Computational Neurobiology Of Reaching And Pointing In Cricket

Differences between underarm and overarm throw

Discuss About The Computational Neurobiology Reaching Pointing.

Throwing bears a high level of significance within sports. Throwing with precision and with speed is an inherent human activity which most humans possess. In cricket as a sport, the speed and accuracy of a throw is essential if one is to achieve the highest level of performance. The speed and accuracy of a throw is dependent on many factors including whether the throw was an underarm or an overarm throw.  However, the speed and accuracy has not been fully understood owing partly to the fact that few researches have been done to deal with the aspect in particular. This research analyses the particular aspects of underarm and overarm throws as factors inherent to throwing speed and accuracy.

There are specific distinctions that exists between underarm and overarm throws which support their uniqueness in speed and accuracy during playing. In terms of being fast an accurate, one study conducted by researchers proved that an underarm or underhand throw was more precise compared to an overhand throw. However, this is proved different in cases where the player is less than three arms in length away from the from the shoulder height. In such a case, a very gentle overhand toss would be more effective to achieve the needed results. The underhand throw is preferred by many players because of its effectiveness.

Cumulatively, a clear distinction between the underarm and overarm throw can be made specifically because of the way in which the throws are initiated other than the accuracy level. The overarm throw is initiated by having arms placed over the elbow before releasing the ball. However, in cases of the underarm the ball is placed below the level of the elbow before it is released. The way in which muscles are used during the initiation of the underarm and overarm throw also varies. The whole body is however employed during the initiation of an underarm throw. The latismus dorsai, however, is the muscle that is most used during the initiation of an underarm throw. The muscles that are used for an overarm throw are however different.  

Throwing is not only utilized in fielding (in cases where the right arm is used) but also when the batsman hits the ball to the bowler. The overhead throw is highly utilized by the defender. The defenders utilize the overhead throw to get the ball back to the wicket keeper’s gloves or stumps. Along these lines, the overhead throw is essential for influencing run-outs (cases where the batsman is rejected for his or her inability to finish a run) and to keep the opponents from scoring runs. Higher speed throws are essential in diminishing the time needed by opponents to finish a run. In addition, higher speed runs affect the fundamental decision of the opposing team player regarding whether a run can be finished securely or his/her ability to influence a run-out.  

Muscle strength and power in throwing games

Muscle strength and power are essential determinants of throwing speed in overhead throwing and underarm throwing games including: baseball; water polo; cricket and European handball. The amount strength and power used during playing has been correlated with throwing speed. Training interventions have demonstrated improvements in strength and power of throws and have had positive effects on throwing velocity in these games. The impact of strength and power on speed gives a suitable strategy through which execution can be enhanced in overhead throwing players. Overhead throwing players are able to be more effective throw the initiation of strength and power in their throws.

The increase in speed and velocity in playing leads to the production of successful results in the game of cricket. However, very few studies have investigated the connection between strength, power and throwing speed in a gathering of cricket players. In spite of there being few documented studies on this subject matter, this examination discovered contrasts between faster and slower throwing cricketers on rotation movement. It utilized few strength and power control measures. Even though a few correspondents existed among baseball and cricket players as far as the specific throwing movement utilized, important contrasts exist which may modify the connection between strength, power, and throwing speed for players who associated with this game. Cricket players are required to throw heavier balls than baseball players (156 versus 142 g; around 10% distinction). These places cricket players on an alternative type of force and velocity, which may change the relative impact of strength and power on throwing speed. In addition, contrasts exist between cricket players and baseball players as far as throwing execution and biomechanics. Cricket players have appeared to have much lower maximal throwing speed (MTS) and accurateness capacities and throw with expanded elbow flexion and lessened shoulder external rotation in the preparation period of the throw contrasted to baseball players.;

The throwing movements are divided into 5– 6 individual phases that is: the preparation phase (wind up replaces this phase in baseball), stride, arm cocking, acceleration, deceleration, and follow through. The shoulder of the overhead throwing athletes, as a result of the execution phase, must give sufficient flexibility (extension) to permit greatest external rotation during the acceleration phase of throwing and enough steadiness to permit forceful velocities as high as 7,510/s2. This fine adjust of adequate versatility and dependability has been referred to as the “thrower’s paradox.” Regardless of whether the required range of motion in an adaptive reaction to throwing is undetermined.

