PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11138986

Throwing in cricket.

D P Cook·S C Strike
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper considers the kinematic characteristics of overarm throwing with particular emphasis on the techniques of throwing and pitching in baseball. The technique is subdivided into: (1) sequential pattern of throwing, (2) lead foot contact, (3) preparatory phase, (4) arm acceleration and (5) instant of ball release. Specific biomechanical principles that underpin throwing and their application within baseball are identified. The paper also presents a case study of the three-dimensional characteristics of throwing technique in cricket. The aim was to compare the skill in cricket to that previously researched in baseball. The findings for throwing in cricket are similar to those reported for baseball, indicating that there is a definite crossover in the rationale of how an individual should throw specific to the demands of cricket and baseball. The differences noted--greater elbow flexion at lead foot contact and less external rotation during the preparation phase--can be attributed to the demands placed on the fielder and pitcher specific to their respective sports.

Explore related subjects

AccelerationArmBiomechanical PhenomenaFootHipHumansSportsComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

D P Cook, S C Strike. 2000. Throwing in cricket.. https://doi.org/10.1080/793086193

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Internal loads in the cervical spine during motor vehicle rear-end impacts: the effect of acceleration and head-to-head restraint proximity.

STUDY DESIGN: This study used rigid-body and finite-element models of forces in the cervical spine resulting from a rear-end motor vehicle impact based on data from 26 volunteer experiments. OBJECTIVES: To define the magnitudes and directions of internal forces acting on the cervical spine during rear-end impact, and to determine the effects of increasing the impact acceleration and the initial position of the occupant's head with respect to the head restraint. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In a number of studies using volunteers or cadavers, the kinematics of the occupant during a rear-end impact related to "whiplash" of the cervical spine have been reported. Few studies have described the mechanism by which internal spine forces are produced and how they may be affected by interaction of the occupant with the seat and head restraint during impact. METHODS: From a companion study on the response of 26 volunteers to rear-end impact, experimental data on head and torso accelerations were developed. Rigid-body mathematical dynamic modeling of a 50th-percentile male was implemented, along with a finite-element seat model, lap belt, and shoulder belt. The model was first subjected to a rear-impact pulse similar to that used in the volunteer study, first with a peak of 3.5 G, then with a peak up to 12 G. Initial head-to-head restraint distance in the model was varied from 1 to 12.5 cm. RESULTS: The major cervical spine forces were upper and lower neck shear causing intervertebral relative anterior displacements. Increasing the peak acceleration magnitude caused increased neck shear force magnitudes. With the head initially positioned closer to the head restraint, the time difference between the occurrences of the peak upper and lower neck shear forces was smaller; the C7-T1 intervertebral shear displacements were reduced; the head moved more in phase with the torso; extension of the head and neck was reduced; and late head flexion was increased. CONCLUSIONS: In this simulation, anterior shear was the major internal force acting in the cervical spine during rear-end impact. Increasing impact acceleration magnitude directly increased shear force. When the head was initially closer to the head restraint, the magnitude of the shear force was unaffected, but the time difference between its occurrences in the upper and lower neck was decreased and intervertebral translations were reduced. These results suggest how the seat could be improved to reduce peals forces and the time differences between them.

Acceleration↗
PubMed2002

The neck injury criterion: future considerations.

The cost of whiplash injuries--both in dollars spent for medical care and disability, and in terms of human suffering--are quite high in westernized nations. This is of particular interest both from a public health perspective and a general societal one because the disorder is theoretically preventable: in the very least it can be minimized. This can be achieved with crash prevention strategies and improvements in vehicle safety design--especially with more effective seat back and head restraint systems. Toward the goal of developing a gold standard for safety research in this area, a neck injury criterion (NIC) was proposed by Boström et al. in 1996 (Boström O., Svennson, M.Y., Aldman, B. et al., 1996. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact, Dublin, Ireland). This criterion considers the relative horizontal acceleration and velocity between the bottom (T1) and top (C1) of the cervical spine and has face validity based on current literature. However, the NIC has still not been subjected to rigorous scientific investigation or validation in terms of its representativeness of human occupant injury. Such investigation should specifically consider, first, whether the NIC provides an adequate proxy for all potential neck injuries due to whiplash and, secondly, whether the proposed threshold value of 15 m2/s2 is an appropriate level for the stated goal. Based on a review of recent literature, recent human volunteer crash tests by Wheeler et al. and the those of the Spine Research Institute of San Diego, and based on mathematical MADYMO analysis of the first real world crash pulse data, it appears that the threshold for acute injury in the general population is likely to require a lowering of the originally proposed NIC value, and additional parameters, such as considering a forward rebound phase or neck extension criteria may be necessary. The conclusions of this paper should be considered preliminary because the numbers of crash test subjects and real world injury victims does not allow for rigorous statistical analysis. Certainly, ongoing work will be necessary to investigate this further and larger scale analysis of more onboard crash data will prove invaluable.

Acceleration↗
PubMed2002

A new accelerometric method to assess the daily walking practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a method to obtain a profile of the duration and intensity (speed) of walking periods over 24 hours in women under free-living conditions. DESIGN: A new method based on accelerometry was designed for analyzing walking activity. In order to take into account inter-individual variability of acceleration, an individual calibration process was used. Different experiments were performed to highlight the variability of acceleration vs walking speed relationship, to analyze the speed prediction accuracy of the method, and to test the assessment of walking distance and duration over 24-h. SUBJECTS: Twenty-eight women were studied (mean+/-s.d.) age: 39.3+/-8.9 y; body mass: 79.7+/-11.1 kg; body height: 162.9+/-5.4 cm; and body mass index (BMI) 30.0+/-3.8 kg/m(2). RESULTS: Accelerometer output was significantly correlated with speed during treadmill walking (r=0.95, P<0.01), and short unconstrained walks (r=0.86, P<0.01), although with a large inter-individual variation of the regression parameters. By using individual calibration, it was possible to predict walking speed on a standard urban circuit (predicted vs measured r=0.93, P<0.01, s.e.e.=0.51 km/h). In the free-living experiment, women spent on average 79.9+/-36.0 (range: 31.7-168.2) min/day in displacement activities, from which discontinuous short walking activities represented about 2/3 and continuous ones 1/3. Total walking distance averaged 2.1+/-1.2 (range: 0.4-4.7) km/day. It was performed at an average speed of 5.0+/-0.5 (range: 4.1-6.0) km/h. CONCLUSION: An accelerometer measuring the anteroposterior acceleration of the body can estimate walking speed together with the pattern, intensity and duration of daily walking activity.

Acceleration↗