Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Science & Engineering FacultyĬonsult author(s) regarding copyright matters Past > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering Analysis of data sets relating to characteristics, performance and classification were inconclusive.īiomechanics, athletics, disability, seated throwers, shot-put The raw data, the profile of best athletes and the frequency of characteristics provided key benchmark information for construction of a throwing frame as well as coaching, classification and officiating. The distribution of samples across characteristics suggested a relevant level of comprehensiveness for the proposed cataloguing. The cataloguing was achieved using a 6-step heuristic approach, involving expert opinions and the analysis of 215 attempts produced by 55 male athletes during the 2006 IPC Athletics World Championships. Potential relationships between characteristics, performance and classification were also identified. The characterisation consisted of describing the characteristics of each throwing frame. The secondary objective of this study was to provide raw characterisations of the throwing frames for a group of athletes who participated in a world-class event. This cataloguing consisted of defining and grouping 26 characteristics into three main categories (i.e., whole body, foot and upper limb specific characteristics) and seven sub-categories. The primary objective of this study was to present a cataloguing of characteristics of throwing frames used by seated shot-putters. Remarkably, the relationship between performance and throwing frame characteristics has received limited attention. The relationship between performance and throwing technique has been well described. One way to refine the conception is to improve the basic understanding of performance of seated shot-putters. Currently, the construction of each individual throwing frame is mainly driven by an empirical approach. There is absolutely no reason the third period and Overtime shouldn't be called to the same standard.Seated shot-putters rely on a customized assistive device called a throwing frame. There were those that argued that the standard for calls in overtime changes, to which I say, why? The stakes are no higher than they are halfway through the third period of a one goal game. In this world of makeup calls and game management, in which the refs had already had a massive effect on the outcome of the game, the fact that such an obvious penalty got ignored is a farce. In the same clip we see Michael Bunting apparently giving a piggyback ride to a Tampa defender. What's worse than those, however, was the inconsistency of the officiating.ĭuring the overtime period, Alex Killorn grabbed a hold of the back of Auston Matthews' jersey and spent a good 5 or 6 seconds being towed around the ice. Kerfoot being called for Hedman lifting Kerf's stick into his own face was brutal. The phantom high stick that led to the 5 on 3 goal to tie the game was horrific. Call it bad discipline, call it game management, call it a Gary Bettman conspiracy, no matter how you view it, referees played a huge role in the Leafs' game 6 loss to Tampa.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |