 

A CINEMATOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF BLOCKING

PATTERNS IN EXPERIENCED AND INEXPERIENCED
HIGH SCHOOL LINEMEN

Thesis for the Degee of M. A.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN F. HAAS

1976

1"-

 

 

A CINEMATOGRAPHIC COMPARISON OF BLOCKING
PATTERNS IN EXPERIENCED AND INEXPERIENCED

HIGH SCHOOL LINEMEN

BY

LALC ‘C.

C
John F. Haas

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Health, Physical
Education, and Recreation

1976

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to thank Dr. Gale Mikles, the
chairman of his research committee. Dr. Mikles spent
many long hours analyzing rough drafts and his assistance
with various procedures and preparation of this manuscript
is greatly appreciated.

A special note of appreciation is due Dr. Vern
Seefeldt, who gave very unselfishly of his time.

Dr. Seefeldt made numerous suggestions for improvement of
the rough drafts and his guidance, encouragement, and
understanding are greatly appreciated. He personally
assisted in conducting both the pilot study and the actual
experiment.

A final thanks is due Dr. William Heusner, who
formulated the statistical design and helped the writer
with all statistical procedures required in order to
organize and analyze the data. He also provided the writer
with the initial motivation to conduct an experiment and to

write a thesis.

ii

LIST OF

LIST OF

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES . . . . . . . . . .

FIGURES . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .

Need for the Study . . . .
Statement of Problem . . .
Delimitations . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses . . .
Research Plan . . . . . .
Rationale . . . . . . . .
Assumptions . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . .

Reaction Time and Movement
Stance . . . . . . . . . .
Cinematography . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

RESEARCH PLAN . . . . . .

Subjects . . . . . . . . .
Sample . . . . . . . . . .
Independent Variables . .
Research Design . . .'. .
Conduct of Treatments . .
Dependent Variables . . .
Data Collection . . . . .
Treatment of Data . . . .
Pilot Study . . . . . . .

iii

Page

vii

I-‘

oxoooxlmbwww

H P‘
w

NNI-‘H
.waow

27

27
28
29
31
32
36
37
39
40

Chapter
IV. RESULTS 0 O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . .

Stance, Experience, and Direc

Stance and Direction .
Stance and Experience

tion

Experience and Direction . . . .

Stance, Experience, and Direction

Summary of Results and
V. SUMMARY . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . .

Recommendations . . .

MFERENCES O O O O O C O O I C

iv

Discussion

Page

42

42
44
47
51
55
62
70

81
81
88
90

92

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Summary of variance analyses for differences

in means within variables of stance, experience,

and direction in reaction time, movement time,

and response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Summary of all main and interaction effects to

be analyzed with the Scheffé test within stance,
experience, and direction in reaction time,

movement time, and response time . . . . . . . . 45

Summary of variance analyses for differences

in means within and between stance and direction

in reaction time, movement time, and response

time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means within and between stance and direction
in movement time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Summary of variance analyses for differences in

means within and between stance and experience

in reaction time, movement time, and response

time . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . 53

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means within and between stance and experience
in movement time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means within and between stance and experience
in response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Summary of variance analyses for differences in

means within and between experience and direction

in reaction time, movement time, and response

time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means within and between experience and direction
in reaction time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means within and between experience and direc-
tion in response time . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of variance analyses for differences

in means within and between stance, experience,
and direction in reaction time, movement time,
and response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in

means between factors of stance within conditions
specific to experience and direction in response

time O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means between levels of experience within

conditions specific to stance and direction in
response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Scheffé test for differences in
means between directions of movement within
conditions specific to experience and stance in
response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of all main and interaction effects

analyzed within stance, experience, and direction

in reaction time, movement time, and response
time 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

Page

61

63

66

67

68

71

FIGURE

3-2.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Photographic situation for recording the
reaction and movement times of subjects
when blocking in a forward direction . . . . . . 35
Photographic situation for recording the
reaction and movement times of subjects
when blocking in a left or right direction . . . 35

