Communication

Assessing the Shooting Velocity According to the Shooting

Technique in Elite Youth Rink Hockey Players
Jordi Arboix-Alió 1,2,3, * , Guillem Trabal 4,5 and Dani Moreno-Galcerán 4,5

1 Department of Sports Science, Ramon Llull University, 08022 Barcelona, Spain

2 School of Health Sciences, Ramon Llull University, 08022 Barcelona, Spain
3 F.C. Barcelona, Sport Performance Area, 08970 Barcelona, Spain
4 Department of Physical Activity Sciences, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, 08500 Vic, Spain;
guillem_tt@hotmail.com (G.T.); daniel.moreno@uvic.cat (D.M.-G.)
5 Sport, Exercise, and Human Movement (SEaHM) Research Group, University of Vic-Central University of
Catalonia, 08500 Vic, Spain
* Correspondence: jordiaa1@blanquerna.url.edu

Abstract: This study aimed to report the shooting velocities and to assess the differences in shot velocity
according to the techniques used in elite youth male rink hockey players. Fifteen rink hockey players
(age = 18.40 ± 1.44 year; body mass = 73.52 ± 6.02 kg; height = 1.76 ± 0.06 m; BMI = 23.61 ± 2.12;
sports experience = 6.44 ± 1.76 years) participated in this cross-sectional study. Shooting velocities were
assessed for four techniques: slap shot without approach run, drive shot without approach run, slap shot
with approach run, and drive shot with approach run. Shooting velocity measurements were conducted
using a radar Stalker ATS systemTM. The results demonstrated that drive shots consistently achieved
higher velocities compared to slap shots (F(3,56 ) = 23.9 p < 0.01, ηp 2 = 0.58). Additionally, incorporating
an approach run significantly increased shooting velocities for both techniques (p < 0.01). These findings
hold significant implications for coaches and players seeking to optimize shooting performance in
rink hockey.

Keywords: roller hockey; biomechanics; shooting technique; performance enhancement

Citation: Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.;

Moreno-Galcerán, D. Assessing the
Shooting Velocity According to the
1. Introduction
Shooting Technique in Elite Youth
Rink Hockey Players. Biomechanics
Rink hockey, also known as roller hockey, quad hockey, or hardball hockey, is a team
2023, 3, 469–476. https://doi.org/ sport played by two teams of five players on a rectangular rink (40 m × 20 m) surrounded
10.3390/biomechanics3040038 by a one-meter-high barrier, on classic skates (two pairs of parallel wheels) and with a
stick used to handle a solid, round ball. Regarding its physical demands, it is a fast-paced
Academic Editor: Ka-Chun (Joseph)
intermittent team sport [1,2] characterized by different unilateral high-intensity actions
Siu
(accelerations, tackles, changes of direction, or sudden braking) [3,4].
Received: 24 August 2023 Among the various specific skills in rink hockey, as in most implement sports like
Revised: 19 September 2023 tennis [5,6], baseball [7], or golf [8], shooting velocity stands out as a critical factor. Moreover,
Accepted: 22 September 2023 in rink hockey like in many team sports with throwing actions and other hockey modali-
Published: 9 October 2023 ties [9–11], shooting velocity is a key performance indicator since it influences goal-scoring
efficiency and overall team performance. Thus, its assessment has garnered significant
attention from coaches, researchers, and athletes in the quest to improve performance and
gain a strategic advantage on the field.
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
The ability to generate high shooting velocity in many sports is influenced by various
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
factors, including shooting technique, the player’s physical attributes, material proper-
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
ties, and playing surface characteristics [12,13]. Thus, understanding how shooting tech-
conditions of the Creative Commons
nique affects shooting velocity is essential for optimizing training strategies and player
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// development [14]. In rink hockey, two main shooting techniques exists: the drive shot and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the slap shot [15]. The drive shot is considered the natural shot and is generally easier
4.0/). to learn and control. The player positions the ball on the left side of their body (for a

Biomechanics 2023, 3, 469–476. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomechanics3040038 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/biomechanics

