Effects of ball properties on throwing in young team-handball beginners

Abstract

Throwing a ball is a primary skill in team-handball and can be directly influenced by the properties of different types of balls. Therefore, the use of different balls (i.e., methodic ball) recommended by the handball federations (e.g., IHF) and the education guidelines, are important in teaching throwing. Previous studies have shown that movement patterns and throwing velocity can be influenced by different ball types and sizes. However, the influence of these factors on throwing accuracy has not been investigated in detail yet. This study aims to replicate the findings of previous studies on increasing throwing velocity in children by comparing the use of a soft methodic ball with a size 0 handball. Furthermore, this study investigates the influence of these balls on throwing accuracy. In an experimental study, participants (10-years of age) threw a soft methodic ball and a size 0 ball at target areas in a handball goal. For all the throws, throwing velocity and accuracy were measured. Commensurate with previous research, throwing velocity was higher for the soft methodic ball compared to a size 0 ball. No difference was found in accuracy, although, it is worth mentioning that the participants were only experienced in throwing using the size 0 ball. Moreover, only one-third of the children favored throwing with a size 0 ball, which is what they are used to in training and competition. The results of our study, therefore, confirm that using soft methodic balls additionally, positively influences the throwing velocity and has no negative effect on the accuracy in throwing among young handball beginners.

Keywords

Children equipment motor learning skill acquisition soft methodic ball

Introduction

In sports practice, motor learning and skill acquisition processes are critical for success. The adaptation of the equipment (e.g., racket sizes, basket heights, ball sizes) based on needs and trends, therefore, supports these learning processes and is commonly applied in practice. However, the understanding about how adapted or scaled sports equipment influences the motor skill execution has remained limited.¹ This study investigates the ways in which the use of different ball types, which are differently scaled and consist of different materials, influences the throwing performance in team-handball.

The ability to throw a ball is a crucial skill for team-handball players² because the fundamental objective of the sport is to score a goal which can only be achieved by throwing, while foiling attempts by the opposite team to regain possession of the ball.³ Therefore, learning throwing techniques is an essential part of team-handball training. Previous research has examined the effects of adapted equipment on general skill acquisition and corresponding execution thereof,^1,4,5 for instance, inferred that there is a significant link between the size of the throwing hand and throwing quality. If the diameter of the ball is larger than the width of the hand, a significant decrease in throwing quality can be observed. For example, if the ball is too large, the throwing movement resembles a shot-put movement.⁵ Another study concludes that increased weight of a normal handball ball reduces the throwing velocity and influences the movement patterns of expert handball players.⁶

Wünsch et al.⁷ in their recent study show that the use of a soft methodic ball (no ball bladder, filled with soft foam) by children under the age of 11 results in a significantly higher throwing velocity compared to the use of a regular size 0 handball. Moreover, the movement speed and patterns pertaining to throws, differ in this study (increased pronation of the forearm, dorsal extension, and palmar flexion of the wrist in using the soft methodic ball). Considering that the size 0 ball is heavier and bigger than the soft methodic ball, it is unclear, however, if the increased throwing velocity is related to a better grip, the size, or the weight of the soft methodic ball. To answer this question, Fasold et al.⁸ analyzed the differences in throwing velocity of children under the age of 11 with a size 00, size 0, and soft methodic ball. Consistent with Wünsch et al.⁷ the throwing velocity was found to be higher while using a soft methodic ball compared to the use of both types of regular handballs (size 00; size 0). Taking into account that the size 00 ball is the same weight and size as the soft methodic ball, albeit yielding slower throw speed, the authors concluded that better grip of the soft methodic ball has a positive effect on the overall throwing velocity. However, in their study, Fasold et al.⁸ did not precisely define or measure the grip of the soft methodic ball. They did, however, argue that the soft methodic ball would be easier to grab.

