but are very different in which
the trunk and lower extremities move. The standing throw-in starts with both feet on the
ground, and never leaving the ground. The knees then flex as the arms bring the ball back
overhead. When the ball starts to go behind the head, the hips start to hyperextend. When
the ball reaches as far back as it can go, the arms extend, bringing the ball overhead,
while the trunk flexes and the knees extend. The movement ends when the ball is released
from the hands.
Figure 1:
Standing throw-in prep Figure 2: Standing
throw-in release
Figure 3: Running throw-in prep Figure
4: Running throw-in release
   
The running throw-in actually starts about a
meter and a half from the line. The player runs to the line and while running brings the
ball behind the head. When the dominant leg reaches the line and plants, the arms then
extend bringing the ball back overhead and releasing the ball when it is at the highest
point. The feet are not next to each other, one is posterior to the other.
RESULTS: Angular Kinematics
Segment Angle. The forearm segment angles
(Fig 3) were fairly similar in both the running (-108 deg.) and standing (-111 deg.)
throw-ins. The range of motion in the running throw-in (85 deg.) was less than the
standing throw-in (115 deg.). The point of release was also very different between the
two, the standing throw-in had a point of release of 4 deg., while the running throw-in
had a point of release of –23 deg. . The forearm segment angles (Fig 3) were fairly
similar in both the running (-108 deg.) and standing (-111 deg.) throw-ins. The range of
motion in the running throw-in (85 deg.) was less than the standing throw-in (115 deg.).
The point of release was also very different between the two, the standing throw-in had a
point of release of 4 deg., while the running throw-in had a point of release of –23
deg. . The forearm segment angles (Fig 3) were fairly similar in both the running (-108
deg.) and standing (-111 deg.) throw-ins. The range of motion in the running throw-in (85
deg.) was less than the standing throw-in (115 deg.). The point of release was also very
different between the two, the standing throw-in had a point of release of 4 deg., while
the running throw-in had a point of release of –23 deg. . The forearm segment angles
(Fig 3) were fairly similar in both the running (-108 deg.) and standing (-111 deg.)
throw-ins. The range of motion in the running throw-in (85 deg.) was less than the
standing throw-in (115 deg.). The point of release was also very different between the
two, the standing throw-in had a point of release of 4 deg., while the running throw-in
had a point of release of –23 deg.
Figure 5:
Forearm Segment Angle for Standing Throw-in
Figure 6: Forearm Segment Angle for Running Throw-in
Joint Angle 1Joint Angle 1. The knee
joint angles were remarkably similar (fig. 4) in each of the movements. The ranges of
motion for the knee joint angles were similar in the two movements, 9 degrees. However,
the maximum flexion and extension angles differed. The running throw-in produced a maximum
extension angle of 147 deg., and a maximum flexion angle of 138 deg. The standing throw-in
produced a maximum extension angle of 160 deg., and a maximum flexion angle of 151 deg.
Figure 7: Knee angle for Standing throw-in
Figure 8: Knee angle for Running throw-in
Joint Angle 2Joint Angle 2. The hip joint
angles were distinctively different (fig. 5). The range of motion differed by 34 degrees
(running = 7deg.; standing = 41 deg.). This difference in range of motion resulted in
variations between the maximum flexion and extension angles. The maximum flexion angle for
the running throw-in was 228 deg and had a maximum extension angle of 221 deg. While the
standing throw-in produced a maximum flexion angle of 196 deg, and a maximum extension
angle of 155 deg.