Biomechanics 2023, 3 470

right-handed player, the right hand is in the upper position) and performs a motion with
the stick backward and then forward to strike the ball. The shot is executed on the left side
of the body, involving the rotation of the torso and shoulders to the right. The right leg
is placed forward to provide stability during the shot. The drive shot primarily involves
activation of the upper body muscles, especially the pectoral, deltoids, biceps, and triceps,
to generate the required force and speed in the stick movement. Additionally, the muscles
of the torso, such as the obliques and abdominals, are also engaged to provide rotational
power and stabilization. The legs, particularly the left leg, help generate force through the
momentum and weight transfer during the shot [15]. In the slap shot, the player positions
the ball on the right side of their body (for a right-handed player) and performs a reverse
motion with the stick, taking it backward and then forward. During the slap shot, the torso,
shoulders, and hips rotate to the left, while the left leg is placed forward to provide stability
and balance during the shot. The main muscles involved to provide force and power in
the stick movement are similar to the drive shot. However, the implication of the torso
muscles, such as the obliques, is more important to generate the necessary rotation during
the motion. The legs also play an important role, with the right leg providing momentum
and weight transfer during the shot [15].
Despite the recent increase in rink hockey investigations [16,17], and while previous
research has provided valuable insights into the determinants of shooting velocity [18],
the relationship between shooting technique and shooting velocity in rink hockey players
remains relatively unexplored. Only Vaz et al. [18] have reported values of the shoot-
ing velocity with an approach run (115.4 ± 7.2 km/h) and without an approach run
(102 ± 4.6 km/h) in a sample of top-elite Portuguese rink hockey athletes. Therefore, the
aims of this study were (1) to report the shooting velocities from drive and slap techniques
both with players using an approach run and with players shooting from a static position;
and (2) to assess the differences in shot velocity according to the techniques used. It was
hypothesized that rink hockey players would obtain higher velocities when using the drive
technique, especially when using an approach run.

2. Materials and Methods

The current study employed a cross-sectional design to assess the differences in
shooting velocity according to the kind used in a group of elite youth rink hockey play-
ers. To determine the shooting velocity, a shooting test was assessed at the end of the
competitive season.

2.1. Participants
Fifteen highly skilled male rink hockey players were recruited through convenience
sampling to participate in this research. The participants’ demographic details, including
age, height, mass, BMI, and playing experience, were provided by the club’s medical de-
partment, and are presented in Table 1. All players were involved in a talent development
program at the time of this study, dedicating a minimum of four training sessions per
week, comprising approximately 8 to 12 h weekly, for 8–9 months annually. Moreover,
they regularly competed in matches, with at least one game scheduled every weekend
throughout the season. To ensure the participants’ optimal physical condition, athletes with
any existing acute or chronic injuries or illnesses that could hinder their maximum effort
during the tests were excluded from this study. Prior to the commencement of the research,
written informed consent was obtained from all participants and from parents/tutors, ad-
hering to the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (revised in Fortaleza,
Brazil, 2013). The Ethics Committee of the Ramon Llull University in Barcelona approved
the research design (ref. no. 1819005D), and the technical department of the club granted
official consent for the study’s conduction.
Biomechanics 2023, 3 471
Biomechanics
Biomechanics 2023,
2023, 4,
4, FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 33

Table 1. Participants characteristics.

