A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Overarm Throwing in Experienced Handball Players

Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 2007; 23:12-19. 2007 Human Kinetics, Inc. A Three-Dimensional Analysis of Overarm Throwing in Experienced Handball Players Roland van den Tillaar and Gertjan Ettema Norwegian University of Science and Technology The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of upper extremity, trunk, and lower extremity movements in overarm throwing in team handball. In total, 11 joint movements during the throw were analyzed. The analysis consists of maximal angles, angles at ball release, and maximal angular velocities of the joint movements and their timing during the throw. Only the elbow angle (extension movement range) and the level of internal rotation velocity of the shoulder at ball release showed a significant relationship with the throwing performance. Also, a significant correlation was found for the timing of the maximal pelvis angle with ball velocity, indicating that better throwers started to rotate their pelvis forward earlier during the throw. No other significant correlations were found, indicating that the role of the trunk and lower limb are of minor importance for team handball players. Key Words: ball velocity, team handball, coordination, kinematics The overarm throw is an example of a complex, fast, and discrete movement with a clear beginning and end; it can be divided into six phases: wind-up, stride, arm cocking, arm acceleration, arm deceleration, and follow-through (Werner et al., 1993). Some characteristic points, which identify the phases, are The authors are with the Program for Human Movement Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. lead foot contact, maximal external rotation of the shoulder, maximal internal rotation, and ball release. Although details of the phases depend on the sports discipline (i.e., no stride phase in water polo; Feltner & Taylor, 1997), the general kinematics of overarm throwing are comparable across disciplines (baseball, water polo, and javelin). Whereas quite detailed information on baseball pitching is available (e.g., Werner et al., 1993; Feltner & Dapena, 1986, Fleisig & Barrentine, 1995; Escamilla et al., 1998; Fleisig et al., 1999; Matsuo et al., 2001; Stodden et al., 2005), knowledge for other disciplines, especially team handball, is fragmented and scarce (water polo: Davis & Blanksby, 1977; Elliott & Armour, 1988; Feltner & Taylor, 1997; and javelin: Whiting, 1991; Mero et al., 1994; Komi & Mero, 1985; Bartlett et al., 1996). This means that it is not well known what aspects of the throwing technique determine performance (ball speed). In team handball, some studies reported the linear velocity of the segments (Tuma & Zahalka, 1997; Jöris et al., 1985; Van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2003; Fradet et al., 2004) and/or angular velocities of the various joints during the throwing movement in team handball (Chagneau et al., 1992; Van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2004; Fradet et al., 2004). Fradet et al. (2004) reported only the angular velocity of the torso and the maximal external rotation of the shoulder, whereas Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004) reported only the maximal angular velocities of the elbow extension, wrist flexion, and the internal rotation of the shoulder joint during the acceleration phase of the throw. They used a model that predicted that 73% of the contribution to the ball velocity was 12

3-D Analysis in Overarm Throwing 13 explained by the maximal internal rotation velocity of the shoulder and the maximal elbow extension velocity during the throw. However, they did not consider trunk and lower extremity contributions in their measurements or model. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the contribution of upper extremity, trunk, and lower extremity movements in overarm throwing in team handball. Especially, the trunk movement may play a role through transfer of angular momentum and countermovement, which should be indicated by any relationship between throwing speed and trunk movement parameters. However, based on the previous findings, it was hypothesized that elbow extension and internal rotation velocity of the shoulder are the key factors for fast throwing, whereas other parameters, including trunk and lower extremity movements, contribute marginally and thus will not show a relationship with throwing velocity. Methods Eleven subjects participated in this study. The subjects were experienced male handball players, playing in the top and first division of the Norwegian national competition (mean age: 22.9 ± 3.5 years, mass: 85.8 ± 11.75 kg, height: 1.84 ± 0.05 m, training experience: 13 ± 3.3 years). The study complied with the requirements of the local Committee for Medical Research Ethics and current Norwegian law and regulations. Procedure After a general warm-up of 15 min, throwing performance was tested in a penalty throw situation, that is, an overarm throw toward a target at a distance of 7 m. The subjects performed a standing throw, which means keeping the front foot on the floor during the entire throw. The instruction was to throw as fast as possible with a regular ball (0.46 kg) and to try to hit the target from 7 m away, aiming