Schedule of events for the photographic
recording of the reaction and movement

times of football linemen . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The ability to move rapidly in many directions is
an important characteristic of offensive football linemen.
This ability to move forward, backward or to either side
is believed to be facilitated by assuming a crouched posi-
tion most commonly referred to as a three-point stance.
However, in recent years, more coaches have preferred to
teach the four-point offensive stance. Some of these
coaches believe that linemen can move more quickly in a
straight ahead direction from the four-point stance than
from the three-point stance. Although coaches concede
that each type of stance has its advantages, research is
not supportive of either position. Fitch (1956) is the
only investigator known to have directly compared the move-
ment time of the three-point with the four-point stance.
He found that the different stances did not affect the
time required to complete the maneuvers tested.

Other investigators did not specifically compare
the three-point stance to the four-point stance regarding
reaction, movement, or response time from one position to

another. Owens (1956), for example, studied the effects

of variations in foot spacing of the three—point stance on
movement time, but he did not analyze the four-point stance.
Kadatz (1965) analyzed the relationship between weight distri-
bution and charging time, but he too only studied different
types of three-point stances.

In several other studies, the response times of
linemen were analyzed, but only from one type of stance.
Most notably, speed of movement was related to success,
fatigue, and type of shoes worn (Manolis 1955, Reading 1961,
Krahenbuhl 1974). These factors were shown to have influenced

the duration of response time.

Need for the Study

 

There was no available literature pertaining to any
specific attempt to compare the reaction time and movement
time of football linemen using a three-point stance to a
four-point stance in a cinematographic investigation. While
cinematography may have been used in analyzing similar prob-
lems, a search of the literature has failed to reveal any
instance of a study using high-speed filming (100 fps) in
conjunction with a sophisticatedtiming system. Advantages
of this procedure are that a film provides a record that can
be repeatedly and minutely examined; and timing lightS’
provide an accurate method of measuring reaction and movement
times.

In Fitch's study (1956), the three-point stance was

compared directly to the four-point stance in four different
blocking patterns, but only movement time was analyzed.
Therefore, this investigation proceeded on the premise that
new insights could be gained by separately analyzing the line-
men's reaction, movement, and response times. In addition,
there was a need to structure a study that (1) compared the
three-point to the four-point stance using the same subjects,
(2) more closely simulated the actual football situation, and
(3) included a comparison of experienced to inexperienced

linemen.

Statement of Problem

 

The primary purpose of this experiment was to deter-
mine if the stance (either three or four-point) of offensive
linemen influences their ability to move from a stationary
position. Subproblems included the following questions:

(1) What influence does experience in lineplay have on the
ability to move from a stationary stance? and (2) Is the
direction of moVement (either forward, to the right or to the

left) influenced by the type of stance used by the lineman?

Delimitations

 

The comparisons were limited to two stances, namely,
a three-point stance with staggered footing spread shoulder-
width apart and the center of gravity established over the

center of the base; and a four-point stance with even footing

spread shoulder-width apart and the center of gravity toward

the front of the base. These stance variations were selected
because they are the most commonly used and because of their

obvious contrasting styles.

The analysis was further restricted to three blocking
patterns: (1) straight-ahead blocking; (2) pulling to the
left and blocking; and (3) pulling to the right and blocking.
In a game situation, linemen would incorporate these variations
in nearly all of their blocking patterns.

The path that the linemen used to approach their
target was prescribed so that the distance from stance to
target was identical for all subjects. For the determination
of left and right pulling patterns, a blocking sled was placed
15 feet from the center of the subject's original position.
For the straight ahead movement pattern, the blocking sled
was placed directly in front of the linemen at a distance of
three feet.

The linemen were required to execute the same type
of block whether moving forward, left or right. The lead
block, with the face mask of his helmet striking the blocking
sled as the initial contact point, was the standard block

used in the study.