The influence of ball size on the throwing movement has led to the team-handball community to require smaller and lighter balls for young athletes, according to the official rules.⁹ For training purposes, the use of an easy-to-grab ball is recommended by Handball at School (H@S), the international comprehensive training and education program launched in 2011 by the International Handball Federation (IHF) for physical education teachers and coaches in schools.¹⁰ The same is also favored in the educational guidelines for beach handball for children under the age of 10¹¹ and was first implemented in the form of GOALCHA™ ball in the alternative handball version, street handball. The recommended easy-to-grab methodic balls are filled with foam instead of a ball bladder. This is why these balls do not bounce very much and are easier to catch and grab.

However, almost no research so far has studied how the weight, size, and grip of a ball influences the throwing performance in team-handball, particularly, among children. Most of the previous studies^7,8 have only focused on the throwing velocity, which is only one factor in assessing the throwing performance. Another important indicator, and one which has so far been ignored, of the throwing performance is the throwing accuracy.^12–14

Although intrinsic motivation and interest in (motor) learning affect the acquisition of motor skills,¹⁵ it is unclear how the experiences of children using different types of ball materials, like the soft methodic ball, vary. If the children feel comfortable using soft methodic balls in training tasks, it is assumed that this benefits skill acquisition processes while also enhancing motivation levels. On the other hand, if the children consider, at first, using soft methodic balls negatively, they will have to be introduced carefully and gradually into training sessions. Such analyses of the participants’ attitudes towards using different balls have so far remained missing and could add a great value to the study of this subject.

The primary aim of this study, therefore, is two-fold: to evaluate the influence of the ball properties on throwing performance parameters (velocity and accuracy), and the children’s preferences in using different ball materials. Based on existing research, it is assumed that the use of a soft methodic ball is associated with a throwing velocity higher than that of a size 0 ball.^7,8 It is also assumed that the enhanced grip of the soft methodic ball will have a positive influence on the throwing accuracy though there is no research available to support or reject this assumption. Because motivation and joy play a major role in effective skill acquisition,¹⁵ we also investigated whether children prefer using the soft methodic ball or favor using the normal handball.

Method

Participants

A sample of 177 children participated voluntarily (M_age = 9.47, SD = 0.68, males 137, females 40). At the time of the data collection, all subjects reported being experienced in playing handball and practicing 1-3 times a week as members of different handball clubs of a single regional German handball federation. Due to the guidelines of the federation, they usually competed as a full game version (7 vs. 7) on an official court size (20×40 m field, 3×2 m goals) and used a size 0 ball. Occasionally, they competed in Mini-Handball (5 vs. 5) tournaments, characterized by smaller field and goal sizes. None of the participants had ever used a soft methodic ball during competition before. The participants, as well as their parents or legal guardians, were verbally informed about the procedure and research design prior to testing. The parents or legal guardians gave written consent to allow their ward to voluntarily participate in this study. The study was conducted strictly in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975.

Materials

For the purpose of this study, a size 0 ball (filled with a ball bladder with dimensions – 0.4 hpa, 47 cm, 240 g) and a soft methodic ball (filled with foam with dimensions – 47 cm, 200 g) were used. A canvas was used to create two triangular targets (size 0.5 m², open) in the upper corners of a standard handball goal (3 m × 2 m). The throwing velocity was measured with Smart Coach Pocket Radar™. The radar-system was set up to only record throws with a velocity greater than 40 km/h (accuracy +/−2 km/h).

Procedure

Prior to testing, all participants were informed that they would take part in a throwing performance test wherein their throwing velocity and scores would be measured. After a short warm-up without ball familiarization, the participants were individually tested. They were asked to independently throw at one of the two target areas (one in each corner of the goal). The participants performed four throws each with the soft methodic ball and the size 0 ball. The participants threw in counterbalanced order with the soft methodic ball and the size 0 ball (participant 1: 1st soft, 2nd size 0, 3rd soft …, 8th size 0; participant 2: 1. 1st size 0, 2nd soft, 3rd size 0…, 8th soft) to avoid serial effects. They were randomly assigned to one of the orders of the throws. The throwing position was set at 6 m from the center of the goal and no run-up was allowed. Directly before the first throw, each participant got a reminder about the aim of the test through direct instructions like, “Throw the ball as hard as you can, score as often as possible…”. These instructions were randomly assigned to the participants. A researcher was seated 8 m away from the goal and directly behind the throwing arm of the participant with the radar gun in his hand. After every throw, the velocity and the score (hit or miss) was recorded. After the throwing task, all the participants were asked which of the two balls they preferred to throw with, and their responses were noted. The total duration of the complete procedure for each single participant was between six and ten minutes. If the participants requested it, they were informed about their results after the test. Participants who did not reach the threshold throwing speed of 40 km/h in all the throws, were excluded from the statistical analysis.

Design and statistical analysis

The effect of the within-subject factor ball (size 0 ball vs. soft methodic ball) on the dependent variables, throwing velocity and scoring probability (calculated by frequencies of hits and misses) as a measure of throwing accuracy was evaluated. Those participants who failed to reach the minimum threshold of throwing speed of 40 km/h in any of the throws, were included only in the descriptive part of the analysis. To run the inferential statistical analyses with the same sample size in both, throwing velocity and scoring probability, only the participants who reached the 40 km/h threshold in every attempt were included. To investigate the effect of the factor ball on the dependent variables, throwing velocity and scoring probability, two paired samples Wilcoxon-tests were calculated because for the dependent variables the assumption of a normal distribution was violated (velocity soft methodic ball vs. 0 ball, scoring probability soft methodic ball vs. size 0 ball; Shapiro-Wilk tests, all ps < .002). The effect size r was also calculated.

Results

Due to missing or incomplete data, one participant had to be excluded from the analysis. Additionally, results from eight participants could not be included in the analyses of throwing velocity and scoring probability because they failed to reach the 40 km/h threshold for the minimum throwing velocity. For all remaining participants, the throwing velocity was higher with the soft methodic ball (n = 626, M = 50.70 km/h, SD = 7.72, 95% CI [49.53, 51.87]) than with the size 0 ball (n = 522, M = 46.56 km/h, SD = 5.32, 95% CI [45.75, 47.36]). The scoring probability with the size 0 ball (M = 24.78%, SD = 30.73, 95% CI [19.86, 29.70]) was quite similar to the scoring probability with the soft methodic ball (M = 21.56%, SD = 27.23, 95% CI [17.43, 25.69]).

The analysis of throwing velocity and scoring probability of only the participants who reached the velocity threshold in all attempts (n =113)¹ showed that the factor ball had a strong effect on the throwing velocity, Z = −9.193, p < .0001, r = 0.932, and no effect on the scoring probability, Z = −1.047, p < .295, r = 0.098, (Table 1).

Table 1.

Throwing velocity and scoring probability with the soft methodic and the size 0 handball.

	Throwing velocity [km/h]		Scoring probability [%]
	M (SD)	95% CI	M (SD)	95% CI
Soft methodic ball	53.27 (6.59)	[52.04, 54.50]	19.47 (25.16)	[14.78, 24.16]
Size 0 handball	47.26 (4.72)	[46.38, 48.14]	22.35 (25.95)	[17.51, 27.18]

Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and Confidence Intervals (CI) for n = 113.

The analysis of the preference rating of one ball type over the other showed that 51.41% of the participants favored the soft methodic ball, 30.51% favored the size 0 ball, and 18.08% stated that the ball did not matter (N = 177). The descriptive analysis of the ball preference included all the participants, because this rating was measured independently of the other variables.

Discussion

This is the first study to have investigated the effect of different ball types, which are differently scaled and consist of different materials, on the velocity and accuracy (measured as scoring probability) of children’s throws. Consistent with previous studies,^7,8 throwing with an easy-to-grab soft methodic ball increased the throwing velocity compared to a size 0 ball; although, this could have been caused by the lesser weight of the soft methodic ball compared to the size 0 ball (200 g vs 240 g). However, previous studies⁸ suggest that easier to grab balls (as the soft methodic ball) can be thrown harder even if these do not weigh less. Compliant with previous findings by Wünsch et al.⁷ the soft methodic ball influences the throwing movement of the children in a way that allows a better transmission of power to the ball. Another explanation for the higher throwing velocity with the soft methodic ball is that only a few problems with grabbing and holding the soft methodic ball can potentially change the attention focus of the thrower from an internal to an external focus. If less attentional resources are needed to focus on the movement itself (holding the ball during the movement or internal focus), more attention can be directed to the goal. The emphasis on external foci rather than internal foci is associated with a performance enhancing effect in using motor skills.^16,17