at a 0.5-0.5-m square target at a height of 1.65 m, located in the middle of a handball goal (2 3 m) (Van den Tillaar, 2003; Van den Tillaar & Ettema, 2004). This had to be done until three hits were recorded. The subjects were not informed about their total number of throws that they had to throw. To study the contribution of the various kinematic variables on throwing performance, these variables were correlated with the throwing velocity. Measurements The velocity of the different segments and joints was measured using a 3-D motion capture system (Qualysis, Sävedalen, Sweden; six cameras, 240 Hz) that tracked the position of the reflective markers (2.6 cm diameter) on the following anatomical landmarks: 1. ankle: malleolus of the front leg 2. knee: lateral epicondyle of the front leg 3. hip: trochanter major on both sides 4. shoulder: lateral tip of the acromion on the both sides 5. elbow: lateral epicondyle of the throwing arm 6. wrist: radial styloid process and ulnar styloid process of the throwing arm 7. hand: os metacarpal III 8. finger: distal interphalangeal (DIP) III 9. ball: on top of the ball Computation of velocity of the joints and the ball was calculated using a five-point differential filter. The velocity at ball release and the moment of release were derived from the change in distance between the wrist and the ball. At the moment the ball leaves the hand, the distance between the wrist marker and the ball marker increases abruptly and dramatically. The total movement time of the throw was defined from the first forward and downward movement of the knee (flexing) and ball release. Also the other typical characteristic points, which identify the phases such as maximal external and internal rotations of the shoulder, were identified. The angles and angular movement velocities of the joints were derived from relative positions between the various markers according to the same methods used by Feltner and Dapena (1989), Fradet et al. (2004), and Stodden et al. (2005). The internal/external rotation of the shoulder and the elbow extension were derived from the shoulder, elbow, and wrist markers. The orthogonal coordinate system was first translated to center the system in the shoulder (origin); subsequently, it was rotated to align the shoulder-elbow line with the x-axis; the shoulder rotation angle was calculated as the angle between the shoulder-elbow-wrist plane and the horizontal plane.

14 Van den Tillaar and Ettema Apart from performance (ball velocity at ball release), the following kinematic variables were analyzed: maximal angle and angular velocity of wrist flexion, elbow extension, external/internal rotation of the shoulder, shoulder horizontal adduction (also called shoulder flexion), shoulder abduction, trunk tilt, trunk tilt sideways, upper-torso rotation, horizontal pelvis rotation, and knee extension together with the angles of these joints at ball release (Figure 1). Furthermore, timing of maximal angles and velocities of the segments and joints were calculated. Timing was measured as time before ball release. Finger flexion was not analyzed because of technical difficulties in obtaining good recordings of all necessary markers during the throw. Statistical Analysis Pearson correlation was used to locate interindividual relationships between maximal ball velocity and the maximal velocity of the joint movements, maximal joint angles, joint angles at ball release, and the timing of these variables. A t test was performed for some variables between a group, which showed a maximal internal rotation velocity of the shoulder after ball release and another group, which showed a maximal internal rotation velocity before ball release. Results The start of the throwing movement was defined as the onset of the knee flexion because this event was easily detectable and always occurred early in preparing for the goal-directed movement. During the early phase, the subjects moved the upper extremity and ball backward, while the hip started to move forward and rotate, also called the arm-cocking phase. This phase ended when the ball starts to move forward. This was around 0.155 s (SD = 0.024) before the ball release. The arm-cocking phase varied much from subject to subject (0.34 s to 1.04 s). The arm acceleration phase was from 0.155 until 0.042 s before ball release, which was followed by the arm deceleration phase until ball release (Figure 2). The maximal internal rotation velocity was reached on average at 0.021 s after ball release. A significant correlation was found between the maximal ball velocity and the velocity of the internal rotation of the shoulder at the time of ball release (r = 0.67; p = 0.024; Figure 3). Some subjects reached the maximal internal rotation velocity of the shoulder after ball release (n = 7) and the others at or just before ball release (n = 4). When dividing the subjects into two groups according to this distinction, a significant difference between the groups in maximal ball velocity was shown (p = 0.003). Also Figure 1 Definition of the kinematic parameters: (a) shoulder horizontal adduction, (b) internal rotation shoulder, (c) shoulder abduction, (d) horizontal pelvis and upper-torso rotation, (e) finger flexion, (f) wrist flexion, (g) elbow flexion, (h) trunk tilt forward and knee flexion, and (i) trunk tilt sideways.