Research Hypotheses

 

Because of the lack of previous research dealing

with comparison of the three-point to the four-point stance,

it was a difficult task, if not an impossible one, to
accurately predict the outcomes of the experiment. However,
on the basis of present evidence, it was hypothesized that:

1. There would be no significant differences in
reaction, movement, and response times between the
three-point and the four-point stance in moving in
any one direction.

a. There would be no significant differences with
the inexperienced group in reaction, movement,
and response times between the three-point and
the four-point stance in moving in any one direc-
tion.

b. Movement from the three-point as opposed to the
four-point stance would be significantly faster
with the experienced group in reaction, movement,
and response times moving in any one direction.

2. Experienced linemen would have significantly faster
reaction, movement, and response times than inexperi-
enced linemen using either type of stance in moving
forward, left or right.

3. Reaction times would be significantly faster with
both groups from either stance when moving forward
as opposed to moving to the left or right.

4. Reaction, movement, and response times would be sig-
nificantly faster with both groups of experience when
moving to the right as opposed to moving to the left.

a. Reaction, movement, and response times would be
significantly faster with both groups when moving
to the right as opposed to moving to the left
from the three-point stance.

b. Reaction, movement, and response times would not
be significantly different with both groups when
moving to the right or left from the four-point
stance.

Research Plan

 

The sample was taken from a finite population of high

school football players. The players were the current and

prospective linemen who attended Port Huron Northern High
School in Port Huron, Michigan. Port Huron Northern is a
Class 'A' high school with an enrollment of 2000 students.
The sample included 10 white male varsity linemen 16 or 17
years of age and 10 white male freshmen linemen 13 or 14
years of age.

The independent variables of this experiment were
(1) the three-point and the four-point stances, (2) the
three blocking patterns including movements forward, left
and right, and (3) the experienced and the inexperienced
groups. .

The dependent variables were reaction time, movement
time, and response time. Each particular time measured
depended on which combination of stance, blocking pattern,
and group was under consideration.

All of the testing was accomplished on Saturday,
September 6, 1975. Filming began at 9:00 a.m. and continued
until about 4:00 p.m. on the practice field at Port Huron
Northern High School. Each lineman was filmed in two or
three trials at 100 frames per second under each of the
following conditions:

1. Three-point stance, with movement directly forward.
2. Three-point stance, with movement to the left.
3. Three-point stance, with movement to the right.
4. Four-point stance, with movement directly forward.

5. Four-point stance, with movement to the left.

6. Four-point stance, with movement to the right.
Linemen were given a verbal cue to begin their movement
through a rhythmic signal of the quarterback. Upon this pre-
arranged signal, a center hiked a ball to the quarterback.
The linemen moved from their stance to a stationary blocking
sled. Reaction and movement times were determined by timing

lights that were placed in view of the camera.

Rationale

 

It seems logical that the more closely an experimental
situation simulates game conditions, the more nearly the
results will approximate what might actually take place in a
game. In this study, the linemen dressed in the equipment
that they would normally wear in a game. A quarterback used
audible signals and a center hiked a football to the quarter-
back. The linemen used the pattern when pulling to the left
and right (between the center and quarterback) which would be
closely similar to the one most commonly used in a game con-
dition. Furthermore, the entire study was filmed outside on
a grass field.

An experienced group of varsity linemen was compared
to an inexperienced group of freshman linemen. The experiment
was conducted with the assumption that playing experience
would influence the proficiency of the players in one of the
blocking stances. The varsity linemen had more experience

with a three-point than with a four-point stance. It was

thought that this previous training would positively influence
the reaction, movement, and response times of the experienced
group from the three-point stance. On the other hand, the
group of freshman linemen had little experience with either
stance. The writer speculated that because the inexperienced
group had no extensive instruction in either blocking stance,
they would be equally proficient from the three-point stance
or the four-point stance.

The linemen were given two trials from both stances
in each movement pattern. If they appeared to be offside or
out of position, or if for some reason instrumentation failed,
then an additional trial was awarded. Though all of the sub-
jects had received some previous training in preparedness for
the experiment, the novelty of the test situation may have
elicited some hesitation in their movement. Two trials
therefore provided a better chance of including the subject's
best performance. The trial with the fastest response time

was used for scoring purposes.