Parameters and experimental setup

The study conducted by muscles movements comparing sidearm throw with underarm throw an overarm throw. The results observed more flexion during underarm throw ball than sidearm throwing ball. Another finding was more amount of extension found in sidearm than overarm throw. But this study didn’t explain any relationship between underarm throw an overarm throw.   

This article aims to recognize difference between overarm throwing and underarm throwing a ball in male cricket players. This article player can expand muscle strength and increment muscle growth through home-base situated exercises by dividing them in three different phases. This study further determines difference between muscular contraction relative with three different phases.    It was hypothesis that the subject in this study will have greater shoulder flexion and elbow flexion and create great volume during underarm throw and overarm throw respected to the three different phases. 

This study investigates the difference overarm and underarm throwing techniques in male cricket player. The results are analysed and recorded by software Kinovea. The angles between the shoulder and elbow were recorded for both throws and divided into three phases. Preparation phase, execution phase and follow through. A Panasonic HC -V130 High definition camcorder (Osaka, Japan) camera was used to capture the data.

The participation in the study was on voluntary basis. One male volunteer of twenty four years and three years of experience in cricket was recruited into the study. The study was designed for male cricket players. The participant was played for Indian Ranji trophy and Duplex trophies. The subject did not possess any shoulder or elbow injuries. The subject did not poses any medical condition that would warrant attention.

Parameters used for experiment were preparation phase, execution phase and follow though phase. In the preparation stage, a vast piece of the event that establishes an athlete for his execution as per his capacity, for instance, behind the swing between cricket batting and throwing in cricket. The execution stage is the accelerate stage which begins with speed and finishes with losing the contact with the question (for instance, tossing the ball toward the stump). The following phase is referred to all the movements of the execution phase (for example, in the wake of throwing the ball), which slow back the body’s movements. Events used as parameters were overarm throw and underarm throw. The underarm throw is (of a throw or stroke in sport) made with the arm or hand underneath shoulder level. The overarm throw is (of a throw or passing) made with the hand or arm going over the level of the shoulder.  

 Panasonic HC -V130 High definition camcorder (Osaka, Japan) camera and kinovea software used for experimental and parameters recording purpose. Tauranga sports running track were used for the right results and experimental performance. Tripod level was 100 cm in height with vertical placement and horizontal visualization to capture angle difference between shoulder and elbow. For the excellent recording, the camera was placed 5m horizontal away from the subject for throwing the ball. For perfect throw stumps was placed the 5m distance from the subject. Calibration ensured camera cover of shoulder and elbow angles on field.

Figure: 1 Instrumentation setup with camera, player and stumps          

The preparation was started before week example construction of structure sample of set up. Subject were appropriate clothing which was required for this experiment i.e. T – shirt or singlet, trousers with typical game shoes. On the test, day the camera was set on the games running track in Tauranga sports ground. The camera was set as 5 m and parallel to the subject. The stumps were placed opposite to the subject with 5 m distance. The camera was faced toward the subject with the aim to get accurate shoulder and elbow angles. The subject was instructed on to perform the underarm throwing and overarm throwing strategies. The   subject was instructed to aim at the stumps for 5 minutes with both underarm and overarm throws for practice. The subject was marked on shoulder as well as elbow with marker. Markers were placed on the glenoid tubercle on Humerus, the lateral epicondyles of Humerus and at the lateral styloid process. Video was then to recorded for calibration. The subject threw the ball first with underarm technique aimed towards the stumps. Video were recorded three times. The same process was repeated for the overarm throw.

All images and videos recovered from Panasonic HC -V130 High definition camcorder (Osaka, Japan) where analysed into the Kinovea software. The three phases analysed which included the preparation phase, execution phase and the follow through phase

Figure 2: Relative shoulder joint angles and absolute elbow joint angles

The overarm throw and underarm throw calculated by measuring relative shoulder angle and absolute elbow angle in male cricket player. i.e., shoulder joint and elbow joint. The lower end of lateral epicondyle of humerus, greater tubercle of the humerus and vertically relative with the ground form relative shoulder ankle. The styloid process, lower lateral epicondyle of humerus and greater tubercle at humerus construct elbow joint as shown in figure 1. All points were mentioned an in the article which was conducted by Freeston et.al, (2016). All activities were recorded simultaneously with Panasonic HC -V130 High definition camcorder (Osaka, Japan). The research did before, and body kinematics compared with results. Kinovea played and noticed all three videos. Kinovea collected all excellent video and clear footages from the video camera for correlating angles. 