3-D Analysis in Overarm Throwing 15 Figure 2 An example of the overarm throw in team handball with average timing (in seconds; sec) of the different phases and characteristic points during the throw. Modified and reprinted with permission from Van den Tillaar, International SportMed Journal, vol. 6(1), 2005. a significant difference for the elbow angle at ball release between the groups (35 vs. 52 ) was found (p = 0.011). This is in agreement with the significant negative correlation between the ball velocity and elbow angle at ball release when all subjects were included (Figure 4; r =.64; p =.035). When calculating the total elbow angle displacement for each subject, an indication for the total ball trajectory, also a significant positive correlation with the maximal ball velocity was found (r = 0.61; p = 0.048). No other significant correlations between the maximal ball velocity and any other kinematic parameter were found (Tables 1, 2, and 3). Temporal parameters showed no relationship with maximal velocity and no differences between the groups except for the timing of the maximal angle of the pelvis rotation. The timing of the maximal angle of the pelvis rotation showed a negative relationship with maximal ball velocity (r =.84, p =.001). That is, the pelvis rotation occurred earlier at faster throws than slower (Figure 5). Discussion The maximal velocity at ball release in this study was in agreement with Van den Tillaar and Ettema (2004) and Fradet et al. (2004). The ball velocity was also comparable with the release velocity in football passing (Rash & Shapiro, 1995; Fleisig et al., 1996). Table 1 Kinematic Parameters at Ball Release (N = 11) and the Correlation with Maximal Ball Velocity Variable Average ( ) SD ( ) r Maximal ball velocity (m/s) 21.55 1.77 Finger flexion 5 2.0 Wrist extension 4 2 0.20 Elbow angle 46 12 0.64* Internal rotation 65 12 0.21 Shoulder horizontal adduction 2 2 0.34 Shoulder abduction 87 10 0.16 Trunk tilt 57 6 0.55 Trunk tilt sideways 67 5 0.25 Upper-torso angle 62 9 0.17 Pelvis angle 82 9 0.41 Knee angle 42 19 0.34 *p <.05. Even when the shape of the ball differs between American football and team handball (a pointed oval shape vs. a round ball; circumference, 0.58 m) the masses of the balls are similar (American football: 0.43 kg. vs. team handball: 0.46 kg.). Owing to this similarity, most kinematic variables in football

16 Van den Tillaar and Ettema Figure 3 Relationship between maximal ball velocity and maximal angular velocity of internal rotation of the shoulder at ball release per subject (r = 0.67). The circles indicate subjects who showed a maximum internal rotation of the shoulder at or just before ball release. The triangles indicate subjects who showed the maximal angular velocity of the internal rotation after ball release. Significant difference between the groups in maximal ball velocity and maximal internal rotation of the shoulder at ball release. Figure 4 Relationship between maximal ball velocity and elbow flexion angle at ball release per subject (r = 0.64). The circles indicate subjects who showed a maximum internal rotation of the shoulder at or just before ball release. The triangles indicate subjects who showed the maximal angular velocity of the internal rotation after ball release. Significant difference between the groups in elbow angle at ball release. passing and their timing were of the same amount and comparable with the findings described in the current study. Only two kinematic parameters elbow angle and maximal velocity of internal rotation of the shoulder at ball release showed a significant relationship with throwing performance (Figures 3 and 4). The differences in internal rotation at ball release of the shoulder were probably caused by the fact that the subjects with the higher internal rotation velocity reached their maximal velocity at ball release or just before whereas the other subjects reached it after ball release. This finding is in line with Matsuo et al. (2001) and Stodden et al. (2005). Stodden et al. (2005) found that as the ball velocity increased, maximal internal rotation velocity was reached earlier after the instant of ball release in individual baseball pitchers. Matsuo et al. (2001) showed the same comparison with slower pitchers. The finding that the internal rotation of the shoulder correlates with throwing velocity is also in agreement with Van den Tillaar and Ettema