Assumptions

 

It was assumed that the linemen were able to keep
their weight evenly distributed in the three-point stance
and that they were able to keep their weight forward in the
four-point stance. It was stressed repeatedly to the linemen
that they were to assume a position with the same weight
distribution during every trial, relative to the stance being

used.

The test situation was not exactly identical to a
game situation. The linemen were attacking a stationary
sled and not a moving opponent. It is quite possible that
the linemen would move to a set object more quickly than
they would to a reacting defensive lineman. However, every
effort was made to simulate game conditions as closely as
'possible.

The inexperienced group had received some previous
education in blocking stances. Both the freshmen and
varsity linemen were given three hours of training with the
stances and blocking patterns used in the experiment prior
to the day of testing. This helped to familiarize the sub-
jects with the test situation. Therefore, the inexperienced
group had in fact received some basic instruction before the

investigation.

Limitations

 

The size and structure of the sample was a definite
limitation. Only 20 subjects participated in the investiga-
tion and they were highly homogenous in race and background.
Unfortunately, the high cost of filming necessitated a small
sample size. Over 200 trials were filmed at 100 frames per
second. Though the sample size was small, better quality of
measurement may have been obtained than if there had been a
large sample.

Reaction time, movement time, and response time

varied depending on the physical ability of the subjects.

10

The disposition of the linemen, their attitudes, and their
energy levels all could have had an effect on the dependent
variables of time. The fact that one group was tested in the
morning and the other group in the afternoon could have been
a limiting factor. However, all of these factors were diffi-
cult to control.

Reaction time was determined from the moment the ball
moved to the moment the lineman moved. However, the identical
starting signal initiated both reaction time and the subject's
movement. When the quarterback called the starting signal,
the center hiked the ball to him and the lineman began move-
ment to the blocking target. Thus, reaction time depended on
how rapidly the center moved the ball. All measurements of
reaction time in this investigation were made with this lim-

itation.

Definitions

 

Several terms with non-conventional usage are defined
below. They include:
1. Movement time--length of time from the initial re-

sponse of the lineman to the initial contact on the
blocking object by the lineman.

 

2. Reaction time--length of time from the stimulus
(signal) to the response (movement) of the lineman.

 

3. Response time--the sum of reaction time and movement
Eime (mrt); in this experiment, since the distance
of the movement patterns is short, used interchange-
ably with quickness time.

 

4. Quickness time--in this experiment, since the dis-
tance of the movement patterns is short, defined as

 

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

11

the sum of reaction time and movement time (mrt);
used interchangeably with response time.

Block--to bump an opponent out of the play.

Blocking categories--(l) a lineman charging straight
ahead from a three-point stance; (2) a lineman moving
to the left from a three-point stance; (3) a lineman
moving to the right from a three-point stance; (4) a
lineman charging straight ahead from a four-point
stance; (5) a lineman moving to the left from a four-
point stance; and (6) a lineman moving to the right
from a four-point stance.

Blocking patterns (movementypatterns)--straight
ahead (forward) blocking; pulling (moving) to the
left and blocking; pulling (moving) to the right
and blocking.

Stance, four:point--a body position assumed when both
feet and both hands are in contact with the ground.

 

Stance, threejpoint--a body position assumed when
both feet and one hand are in contact with the ground.

 

Cinematographical analysis--study of movement through
the use of motion pictures.

Lineman--a player who assumes a position in football
Within two feet of the horizontal plane of the ball
before that ball is moved from the center to the
quarterback.

Offensive lineman--a lineman on the team in possession
of the ball.

 

Quarterback--an offensive player in football who
takes the ball from the center to start the play; he
normally calls signals and stands directly behind
the center.

 

Center-~an offensive player in football who initiates
each play by moving the ball between his legs to
another player situated behind him (usually the quar-
terback). ‘

Staggered footing--a foot position taken by a lineman
in his stance when the toes of one foot are touching
the same horizontal line as the heel of the other
foot.

 

16.

17.