Preparation phase: Preparation phase throughout the underarm throwing, elbow joint extends up to 49 ^o. Shoulder joint contracted up to 108 ^o. Same place overarm throwing, elbow joint flexed up to 63 ^o. Shoulder joint flexed out up to 47 ^o. Looking at overarm and underarm throw difference in Figure 1 (A) beginning position variation was 11^o at the elbow joint flexion and 34 ^o at the shoulder joint flexion. At figure (B) difference at two evets, shoulder joint flexed with a distinction of 22 ^o. At elbow joint at the underarm throw it was flexed, and while the overarm throw, it was extended with the difference of 49 ^o. At figure (C) shoulder joint was flexed noticed in the underarm and extending during overarm with the distinction of 121 ^o. Also, moderately elbow joint extended at the underarm throw and flexed amid overarm throw with a variation of 97 ^o.

Figure 1: Preparation phase: Above underarm throw A, B and C figure left to right

Execution stage: Execute phase throughout the underarm throwing, and elbow joint flexed up to 4 ^o. Shoulder joint contracted up to 81 ^o. Same place overarm throwing, elbow joint flexed up to 39 ^o. Shoulder joint flexed out up to 6 ^o. Looking at overarm and underarm throw difference in Figure 2 (A) beginning position variation was 83 ^o at the elbow joint flexion and 124 ^o at the shoulder joint flexion. At figure (B) difference at two events, shoulder joint flexed with a distinction of 101 ^o.  At elbow joint during both events, it was extended with the difference of 68 ^o. At figure (C) shoulder joint was flexed noticed in the underarm and overarm distinction of 49 ^o. Also, moderately elbow joint extended at the underarm throw and overarm throw with a variation of 49 ^o

Figure 2: Executed phase: above underarm throw A, B and C figure left to right  

Following stage: Following phase throughout the underarm throwing, and elbow joint flexed up to 16. Shoulder joint contracted up to 42 ^o. Same place overarm throwing, elbow joint extended up to 23. Shoulder joint extended out up to 40 ^o. Looking at overarm and underarm throw difference in Figure 3 (A) beginning position variation was 29 ^o at the elbow joint extension and 34 ^o at the shoulder joint flexion. At figure (B) difference at both events, shoulder joint flexed during the underarm throw and extended during overarm throw with a distinction of 10 ^o. At elbow joint during both events, it was extended with the difference of 35 ^o. At figure (C) shoulder joint was flexed during the underarm and extended during overarm distinction of 29 ^o. Also, moderately elbow joint extended at the underarm throw and overarm throw with a variation of 3 ^o.   

                                             (C)

Figure 3: Following phase: Above underarm throw A, B and C figure left to right

Table 1: Quantitative representation of elbow and shoulder angles presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 for the preparation, execution and follow through phases.

Phases	Overarm	Underarm
Preparation phase
Elbow (o)  (A)                                 (B)                                 (C)	106                     73                     49	97               122               146
Shoulder (o) figure 1 (A)                                      (B)                                      (C)	7                     19                     54	36               41               67
Execution phase
Elbow (o) figure 2 (A)                                 (B)                                 (C)	62                     80                    101	145               148               141
Shoulder (o) figure 2 (A)                                      (B)                                      (C)	58                     64                     64	66                37                15
Follower phase
Elbow (o) figure 3 (A)                                 (B)                                 (C)	111                     113                     153	140                148                156
Shoulder (o) figure 3 (A)                                      (B)                                      (C)	66                     53                     26	32                43                55

The research article illustrates the differences that exist between overarm and underarm throwing among male cricket players. The differences between underarm and overarm throw were critically analysed in the document. The article clearly separates throwing into three phases. The three phases that are addressed in the article include the preparation, execution and the following phase. The information regarding the phases and muscles used during throwing are presented clearly within this document.It is however important to note the occurrences during the different phases and how they are dependent on whether the individual is performing an underarm or an overarm throw. The different occurrences occur in the preparation phase, the execution phase and the following phase. This occurrences are:

Addressing the underarm throw in the preparation phase, the elbow joint has been found to contract by up to forty nine degrees. In contrast (in the same situation), the elbow is flexed by up to sixty three degrees in the same position. The difference between the overarm and underarm throw is 11 degrees at the elbow joint during flexion and 34 degrees during shoulder joint flexion.  This data shows a significant difference which has a profound effect on how the throws are executed.

When the shoulder joint is flexed at during the underarm and overarm throws, it is clear to see that a difference of 22 degrees exists. When the elbow joint is flexed during this instance, a difference of forty nine degrees is observed. When the shoulder joint is flexed, a difference of 121 degrees is identified during the underarm throw. The elbow joint is also extended during the underarm throw and conversely flexed in the middle of the overarm throw with a difference of ninety seven degrees between the two that is the underarm and overarm throw. This data is highly significant when identifying the best method to use during throwing. The time that a player uses during the preparation phase is highly significant in the overall result that is the accuracy and speed of the throw. The angle used during the throw will either save the players’ time and effort or lead to lose of velocity and energy needed to propel the ball through the field.

During the execution phase that is the actual period in which the ball is thrown and when underarm throwing is employed the elbow joint is flexed by up to four degrees. The shoulder joint in this case is contracted up to 81 degrees. Within same dimension of the overarm throw, the elbow joint is flexed up to 39 degrees. The shoulder joint is flexed out by up to six degrees. There is a marked variation between the underarm and overarm throw. The difference in angle and throw is attributed markedly to the position. The difference in the first instance stands at 83 degrees when the elbow joint is flexed.

When the shoulder joint is flexed, a difference of one hundred and twenty four degrees is identified. When two events occur, that is the independent underarm throw and the associated overarm throw, a difference of 101 degrees is identified. In addition, the elbow joint is extended with a difference of 68 degrees when the two events. When the shoulder joint is flexed during the underarm and overarm throws, a difference of 49 degrees is identified and the elbow joint is extended at the underarm throw and overarm throw with a variation of forty nine degrees. This marked differences in the throws shows a highly significant correlation between the underarm and overarm throws which is likely to play a significant effect in the range of throws.

During the instance if the following phase when the player initiated an underarm throw, the elbow joint was flexed by up to 16. The shoulder joint, at this instance, also contracted by up to 42 degrees. The elbow joint however, extended all the way to 23 degrees. The shoulder also extends to forty degrees. Varied differences exist between an overarm and an underarm throw at the following phase. A variation of twenty nine degrees is noted at the initial stage of the throw, that is at the elbow joint extension and a difference of thirty four degrees at the shoulder joint flexion.

When the two throws (that is the underarm and overarm throws) occur at the same instance, a differences of ten degrees is identified. The shoulder joint is flexed during the underarm throw and extended during the overarm throw in the same connection. In conclusion at the following phase, it was identified that the shoulder joint was flexed during the underarm and the extended during the overarm throw with a difference of 29 degrees. The elbow joint was also found to extend at the underarm throw and overarm throw with a variation of three degrees.

Only one subject was dealt with in the study and hence very limited data was provided. The Camera that was used during the performance of the research was also inadequate as it could only poses 50HZ which was relatively inadequate to cover all the events present and to enable the prevention of the development of a blurring effect,

It is very essential that future articles delve in covering lower limb movements as well as upper limb movements in combination when performing limb movements when male cricket players are throwing. High definition cameras should also be employed for more relevant results. The use of all the muscles during throwing should also be addressed by research documents.

Gait training should also be employed during future researches and muscle strengthening programs also. Furthermore, future research documents should addresses the length of the stride taken by the cricket players. Comparisons between the underarm sidearm and the overarm throw in male cricket players should also be intensely dealt with. Future articles should address the relationship between strengthening muscles and improving performance in the field.

Conclusion 

From the study it was identified that a difference exists between underarm and overarm throws among male cricket players.  The study attributes the difference between underarm and overarm throw to the noticeable difference between the two during the process acceleration phase. The underarm players need more flexion while the overarm players need more extension. For an underarm throw, therefore, good biceps and anterior fibres of the deltoid are needed for contraction. However, for an overarm throw, triceps and posterior fibres of the deltoid are needed for contraction as well. This notable difference is significant in analysing the underarm and overarm cricket players.

References

Bagchi, A., & Raizada, S. (2015). An Electromyographical analysis of biceps brachii and triceps brachii       during three different types of throw in cricket. IJAR, 1(11), 323-326. Retrieved from EBSCO Academic Search Complete database.