Table
Table 1.
1. Participants
Participants characteristics.
characteristics.
Mean SD
Mean
Mean SD
SD
Age (years) 18.40 1.44
Age
Age (years)
(years) 18.40
18.40 1.44
1.44
Height (m) 1.76 0.06
BodyHeight
mass(m)
Height (m)
(kg) 1.76
73.521.76 0.06
0.06
6.02
Body mass
BMI (kg
Body mass·m2(kg)
)
(kg) 73.52
23.61
73.52 6.02
2.12
6.02
BMI (kg·m
Sports experience 2)
BMI (kg·m(years)
2) 23.61
6.4423.61 2.12
1.76
2.12
Sports
Sports experience
experience (years)
(years) 6.44
6.44 1.76
1.76
2.2. Procedures
2.2.
2.2. Procedures
Procedures
The shooting velocity was evaluated on an indoor court. During the testing day, a
The
The shooting
standardized velocity
warm-up
shooting velocity was
was evaluated
protocol on
on an
an indoor
was implemented
evaluated indoor to court.
court. During
adequately During the
the testing
prepare day,
day, aa
the participants
testing
standardized
standardized
for the ensuing warm-up
warm-up protocol
protocol
assessments. was implemented
was implemented
Initially, to adequately
all subjectstoperformed prepare
adequatelya prepare the
standardized participants
the participants
15 min warm-
for
upthe
for the ensuing
withensuing assessments.
sneakersassessments.
(continuous Initially,
Initially, all
all subjects
subjects performed
moderate-intensity performed
running; aa standardized
standardized
joint mobility 15 min
min warm-
15exercises
warm- for the
up
up with sneakers
sneakers (continuous
withshoulders,
trunk, (continuous
and wrists; moderate-intensity
moderate-intensity
movements at differentrunning; joint
running;speedsjoint mobility
on theexercises
mobility exercises
track; and for the
for progres-
the
trunk, shoulders, and
and wrists; movements at
at different speeds
speeds on on the
trunk, shoulders,
sive speed changes wrists;
up movementsintensity).
to maximum differentFollowing thetrack;
the track;
warm-upand
and progressive
progressive
with sneakers,
speed
speed changes up
changesengaged to maximum
up to maximum intensity).
intensity). Following
Following the warm-up
the warm-up with sneakers,
withspecific
sneakers, partici-
partici- with
participants in 10 min of maximal, progressively intense activities
pants
pants engaged
engaged in
in 10
10 min
min of
of maximal,
maximal, progressively
progressively intense
intense specific
specific activities
activities with
with skates
skates and
skates involving sprints, direction changes, acceleration/deceleration, ball controls,
involving
involving sprints,
sprints, direction
direction changes,
changes, acceleration/deceleration,
acceleration/deceleration, ball
ball controls,
controls, and
and shoot-
shoot-
shootings. Throughout the warm up, the participants were under the supervision of a
ings.
ings. Throughout
Throughout the warm up,
up, the
the participants were under the
the supervision of
of aaand
certified
certified strengththe and warm
conditioning participants
coach, who were undercorrect
ensured supervision
techniques certified
delivered
strength
strength and
and conditioning
conditioning coach,
coach, who
who ensured
ensured correct
correct techniques
techniques and
and delivered
delivered consistent
consistent
consistent feedback. Subsequently, the shooting velocity was measured for each technique:
feedback.
feedback. Subsequently,
Subsequently, the
the shooting
shooting velocity
velocity was
was measured for for each
each technique: (1) slap
(1) slap
shot
shot
without
without approach
approach run; (2)
run; (2)
drive shot
drive shotmeasured
without
without approach
approach run; (3)
technique:
run;shot
slap
(3) slap(1)shot
with
slap with
ap-
shot without
approach approach
run; and run;
(4) static (2) drive
slap shot
shot without
with approach
approach run run;
(Figures (3) slap
1 and shot with
2). running ap-
The running
proach
proach run;
run; and
and (4)
(4) static
static slap
slap shot
shot with
with approach
approach run
run (Figures
(Figures 1
1 and
and 2).
2). The
The running
approach distancewas
approach was set between 4 and 6 m. Both the order of the kind of shot the and the
approach distance
distance was set set between
between 44 andand 66 m.m. Both
Both the
the order
order of of the
the kind
kind of of shot
shot and
and the
participants wererandomized
participants randomized using the “true random number generator” program.
participants werewere randomized using using the
the “true
“true random
random number
number generator”
generator” program.
program.

(A)
(A) (B)
(B)
Figure
Figure1.
Figure 1.1.(A)
(A)Drive
(A) Drive
Drive shot
shot and
shot
and (B)
and slap
(B)(B) shot
slap
slap techniques
shot
shot without
techniques
techniques approach
without
without run.
approach
approach run.run.

(A)
(A) (B)
(B)
Figure 2. (A) Drive shot and (B) slap shot techniques with approach run.
Biomechanics 2023, 3 472