12

Pulling--a lineman pivoting from his stance with a
drop-step to the left or right and moving in a
diagonally opposite direction from his original
position.

Sled--a flat padded structure used by offensive foot-
ball linemen to practice blocking.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The related literature pertaining to this study is
divided into three general areas: (1) reaction time and
movement time; (2) stance; and (3) cinematography. Each
area includes a summary and is incorporated in the summary

at the end of the chapter.

Reaction Time and Movement Time

 

Three types of signals are commonly used in exper-
iments that pertain to reaction and movement time. They are
called auditory, visual, and kinesthetic signals. It is
believed that these signals have a varying effect on the
speed of reaction time. An auditory signal is generally
considered advantageous for inducing the fastest reaction
times. Colgate (1968) analyzed 50 male physical education
students at the State University of Iowa by testing their
reaction time to three different stimuli. The students were
asked to press a switch upon recognition of a light (visual),
doorbell (auditory), or electroshock (kinesthetic). Colgate
concluded that for both speed of reaction and speed of

response, the group means were lower when the subjects

13

14

responded to an auditory stimulus than when they responded to
a visual or kinesthetic stimulus. Kohfeld's study (1971)
supported these findings. He reported that average reaction
time to an auditory stimulus was about 40 milliseconds less
than to a visual stimulus.

There is some debate as to whether the visual or
kinesthetic stimulus is most advantageous. Colgate (1968)
determined that there were no significant differences in
reaction times in response to a visual or kinesthetic stim-
ulus. However, others have indicated a preference for a kin-
esthetic stimulus rather than a visual stimulus. Jordan
(1972) studied 36 students at Stanford University who had
volunteered to participate in a fencing test. He concluded
that kinesthetic reaction times were significantly faster
than visual reaction times. Chernikoff and Taylor (1952),
in a study of responses to a number of complex motor activ-
ities, concluded that a kinesthetic stimulus rather than a
visual one seemed more beneficial since‘the kinesthetic
route resulted in faster processing of information. Slater-
Hammel (1955) studied groups of college students and concluded
that reaction time to arm movement was significantly shorter
than reaction time to a visual stimulus for all subjects.

The type of auditory signal can have a direct.
influence on reaction and movement times. In a study specif-
ically related to football, Miles (1931) concluded that in

anticipatory signals the players tended to start the charge

15

at the moment when the ball moved; whereas, in non-
anticipatory signals, the linemen moved one-tenth of a
second.after the ball was moved. Wilson (1959) claimed that
the study of Miles had a limitation beCause Miles did not
use a statistical test to claim significance. Therefore,
he also studied rhythmic and non-rhythmic signals. Wilson
concluded that, when a series of rhythmic signals was pre-
sented, the average reaction time was six percent faster
than when the signals were non-rhythmic. On the other hand,
he concluded that the average movement time was not signi-
ficantly influenced by the method of signal presentation.
In contrast to these findings, Thompson (1958) found that
rhythmic digit starting signals precipitated faster movement
times than non-rhythmic starting signals. In summary, the
type of auditory signal has a direct influence on reaction
time, but there is debate concerning its influence on move-
ment time. i

The intensity of the auditory signal may have a
relation to reaction time. Kohfeld (1969) studied reaction
times to 30, 60 and 90-decibel starting signals. He con-
cluded that the mean reaction time systematically decreased
with a corresponding decrease in starting signal intensity.
In other words, mean reaction time was shortest for the 30-
decibel starting signal and longest for the 90-decibel
starting signal.