Brancazio PJ. (1981). Physics of basketball. Am. J. Phys. 49, 356–365. (doi:10.1119/1.12511)

Cohen RG, Sternad D. (2009) Variability in motor learning: relocating, channeling and reducing noise. Exp. Brain Res. 193, 69–83. (doi:10.1007/s00221-008-1596-1) [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Cronin, J. B., Sharp, A. P., Stronach, B., Deuchrass, R., Bressel, E., Shackel, D. F., & McMaster, D. T. (2016). Strength and Conditioning for Throwing in Cricket. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 38(6), 1-9. https://doi:10.1519/SSC.0000000000000254.

Dupuy MA, Motte D, Ripoll H. (2000). The regulation of release parameters in underarm precision throwing. J. Sports Sci. 18, 375–382. (doi:10.1080/02640410050074304) [PubMed]

Etnyre BR. (1998)Accuracy characteristics of throwing as a result of maximum force effort. Percept Mot. Skills 86, 1211–1217. (doi:10.2466/pms.1998.86.3c.1211) [PubMed]

Fitts PM. (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 381–391. (doi:10.1037/h0055392) [PubMed]

Freeston J, Ferdinands R, Rooney K. (2007)Throwing velocity and accuracy in elite and sub-elite cricket players: a descriptive study. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 7, 231–237. (doi:10.1080/17461390701733793)

Freeston, J. L., Carter, T., Whitaker, G., Nicholls, O., & Rooney, K. B. (2016). Strength and power correlates of throwing velocity on subelite male cricket players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(6), 1646-1651. https:/doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001246.

Gablonsky JM, Lang A. 2005. Modeling basketball free throws. SIAM Rev. 47, 775–798. (doi:10.1137/S0036144598339555)

Harris CM, Wolpert DM. 1(998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394, 780–784. (doi:10.1038/29528) [PubMed]

Harris CM, Wolpert DM. (2006) The main sequence of saccades optimizes speed–accuracy trade-off. Biol. Cybern. 95, 21–29. (doi:10.1007/s00422-006-0064-x) [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Kerr BA, Langolf GD. (1977). Speed of aiming movements. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 29, 475–481. (doi:10.1080/14640747708400623)

Meyer DE, Keith-Smith JE, Kornblum S, Abrams RA, Wright CE. (1990). Speed–accuracy tradeoffs in aimed movements: toward a theory of rapid voluntary action. In Attention and Performance XIII: motor representation and control (ed. M Jeannerod), pp. 173–226. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Okubo H, Hubbard M. (2006). Dynamics of the basketball shot with application to the free throw. J. Sports Sci. 24, 1303–1314. (doi:10.1080/02640410500520401) [PubMed

Padulo, J., Vando, S., Chamari, K., Chaouachi, A., Bagno, D., & Pizzolato, F. (2014). Validity of the MarkWiiR for kinematic analysis during walking and running gaits. Biology of Sport, 32(1), 53-58. doi:10.5604/20831862.1127282

Plamondon R, Alimi AM. (1997). Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behav. Brain Sci. 20, 279–303. discussion 303–349. [PubMed]

Pote, L., & Christie, C. J. (2016). Strength and conditioning practices of university and high school level cricket coaches: a South African context. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 30(12), 3464-3470. https:/doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001432.

Scholz JP, Schöner G. (1999). The uncontrolled manifold concept: identifying control variables for a functional task. Exp. Brain Res. 126, 289–306. (doi:10.1007/s002210050738) [PubMed]

Shadmehr R, Wise SP. (2005) The computational neurobiology of reaching and pointing: a foundation for motor learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Singh, K., & Singh, R. (2015). Relationship of Selected Anthropometric Variables with the Throwing Distance of Cricket Ball in Cricket. Academic Sports Scholars, 4(8), 1-6. Retrieved from EBSCO Academic Search Complete database.

Smeets JB, Frens MA, Brenner E. (2002). Throwing darts: timing is not the limiting factor. Exp. Brain Res. 144, 268–274. (doi:10.1007/s00221-002-1072-2) [PubMed]

Sternad D, Abe MO, Hu X, Müller H. (2011) Neuromotor noise, error tolerance and velocity-dependent costs in skilled performance. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002159 (doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002159) [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Todorov E. (2004) Optimality principles in sensorimotor control. Nat. Neurosci. 7, 907–915. (doi:10.1038/nn1309) [PMC free article][PubMed]