Subjects shot a standard rink hockey ball (mass 160 g, circumference 23 cm) as fast as
possible toward a standard goal (without goalkeeper), using their personal technique and
managing their personal stick. Each subject performed a total of two attempts for each type
of shot, with at least two minutes of rest between each attempt. The shoot was measured
using a radar Stalker ATS systemTM (Radar Sales, Minneapolis, MN, USA) handheld at
shoulder level. Immediately after each shot, the athlete was informed of the achieved
velocity. The highest values obtained from the two attempts of the same technique were
used for further analysis.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses were conducted using JAMOVI® v.2.3.24 software. Mean and
standard deviation (SD) were used to express the data for all variables. To assess the
normality of the variables, the Shapiro–Wilk test was employed. Furthermore, the within-
session reliability of test measures was evaluated using an average-measures 2-way random
intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with an absolute agreement, with 95% confidence
intervals [19]. ICC values were categorized as follows: >0.9 = excellent, 0.75–0.9 = good,
0.5–0.75 = moderate, and <0.5 = poor [20]. Additionally, the coefficient of variation (CV)
was calculated, and a value of <10% was considered acceptable [21].
To analyze the differences in shooting speed based on the shooting technique employed
(slap shot without approach run; drive shot without approach run; slap shot with approach
run; static slap shot with approach run), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
performed. Post hoc Bonferroni tests were utilized to observe the pairwise differences
between the groups. The significance level for all statistical analyses was set at p < 0.05.
Moreover, effect sizes were reported as partial eta-squared (ηp 2 ), with cut-off values of
0.01–0.05, 0.06–0.13, and >0.14 indicating small, medium, and large effects, respectively [22].
For pairwise comparisons, Cohen’s d effect size was calculated [22], and the magnitude of
the effect size was interpreted as follows: <0.2 = trivial; 0.2–0.6 = small; 0.6–1.2 = moderate;
1.2–2.0 = large; >2.0 = very large [23].

3. Results
Descriptive statistics and reliability measures for all tests are shown in Table 2. Almost
all the assessments showed good within-session ICC values (≥ 0.9) and had acceptable
consistency with CV values <10%.

Table 2. Mean test scores and within-session reliability data.

Mean ± SD ICC 95% CI CV (%)

Slap shot without approach run
85.3 ± 8.39 0.86 0.57–0.96 9.84
(km/h)
Drive shot without approach run
98.3 ± 8.08 0.88 0.64–0.96 8.22
(km/h)
Slap shot with approach run
94.6 ± 7.08 0.89 0.68–0.97 7.48
(km/h)
Drive shot with approach run
110.4 ± 8.25 0.91 0.71–0.97 7.47
(km/h)
Key: ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; CI = confidence intervals; CV = coefficient of variation.

Figure 3 shows the comparison of shooting velocity (expressed in km/h) according

to the technique used. The comparison between the drive and slap technique shows that
drive shots had higher velocities than slap shots (F(3,56) = 23.9 p < 0.01, ηp 2 = 0.58), both
without an approach run (p < 0.01; d = 1.63 (0.88 to 2.46) and with an approach run (p < 0.01;
d = 1.98 (1.13 to 2.83). In both techniques, shooting with an approach run also provides
higher shooting velocities (p = 0.02; d = 1.18 (0.38 to 1.97) for the slap shot; p < 0.01; d = 1.52
(0.71 to 2.34) for the drive shot).
Biomechanics 2023, 4, FOR PEER REVIEW 5

0.01; d = 1.98 (1.13 to 2.83). In both techniques, shooting with an approach run also pro-
Biomechanics 2023, 3 473
vides higher shooting velocities (p = 0.02; d = 1.18 (0.38 to 1.97) for the slap shot; p < 0.01; d
= 1.52 (0.71 to 2.34) for the drive shot).