The length of time between the preparatory warning

l6

and the response signal is known as foreplay. The duration
of the foreplay period has a direct bearing on the length of
reaction time. In a simple reaction time task, Utter (1974)
investigated 18 randomly selected college students and found
that the shorter the amount of foreplay, the shorter the
reaction time. Snodgrass (1969), in a similar study, con-
cluded that any uncertainty caused by changes in foreperiod
duration has a direct effect on reaction time. Simply stated
then, the longer the span of the foreperiod, the longer the
reaction time due to increased uncertainty in the time of
stimulus occurrence. A

The length of the reaction time period is influenced
by several other factors. Remington (1969) determined that
when subjects responded to the same stimulus as in an
immediately preceding trial, reaction time to a repeated
signal was faster than for a changed signal. Slater-Hammel
(1960), in an analysis of transit reaction, concluded that
the absolute error for performance with‘immediate knowledge
of results was significantly smaller than that for performance
without knowledge of results. In a study of the influence of
motor and sensory sets on reaction latency, Henry (1960)
demonstrated that a subject concentrating on the starting
signal had faster reaction times than when he concentrated
on necessary movements of the body in order to start. It was
the opinion of Henry that an athlete would be quicker if he

focused on the starting signal and let the movement take

17

care of itself. Atwell (1948) used 247 male high school
students in 14-, 15-, 16-, and l7-year age groups as subjects
for measuring the hand and body response to an auditory stim—
ulus. He concluded that a slight difference exists between
hand response time for each high school group with a tendency
for more rapid response with increase in age.

Reaction time has been shown to have little, if any,
influence on movement time. There have been numerous studies,
of which only a few will be mentioned, which have indicated
that there is no significant relationship between the ability
to react rapidly and the ability to move rapidly.t Henry
(1952) measured hand reactions and movements and demonstrated
that reaction time had no significant relationship with move-
ment time. In an analysis related to fencing, Jordan (1972)
noted that a low positive relationship existed between
reaction time and movement time (r=0.28). Both Lotter (1960)
and Smith (1961) concluded that the ability to move an arm
0r leg quickly had no significant relationship with reaction
time for these movements. While there are no studies known
comparing reaction time to movement time related to football,
it is significant to note that when a lineman begins move-
ment from his stance, usually a hand, arm or leg moves first.

Some factors may affect both reaction and movement
time. Norrie (1967) analyzed the effects of practice on
variability of reaction and movement times. He discovered

that for simple and complex tasks, and for both reaction and

18

movement times, the intra-individual variability decreased
with practice. Simon (1968) studied verbal commands of
"right" or "left" which were presented to the subject's right
or left ear. His results indicated that reaction time was
faster for movements toward the side of the responding member,
whereas movement time was faster when movements were directed
toward the opposite arm of the responding member.

Several additional elements are known to influence
movement time. Schmidt (1969) analyzed elements which
increase movement time, e.g., greater distance or slower
speed. He concluded that consistency of movement time tends
to decrease when time of movement is increased. Kutton
(1969) concluded that movement time was significantly
affected by the index of movement difficulty, though non-
significantly affected by the stimulus information. Grose
(1969) studied 51 subjects who performed two coincident
timing tasks that required a horizontal arm movement and a
Whole body movement. The progressive movement involved
revealed no identifiable aspects that were related to a
successful movement time. Moreover, measures of the subjects'
rhythmic progressions were found to be unrelated to the suc-
cess of a coincident timing task.

In summary, when responses are drawn from auditory,
visual, and kinesthetic signals, the auditory signals produce
the fastest reaction times, while reaction is more rapid when

using kinesthetic signals than when using visual signals.

19

The probability of a fast reaction time is increased when
(1) an auditory signal is given, (2) the intensity of the
auditory signal is decreased to 30 decibels, (3) a repeated
signal is given as the stimulus in a second trial, (4) the
signal is anticipatory in nature, (5) there is immediate
feedback of results, (6) the subject concentrates on the sig-
nal in contrast to body movement, (7) the stimulus is given
from the same side as the direction of the movement, (8) the
foreplay period is short, and (9) the subject has received
considerable practice in responding to the stimulus. More-
over, reaction times are more consistent in a series of
repeated tests.

Reaction time has no significant relation to movement
time. However, some factors may affect both reaction and
movement time. For example, these times are influenced by
the direction an auditory signal is coming from and the
amount of practice the subjects may have had before testing.

Movement time tends to be more consistent when (1)
short rather than long distances are covered, (2) the sub-
jects move the fastest, (3) the movement pattern is simple,
and (4) the subjects have received considerable practice in
responding to the stimulus. Movement time is not related to

progressive movement or the subject's rhythmic progressions.