Contrary to the original hypothesis of this study, no differences in the throwing accuracy (scoring probability) between the soft methodic ball and the size 0 ball were found. However, given that the throwing velocity was higher with the soft methodic ball, the accuracy was nevertheless similar in both ball conditions – that is, usually accuracy of a throw decreases with increasing throwing velocities. Importantly, that was not the case though participants had much less experience in using the soft methodic ball compared to the size 0 ball. We think that throwing accuracy will probably increase after a familiarization phase with the soft methodic ball, but this remains for future research.

Regarding the preference of using the soft methodic ball, more than half the participants of this study reported more joy and comfort throwing with the new and unfamiliar ball. Additionally, 18% of the participants stated that they did not experience differences in joy and comfort between the uses of both balls. With regard to OPTIMAL (Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning) Theory,¹⁵ enjoyment plays a crucial role in skill acquisition. Therefore, it seems reasonable to integrate the use of the (preferred) soft methodic ball in existing training plans in order to increase the variability of training during the skill acquisition phase⁴ Therefore, while we see a benefit of partly using soft methodic balls in practice, it is probably wisest to make use of both balls in training, depending on the goal of the particular training session/phase. Furthermore, we did not ask if participants would also like to actually keep on playing with the ball. That is, participants indicated they preferred the soft methodic ball in the current throwing task which does not necessarily mean that they would prefer to play with the soft methodic ball.

A low scoring probability for all throws leads to the assumption that the overall task conditions were quite difficult for the children participating in this study. Thus, for future research, we suggest simplifying the throwing task to achieve higher scoring rates or use of alternative accuracy measures like the ones used to measure throwing accuracy in basketball (miss = 0 points, score with hit of the rim = 1 point, direct score = 2 points).¹⁸ We also suggest using an alternative velocity measurement system based on our experiences in this study. The measurement of ball release speed or angular velocities with motion capture systems¹⁹ would allow for a more precise analysis of throwing velocities (also for throwing velocities below the current radar threshold of 40 km/h) and will reduce the loss of data.

Conclusion

To conclude, increased throwing velocity, as observed in this study, replicates the findings of previous research.^7,8 This is in particular interesting, because in the previous studies, the participants were simply asked to throw as hard as possible without worrying about throwing accuracy, even though there is a strong established relationship between throwing velocity and accuracy. We could demonstrate in our study that the differences in the throwing velocity of both balls remain as the participants had to throw as fast and accurately as possible and accuracy, measured by scoring probability, did not show any differences between the two used ball types. Following the OPTIMAL Theory,¹⁵ the use of a soft methodic ball could also result in an external attention focus as we hypothesize that less attention on grabbing the ball is required. Furthermore, the preference rating supports the implementation of these soft methodic balls in training schedules. The use of the soft methodic ball was associated with an adequate level of motivation in half of our participants, therefore, supporting the potential for improvement of skill acquisition.¹⁵ Indeed, further studies have shown that using lighter balls with properties, that allow higher throwing velocities, can influence the throwing skills positively (not only in handball).^20–22 The implementation of training sessions using these balls is also in line with the recommendations by Vila and Ferragut stating that throwing practice in handball should always be conducted with high velocities.²³ Deriving a speed–ahead-of-accuracy rule from these recommendations and results might be misleading though. Throwing practice with as high as possible velocities, should only be started if the basic parameters of a good throwing movement are learned.

Nevertheless, like the recommendations in the IHF teaching guidelines, extensive use of different easy-to-grab ball types is necessary for teaching and improving throwing skills. A variable use of different ball materials supports long-term learning processes.⁴ While our study indicates a benefit of integrating the available soft methodic balls in training practice, future research could focus on the changes in movement pattern initiated by scaled equipment in throwing tasks along with potential longitudinal studies on the development of throwing skills depending on the type of the ball(s) used.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Frowin Fasold

Benjamin Noël

Note

References

Buszard

Machar

Masters

, et al. Scaling the equipment and play area in children’s sport to improve motor skill acquisition. A systematic review. Sports Med 2016; 46: 829–843.