Figure 9: Hip angle for standing throw-in
Figure 10: Hip angle
for running throw-in
Joint Velocity. The velocity patterns for the running throw-in and standing
throw-in produced similar results (fig. 6). Despite the similar results, the maximum
flexion and extension angular velocities of the hand were different. The maximum flexion
angular velocity of the hand in the running throw-in was –217deg/sec, and the maximum
extension angular velocity was 2333 deg/sec. The standing throw-in produced a maximum
flexion angular velocity of –433 deg/sec, and a maximum extension angular velocity of
2267 deg/sec.. The velocity patterns for the running throw-in and standing throw-in
produced similar results (fig. 6). Despite the similar results, the maximum flexion and
extension angular velocities of the hand were different. The maximum flexion angular
velocity of the hand in the running throw-in was –217deg/sec, and the maximum
extension angular velocity was 2333 deg/sec. The standing throw-in produced a maximum
flexion angular velocity of –433 deg/sec, and a maximum extension angular velocity of
2267 deg/sec.
Figure 11: Ang. vel. for Standing Throw-in
Figure 12: Ang. vel. for Running Throw-in
RESULTS: Linear Kinematics
Joint velocity. The linear velocities of the metacarpal-phalange (MP) joint were
notably similar (fig. 7). The running throw-in produced a maximum forward velocity of
11.75 m/s, with a maximum horizontal velocity of –11.17 m/s and a maximum vertical
velocity of 7.17 m/s. The standing throw-in produced a maximum forward velocity of 11.00
m/s, with a maximum horizontal velocity of –11.00 m/s and a maximum vertical velocity
of 6.67 m/s.. The linear velocities of the metacarpal-phalange (MP) joint were notably
similar (fig. 7). The running throw-in produced a maximum forward velocity of 11.75 m/s,
with a maximum horizontal velocity of –11.17 m/s and a maximum vertical velocity of
7.17 m/s. The standing throw-in produced a maximum forward velocity of 11.00 m/s, with a
maximum horizontal velocity of –11.00 m/s and a maximum vertical velocity of 6.67
m/s.
Figure 13: Linear Velocity of the hand during
standing throw-in
Figure 14: Linear Velocity of the hand during
running throw-in
Discussion
Our research aimed to determine if the same
amount of velocity can be generated by a standing throw-in as a running throw-in, and
whether the similarity is do to a greater range of motion at the hip joint. The data
showed that the standing throw-in did create about the same amount of velocity as the
running throw-in. Since the velocities did come out fairly similar, and the knee joint
angle and forearm segment angles were similar, it states that most of the velocity created
by the standing throw-in was due to hip joint range of motion. Since the standing throw-in
did not utilize the participant’s forward momentum to add to the linear velocity of
the hand, the standing throw-in had to generate more velocity. The greater range of motion
at the hip joint helped to generate this greater velocity, but since it took a longer time
to create this velocity, the acceleration was lower, but the impulse was greater.
With knowing that the same velocity can be
created in a standing throw-in due to a greater hip joint range of motion, then if there
were some way of getting a greater hip joint range of motion into a running throw-in, it
can generate even greater velocity.
Since we have shown that a standing throw-in
can generate as much velocity as a running throw-in, but with greater variability, coaches
should teach a standing throw-in to their players, as opposed to a running throw-in.
Another reason, not studied here, that coaches should not teach a running throw-in is that
it can lead to more illegal throw-ins.
A few factors limited the results of our
research. First, the joint markers on the wrist and shoulder moved during the movement,
possibly due to pronation and internal rotation. Second, the transfer of the video onto
VHS may have made the video quality less, making it harder to distinguish the joint
markers. And finally, the camera speed may be to slow to calculate the velocity with great
accuracy because we did notice a little blurring at the point of greatest velocity and
missed the exact release in the running throw-in.
Further research into the kinematics of a
running throw-in and standing throw-in can look at pronation of the forearm upon release
of the ball as a source of acceleration, as well as ankle joint angle and position.
References
Kollath, E. & Schwirtz, A. (1988).
Biomechanics of the soccer throw-in. Science and football. 460-467.
Lees, A. & Nolan, L. (1998). Biomechanics
of soccer: a review. Journal of sports sciences. 16(3). 211-234.
Putnam, C. (1993). Sequential motions of body
segments in striking and throwing skills: descriptions and explanations. Journal of
biomechanics. 26: 125-135.
| 