Figure 3. Comparison between the shooting velocity according to the different shooting techniques
Figure 3. Comparison between the shooting velocity according to the different shooting techniques used.
used.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The present study aimed to assess and compare the shooting velocities from the main
The present
shooting techniquesstudy (the aimed
drivetoshot
assess
andandthe compare
slap shot,the bothshooting
with and velocities
without from the main
an approach
shooting techniques
run) in elite youth rink (the drive players.
hockey shot andThe themain
slap shot,
findingsboth withthat
were andsignificant
without an approach
differences
in shooting
run) velocities
in elite youth rinkacross
hockey theplayers.
variousThe techniques used were
main findings were found, with the drive
that significant shots
differences
indemonstrating higheracross
shooting velocities velocities compared
the various to slap shots.
techniques used were found, with the drive shots
The analysis
demonstrating of shooting
higher velocitiesvelocities
compared basedto on
slaptheshots.
different techniques revealed notable
differences in shot velocity. Unsurprisingly,
The analysis of shooting velocities based on the different the drive shot technique
techniquesexhibited
revealedhighernotable
velocities compared to the slap shot (110.4 ± 8.25 km/h
differences in shot velocity. Unsurprisingly, the drive shot technique exhibited vs. 98.3 ± 8.08 km/hhigherfor the ve-
drive shots and 94.6 ± 7.08 km/h vs. 85.3 ± 8.39 km/h for the slap
locities compared to the slap shot (110.4 ± 8.25 km/h vs. 98.3 ± 8.08 km/h for the drive shots shots), which can be
explained
and by the
94.6 ± 7.08 dominance
km/h vs. 85.3of ± the
8.39drive
km/hshot
for among
the slapmost rinkwhich
shots), hockey players
can [15]. Thisby
be explained
difference can be attributed to the biomechanical characteristics of the two techniques. The
the dominance of the drive shot among most rink hockey players [15]. This difference can
drive shot’s stick motion allows for more effective force generation from the upper body
be attributed to the biomechanical characteristics of the two techniques. The drive shot’s
muscles, resulting in higher velocities compared to the slap shot’s stick motion [15]. The
stick motion allows for more effective force generation from the upper body muscles, re-
drive shot primarily activates the muscles of the upper body, particularly the pectorals,
sulting in higher velocities compared to the slap shot’s stick motion [15]. The drive shot
deltoids, biceps, and triceps, to produce the necessary force and speed in the stick’s motion.
primarily
Furthermore,activates the muscles
the muscles of theof torso,
the upper
suchbody,
as the particularly
obliques and the abdominals,
pectorals, deltoids,
are alsobi-
ceps, and triceps,
involved to produce
in supplying the necessary
rotational strength force and speed in the
and stabilization. Thestick’s motion. the
legs, notably Further-
left
more,
leg, contribute to generating force by leveraging momentum and transferring weightin
the muscles of the torso, such as the obliques and abdominals, are also involved
supplying
during therotational
shot. Instrength
this vein, andthestabilization. The legs,rapid
drive shot involves notablyand theforceful
left leg,movements,
contribute to
generating force by
requiring players to leveraging
exert maximal momentum
power inand a shorttransferring
period, whichweight canduring the shot. In
be advantageous
this vein,gameplay,
during the driveespecially
shot involves rapid and situations
in goal-scoring forceful movements,
or set-piecesrequiring
actions (one players
of thetomost
exert
maximal
important power in a short
offensive actions period,
in rinkwhich
hockey can be advantageous
games) during
[24,25]. However, thegameplay,
slap shot especially
involves
ina goal-scoring situations
different movement or set-pieces
pattern, where the actions
player(oneusesof the most important
a rotational motion andoffensive actions
trunk rotation
intorink
generate
hockey power.
games) Although
[24,25].the arm andthe
However, shoulder
slap shot muscles are still
involves involved,
a different the primary
movement pat-
emphasis
tern, whereinthe theplayer
slap shotusesisa on rotational
rotational power
motion and and coordination
trunk rotation toand there ispower.
generate a higher Alt-
implication
hough the arm of the
andstabilators
shoulder and core are
muscles muscles.
still involved, the primary emphasis in the slap
shot isInon addition, this power
rotational study also
andhighlighted
coordination theand
impact of incorporating
there an approach
is a higher implication ofrunthe on
sta-
shooting velocities.
bilators and core muscles. Both the slap shot and the drive shot exhibited higher velocities when
players used an approach
In addition, this studyrun also(110.4 ± 8.25 km/h
highlighted for drive
the impact and 94.6 ± 7.08ankm/h
of incorporating for slap
approach run
shot when using an approach run vs. 98.3 ± 8.08 km/h for the drive
on shooting velocities. Both the slap shot and the drive shot exhibited higher velocities and 85.3 ± 8.39 km/h
for the slap slop when not using an approach run). When a running approach is used, the
athlete benefits from accumulating speed and kinetic energy while moving toward the
Biomechanics 2023, 3 474