Volossovitch

Handball. In: McGarry

O Donoghue

Sampaio

(eds) Routledge handbook of sports performance analysis. London: Routledge, 2013, pp. 380–392.

Karcher

Buchheit

On-court demands of elite handball, with special reference to playing positions.

Sports Med 2014; 44: 797–814.

Brocken

JEA

van der Kamp

Lenoir

, et al. Equipment modification can enhance skill learning in young field hockey players. Int J Sport Sci & Coach 2020; 15: 382–389.

Burton

Greer

Wiese

DM.

Changes in overhand throwing patterns as a function of ball size. Pediat Exer Sci 1992; 4: 50–67.

Braun

Büsch

Schütz

, et al. Effect of weight on stand throw performance in handball. [Einfluss des Ballgewichts auf den Schlagwurf im Handball]. In: Büsch

Heinisch

Lüdemann

(eds) Performance factors in team sports [Leistungsfaktoren in den Spiel- und Zweikampfsportarten]. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer, 2016, pp. 89–105.

Wünsch

Schorer

Büsch

Stand throw in children handball – the ball is the difference. [Schlagwurf im Kinderhandball – der Ball macht den Unterschied Ball macht den Unterschied].

Handballtraining jun 2019; 8: 21–24.

Fasold

Bleckat

Horn

, et al. Equipment effects on team-handball specific throwing skills in childhood. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 2019; 49(S1): 18.

International Handball Federation [IHF]. Rules of the game. Indoor handball. 1st ed. Basle: Author, 2016.

10.

Hlapková

Estriga

Rot

Teaching handball. Teacher guidelines. Cairo: Police Presse, 2019.

11.

Fasold

Gehrer

Beach handball – from the grassroots. In: European Handball Federation (eds) EHF scientific conference: 5th EHF scientific conference “Handball for life” 21–22 November 2019, Cologne, Germany, documentation, 2020, pp. 19–23. Retz: Hofer Media.

12.

Vila

Zapardiel

Ferragut

The relationship between effectiveness and throwing velocity in a handball match. Int J Perf Anal Sport 2020; 20: 180–188.

13.

Laffaye

Debanne

Choukou

MA.

Is the ball velocity dependent on expertise? A multi-dimensional study in handball.

Int J Perf Anal Sport 2012; 12: 629–642.

14.

Wagner

Müller

The effects of differential and variable training on the quality parameters of a handball throw.

Sport Biom 2008; 7: 54–71.

15.

Wulf

Lewthwaite

Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning.

Psychon Bull & Rev 2016; 23: 1382–1414.

16.

Wulf

Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 10 years of research.

Bewegung und Training (e-Journal) 2007; 1: 4–14, www.sportwissenschaft.de/fileadmin/img/publikationen/BuT/aktuelles/Wulf_target_article_2007.pdf (accessed 1 June 2021).

17.

Wulf

Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2013; 6: 77–104.

18.

Moradi

Benefits of a guided motor-mental preperformance routine on learning the basketball free throw. Percept Mot Skills 2020; 127: 248–262.

19.

Wagner

Pfusterschmied

Klous

, et al. Movement variability and skill level of various throwing techniques. Hum Mov Sci 2012; 31: 78–90.

20.

Skoufas

Stefanidis

Michailidis

, et al. The effect of handball training with underweighted balls on the throwing velocity of novice handball players. J Hum Mov Stud 2002; 44: 157–171.

21.

van Muijen

Joris

HJJ

Kemper

HCG

, et al. Throwing practice with different ball weight. Effects on throwing velocity and muscle strength in female handball players. Sport Med Trai Rehab 1991; 2: 103–113.

22.

Escamilla

Fleisig

Barrentine

, et al. Effects of throwing overweight and underweight baseballs on throwing velocity and accuracy. Sports Med 2000; 29: 259–272.

23.

Vila

Ferragut

Throwing speed in team handball: a systematic review. Int J Perf Anal Sport 2019; 19: 724–736.