3-D Analysis in Overarm Throwing 17 Figure 5 Relationship between timing of maximal pelvis rotation angle and maximal ball velocity per subject (r = 0.84). The circles indicate subjects who showed a maximum internal rotation of the shoulder at or just before ball release. The triangles indicate subjects who showed the maximal angular velocity of the internal rotation after ball release. Table 2 Maximal Angles ( ) During the Throw and Their Timing Before Ball Release (s) and the Correlation With Maximal Ball Velocity Maximal angle Timing Variable Average SD r Average SD r Finger angle (flexion) 22 4 0.31 0.081 0.045 0.09 Wrist angle (extension) 13 2 0.29 0.373 0.174 0.23 Elbow angle 97 6 0.33 0.064 0.010 0.40 External rotation 130 7 0.59 0.070 0.014 0.40 Shoulder horizontal adduction 12 4 0.33 0.366 0.123 0.49 Shoulder abduction 87 9 0.08 0 0 0 Trunk tilt 86 3 0.25 0.299 0.191 0.31 Trunk tilt sideways 102 14 0.31 0.423 0.138 0.07 Upper torso angle 186 13 0.38 0.304 0.079 0.19 Pelvis angle 165 14 0.37 0.474 0.146 0.84* Knee angle 62 13 0.53 0.136 0.018 0.24 *p <.05. (2004). They found that the internal rotation of the shoulder together with the extension of the elbow were two main contributors to the total ball velocity (73%). The other 27% is not explained by any combination of a small number of the other joint movements analyzed (as indicated by the lack of correlations). In the current study, a significant relationship with the elbow angle and ball velocity was found: Subjects who throw fast have a smaller angle of the elbow at ball release (Figure 4) and thus can accelerate the ball over a longer trajectory than those subjects who do not throw as fast. This was also shown by a significant positive correlation between the maximal ball velocity and the total angle displacement of the elbow (r = 0.61; p = 0.048). Matsuo et al. (2001) reported also longer distances traveled by the ball in the group of faster pitchers. However, this was caused by the significantly larger external rotation in the acceleration phase of the arm than the group with lower ball velocities.

18 Van den Tillaar and Ettema Table 3 Maximal Velocity ( /S) During the Throw and Their Timing Before Ball Release (s) and the Correlation With Maximal Ball Velocity Maximal velocity Timing Variable Average SD r Average SD r Finger flexion 859 423 0.001 0.002 Wrist flexion 568 193 0.14 0.018 0.011 0.08 Elbow extension 1430 246 0.26 0.011 0.008 0.35 Internal rotation at ball release 3064 838 0.67* 0 0 0.56 Maximal internal rotation 3426 675 0.58 0.005 0.008 0.51 Shoulder horizontal adduction 170 44 0.23 0.077 0.016 0.21 Shoulder abduction 510 157 0.08 0 0 0.00 Trunk tilt forwards 279 69 0.21 0.020 0.013 0.002 Trunk tilt sideways 228 35 0.60 0.026 0.029 0.003 Upper torso rotation 866 82 0.18 0.049 0.010 0.21 Pelvis rotation 508 97 0.01 0.103 0.030 0.46 Knee extension 299 88 0.09 0.023 0.021 0.32 *p <.05. Only a significant correlation was found for the timing of the maximal pelvis angle with ball velocity (Table 2; Figure 5), which indicates that better throwers started to rotate their pelvis forward earlier during the throw. This resulted in a significant increased timing between the start of the forward rotation of the pelvis and torso rotation (r = 83; p =.0015) and timing of the maximal rotation velocity of the pelvis (r =.78; p =.0078). The increased time before ball release of the pelvis could result in an increase in maximal pelvis rotation or torso rotation velocity. This may mean that the abdominal muscles are stretched earlier and more extensively during the movement and can build up more tension early in the movement (i.e., an enhanced countermovement between trunk and upper extremity occurs). Even though no increase in pelvis (r =.16; p =.64) or torso velocity (r =.31; p =.35) was observed, its timing pattern may contribute positively to the ball velocity by means of a more effective energy flow (Jöris et al., 1985). No other significant correlations were found, indicating that the role of the trunk and lower limb are of minor importance for team handball players, as was hypothesized. It can be concluded that maximal internal rotation velocity, the time of occurrence of this parameter, and elbow extension movement range at ball release are of major importance for a high performance in overarm throwing in handball. References Bartlett, R., Muller, E., Lindinger, S., Brunner, F., & Morriss, C. (1996). Three-dimensional evaluation of the kinematic release parameters for javelin throwers of different skill levels. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12, 58-71. Chagneau, F., Delamarche, P., & Levasseur, M. (1992). Stroboscopic computerized determination of humeral rotation in overarm throwing. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 26, 59-62. Davis, T., & Blanksby, B.A. (1977). A cinematographic analysis of the overhand water polo throw. Journal of Sports Medicine, 17, 5-16. Elliott, B.C., & Armour, J. (1988). The penalty throw in water polo: A cinematographic analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 6, 103-114. Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Barrentine, S.W., Zheng, N., & Andrews, J.R. (1998). Kinematic comparison of throwing different types of baseball pitches. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 14, 1-23. Feltner, M.E., & Dapena, J. (1986). Dynamics of the shoulder and elbow joints of the throwing arm during a baseball pitch. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 2, 235-259. Feltner, M.E., & Taylor, G. (1997). Three-dimensional kinetics of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist during a penalty throw

3-D Analysis in Overarm Throwing 19 in water polo. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 13, 347-372. Feltner, M.E., & Dapena, J. (1989). Three-dimensional interactions in a two-segment kinetic chain. Part I: General model. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 5, 403-419. Fleisig, G.S., Barrentine, S.W., Zheng, N., Escamilla, R.F., & Andrews, J.R. (1999). Kinematic and kinetic comparison of baseball pitching among various levels of development. Journal of Biomechanics, 32, 1371-1375. Fleisig, G.S., Escamilla, R.F., Andrews, J.R., Matsuo, T. Satterwhite, Y. & Barrentine, S.W. (1996). Kinematic and kinetic comparison between baseball pitching and football passing. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 12, 207-224. Fleisig, G.S., & Barrentine, S.W. (1995). Biomechanical aspects of the elbow in sports. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review, 3, 149-159. Fradet, L., Botcazou, M., Durocher, C., Cretual, A., Multon, F., Prioux, J., et al. (2004). Do handball throws always exhibit a proximal-to distal segmental sequences? Journal of Sports Sciences, 22, 439-447. Jöris, H.J.J., Edwards van Muijen, A.J., Van Ingen Schenau, G.J., & Kemper, H.C.G. (1985). Force velocity and energy flow during the overarm throw in female handball players. Journal of Biomechanics, 18, 409-414. Komi, P.V., & Mero, A. (1985). Biomechanical analysis of Olympic javelin throwers. International Journal of Sport Biomechanics, 1, 133-150. Matsuo, T., Escamilla, R.F., Fleisig, G.S., Barrentine, S.W., & Andrews, J.R. (2001). Comparison of kinematic and temporal parameters between different pitch velocity groups. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 17, 1-13. Mero, A., Komi, P.V., Korjus, T., Navarro, E., & Gregor, R.J. (1994). Body segment contributions to javelin throwing during final thrust phases. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 10, 166-177. Rash, G.S., & Shapiro, G. (1995). A three-dimensional dynamic analysis of the quarterback s throwing motion in American football. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 11, 443-459. Stodden, D.F., Fleisig, G.S., Mclean, S.P., & Andrews, J.R. (2005). Relationship of biomechanical factors to baseball pitching velocity: Within pitcher variation. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 21, 44-56. Tuma, M. & Zahalka, F. (1997). Three dimensional analysis of jump shot in handball. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Kinanthropologica, 33, 81-86. Van den Tillaar, R. (2003). Effect of different constraints on coordination and performance in overarm throwing. Doctoral thesis in Sport Sciences. Trondheim: NTNU Trykk. Van den Tillaar, R. (2005). The biomechanics of the elbow in overarm throwing sports. International Sportsmed Journal, 6, 7-28. Van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2003). Instructions emphasizing velocity, accuracy, or both in performance and kinematics of overarm throwing by experienced team handball players. Perceptual and motor skills, 97, 731-742. Van den Tillaar, R., & Ettema, G. (2004). A Force-velocity relationship and coordination patterns in overarm throwing. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 3, 211-219 Werner, S.L., Fleisig, G.S., Dillman, C.J., & Andrews, J.R. (1993). Biomechanics of the elbow during baseball pitching. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 17, 274-278. Whiting W.C. (1991). Body segment and release parameter contributions to new-rules javelin throwing. International Journal of Sports Biomechanics, 7, 111-24.