target. This additional speed translates into an increase in the velocity of the body part
involved in the shot. The kinetic energy generated by the approach is transferred to the
ball at the moment of the shot, resulting in higher velocities. Conversely, shooting from a
stationary position requires the athlete to generate all the necessary force and power from a
static position. In this case, power largely depends on the athlete’s muscular strength and
technique. Since there is no accumulated kinetic energy from a run up, efficient technique
and the ability to generate explosive force from a static starting position are crucial to
achieve a powerful throw. This is especially relevant in penalty situations, when the
player has to shoot from a static position [26]. Moreover, the shot’s rotational movements
involving the torso and shoulders to the right, combined with the leg’s force generation,
contribute to its superiority in generating shooting velocities. These findings are consistent
with the results reported by Vaz et al. [18] in a study involving top-elite rink hockey athletes,
where similar values were observed (115.4 ± 7.2 km/h vs. 102 ± 4.6 km/h).
Despite the valuable insights provided by this study, certain limitations should be
acknowledged. Firstly, the relatively small sample size and the exclusive focus on elite
youth male rink hockey players from a specific club may limit the generalizability of the
findings to other player populations or different levels of play. To enhance the robustness
of future research, larger and more diverse samples should be considered. Secondly, the
cross-sectional design used in this study hinders the establishment of causal relationships,
and the measurements were taken at a specific point in time (end-season). Considering the
potential impact of season timing on the results, and more especially in youth athletes [27],
longitudinal studies would be beneficial. Additionally, the current study only assessed
shooting velocity, neglecting other influential factors like biomechanics movement, the
kind of sticks used, or accuracy in shots. More comprehensive investigations encompassing
a broader range of variables would provide a more holistic understanding of shooting
performance in rink hockey.
Furthermore, the involvement of specific muscles during shooting actions may vary
depending on the particular technique employed [15]. Incorporating electromyographic
(EMG) analysis in future studies could shed light on muscle activation patterns during
different shooting techniques in rink hockey. This deeper insight into the biomechani-
cal aspects underlying shooting performance could identify specific muscle groups con-
tributing to higher shooting velocities and further enhance training and performance
optimization strategies.

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, the current study revealed that the drive shot run exhibited higher
velocities than the slap shot. Additionally, both the drive and slap techniques demonstrated
higher shooting velocities when executed with an approach run compared to shooting
from a static position. Furthermore, this study provides baseline data on shot velocities for
each technique in elite youth rink hockey players. Coaches and players can utilize these
findings to develop targeted training programs aimed at optimizing shooting performance
in rink hockey. These training programs should focus on optimizing shooting techniques
to maximize ball speed. Players should receive coaching on proper body positioning, arm
and shoulder coordination, and trunk rotation to generate the greatest amount of force and
precision during shots. Biomechanical analysis, such as motion capture technology, could
provide valuable feedback and guidance to players in refining their shooting technique.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.A.-A., G.T. and D.M.-G.; methodology, J.A.-A. and G.T.;
formal analysis, J.A.-A. and G.T.; data curation, J.A.-A., G.T. and D.M.-G.; funding acquisition, J.A.-A.;
investigation, J.A.-A. and G.T.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.-A. and G.T.; writing—review
and editing, J.A.-A., G.T., and D.M.-G.; project administration, J.A.-A. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Biomechanics 2023, 3 475

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ramon Llull University Ethics Committee (ref. no. 1819005D).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request
from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to all the study subjects for their participation.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Fernández, D.; Cadefau, J.A.; Serra, N.; Carmona, G. The distribution of different intensity demanding scenarios in elite rink
hockey players using an electronic performance tracking system. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0282788. [CrossRef]
2. Yagüe, P.L.; Del Valle, M.E.; Egocheaga, J.; Linnamo, V.; Fernández, A. The competitive demands of elite male rink hockey. Biol.
Sport 2013, 30, 195–199. [CrossRef]
3. Arboix-Alió, J.; Buscà, B.; Busquets, A.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; de Pablo, B.; Montalvo, A.M.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A. Relationship
between Inter-Limb Asymmetries and Physical Performance in Rink Hockey Players. Symmetry 2020, 12, 2035. [CrossRef]
4. Arboix-Alió, J.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Rey-Abella, F.; Buscà, B.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A. Asimetrías neuromusculares entre
miembros inferiores en jugadores de hockey sobre patines. RICYDE Rev. Int. Ciencias Deport. 2018, 14, 358–373. [CrossRef]
5. Colomar, J.; Corbi, F.; Brich, Q.; Baiget, E. Determinant Physical Factors of Tennis Serve Velocity: A Brief Review. Int. J. Sports
Physiol. Perform. 2022, 17, 1159–1169. [CrossRef]
6. Hayes, M.J.; Spits, D.R.; Watts, D.G.; Kelly, V.G. Relationship Between Tennis Serve Velocity and Select Performance Measures.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 2021, 35, 190–197. [CrossRef]
7. Stodden, D.F.; Fleisig, G.S.; McLean, S.P.; Andrews, J.R. Relationship of Biomechanical Factors to Baseball Pitching Velocity:
Within Pitcher Variation. J. Appl. Biomech. 2005, 21, 44–56. [CrossRef]
8. Shaw, J.; Gould, Z.I.; Oliver, J.L.; Lloyd, R.S. Physical Determinants of Golf Swing Performance: Considerations for Youth Golfers.
Strength Cond. J. 2022, 44, 10–21. [CrossRef]
9. Novak, D.; Loskot, J.; Roczniok, R.; Opath, L.; Stastny, P. Training with a Heavy Puck Elicits a Higher Increase of Shooting Speed
Than Unloaded Training in Midget Ice Hockey Players. J. Hum. Kinet. 2022, 82, 191–200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Schwesig, R.; Laudner, K.G.; Delank, K.-S.; Brill, R.; Schulze, S. Relationship between Ice Hockey-Specific Complex Test (IHCT)
and Match Performance. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3080. [CrossRef]
11. Ladru, B.-J.; Beddows, T.; Langhout, R.; Gijssel, M.; Tak, I. What biomechanical parameters are related to drag-flick performance
in field hockey? A systematic review. Sport. Biomech. 2023, 27, 1–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Chelly, M.S.; Hermassi, S.; Shephard, R.J. Relationships between Power and Strength of the Upper and Lower Limb Muscles and
Throwing Velocity in Male Handball Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 1480–1487. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Marques, M.C.; van den Tillaar, R.; Vescovi, J.D.; González-Badillo, J.J. Relationship Between Throwing Velocity, Muscle Power, and
Bar Velocity During Bench Press in Elite Handball Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2007, 2, 414–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Riverola, R. Hockey Patines: Preparación Física; Segura, R., Ed.; Altorendimiento: Alcoy, Spain, 2009.
15. Ballestero, E. El hockey Sobre Patines: Variables del Rendimiento en el Disparo a Portería. Ph.D. Thesis, Institut Nacional
d’Educació Física de Catalunya, Lleida, Spain, July 2017.
16. Arboix-Alió, J.; Buscà, B.; Peña, J.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Miró, A.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A.; Trabal, G. Situational and Game
Variables in Rink Hockey: A Systematic Review. Apunt. Educ. Física Deport. 2023, 2, 22–35. [CrossRef]
17. Ferraz, A.; Valente-Dos-Santos, J.; Sarmento, H.; Duarte-Mendes, P.; Travassos, B. A Review of Players’ Characterization and
Game Performance on Male Rink-Hockey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 42–59. [CrossRef]
18. Vaz, M.; Ramos, N.; Abrantes, J.; Queirós de Melo, F.; Conceiçao, F. Biomechanics of the Penalty Stroke in Roller Hockey. Rev.
Port. Ciencias Desporto 2011, 2, 129–132.
19. Weir, J.P. Quantifying Test-Retest Reliability Using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005,
19, 231. [CrossRef]
20. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr.
Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [CrossRef]
21. Cormack, S.J.; Newton, R.U.; McGuigan, M.R.; Doyle, T.L.A. Reliability of Measures Obtained During Single and Repeated
Countermovement Jumps. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2008, 3, 131–144. [CrossRef]
22. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioural Science; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988.
23. Hopkins, W.G.; Marshall, S.W.; Batterham, A.M.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise
Science. Med. Sci. Sport. Exerc. 2009, 41, 3–13. [CrossRef]
24. Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Buscà, B. Analysis of the Individual Set-Pieces Influence on the Teams’ Ranking in
Rink Hockey. J. Hum. Kinet. 2021, 79, 229–236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Biomechanics 2023, 3 476

25. Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.; Hileno, R.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A.; Buscà, B. The Influence of Individual
Set-Pieces in Elite Rink Hockey Match Outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12368. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Arboix-Alió, J.; Trabal, G.; Valente-Dos-Santos, J.; Aguilera-Castells, J.; Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A.; Buscà, B. The influence of
contextual variables on individual set-pieces in elite rink hockey. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2021, 21, 336–347. [CrossRef]
27. Fort-Vanmeerhaeghe, A.; Bishop, C.; Buscà, B.; Vicens-Bordas, J.; Arboix-Alió, J. Seasonal variation of inter-limb jumping
asymmetries in youth team-sport athletes. J. Sports Sci. 2021, 39, 2850–2858. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.