ArticleJournal of human kinetics2016
The Effects of Modifying the Distance of the Penalty Shot in Water Polo.
Article in Journal of human kinetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of changing the distance of the penalty shot in water polo from 4 to 5 m. While a shorter distance made the penalty shot more effective, it also reduced the use of this sanction. A total of 192 matches played in the 2003 and 2007 Water Polo World Championships were recorded. The sample included 278 penalty shots in both tournaments. Notational analysis using a longitudinal correlational and descriptive design was employed to determine whether a longer distance increased the number of sanctioned penalties (81 vs 197) and caused a non-significant decrease in scoring efficiency (7.4%) with significant differences in the relationship between the area and the type of a shot, with less centre and power shots (14.8% vs 7.1%) observed and predominance of bounce shots to the right of the goal posts. The rule change prompted more penalties, produced changes in shot direction as well as the type of a shot, and yielded a decrement of 7.4% in scoring efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.