Stance

There have been few studies that have directly related

20

a lineman's stance to starting speed in different blocking
patterns. Kadatz (1965) analyzed the weight distribution of
18 university football players from a three-point stance.

He demonstrated that the more weight the linemen placed
ahead of a line of gravity, the faster they were able to
charge straight ahead. More significantly, Kadatz concluded
that (l) linemen could pull in either direction equally as
fast, and (2) no matter how much weight they placed ahead of
a line of gravity, the linemen could also pull as fast as
when they had their weight evenly distributed. Robinson
(1949), on the other hand, studied backfield men and indi-
cated that pulling to the left from a staggered three-point
stance was considerably slower than pulling to the right
from the same stance. Owens (1956) analyzed various placings
of the hands and feet and their effect on movement time.
Though his study was also restricted to the three-point
stance, he discovered that the staggered-type stance was
superior to the parallel-type stance.

Only one investigator is known to have directly com-
pared the three-point stance to the four-point stance based
on relation to starting speed (Fitch, 1956). Fitch concluded
that both stances were influential in the maneuvers tested.
However, the validity of Fitch's study may be questioned
because the same subjects did not participate in both types
of stances. Instead, he assumed an equal ability level

existed within each group and, as each group performed from

21

only one type of stance, the results were compared between
groups but not between individuals.

In the studies that related stance to starting speed,
testing conditions did not simulate game conditions. The
subjects did not wear a full set of equipment and they were
not required to make contact with a blocking target (Kadatz
1965, Robinson 1949, Owens 1956, Fitch 1956). In addition,
Fitch used physical education students as subjects rather
than football players. Both Fitch and Owens (1956) tested
their subjects on a gymnasium floor.

Fatigue and shoe type are two variables that could
influence response times. Reading (1961) measured the effect
of fatigue on the speed of linemen in an offensive charge
over a distance of 36 inches. He concluded that speed of
movement was significantly faster from one factor to another
before or after a fatiguing exercise. The Harvard Step Test
was used to exercise the subjects between trials. The type
of shoes worn could possibly have an effect on response
times. Krahenbuhl (1974), in an investigation of speed of
movement with varying footwear conditions, found that move—
ment time did not vary significantly when either football
cleats or soccer shoes were compared on a natural grass
surface. Bauer (1970) measured 24 subjects in a 30-yard
sprint on natural grass and noted that when subjects wore
low-cut shoes they were .048 seconds faster than when they

wore high-top shoes. He conjectured that in forward speed

22

the low-cut shoes seem to afford a very small advantage to
the runner.

Evidence concerning the importance of quickness for
effective blocking in football is equivocal. However, fast
response times are generally believed to be advantageous.
Jones (1961), the veteran line coach of the University of
Oklahoma Sooners, stated that "any player who wishes to
develop into a starting lineman must constantly make an
effort to improve his quickness." Fuoss (1964) declared that
"a main cause of blocking failure is starting too slow or
failing to make quick contact with the opponent." (Rowen (1966)
and Patrick (1959) both emphasize the importance of quick move-
ment by all players on the line of scrimmage. In general ath-
letic activities, Keller (1942) found a positive relationship
between the ability to move the body quickly and success in
athletic activities.

Several studies, on the other hand, have shown quick-
ness to be negatively correlated with blocking effectiveness.
Manolis (1955) related charging time to blocking performance
and concluded that charging time failed to correlate signif-
icantly with ratings of blocking performance. Manolis stated
that "accuracy of 'timing' movement is probably more important
than speed of response in charging." This study has a limita-
tion since Manolis tested for charging time during practice
and rated the subject's performance in game situations.

Rosenfield (1951) and Eibel (1952) both indicated that there

23

was no relationship between speed of charge and the amount of
force exerted. Burpee (1936), in a general analysis of 46
subjects, found reaction time to be negatively related to
successful participation in physical education activities.

In summary, few investigators have compared the
stance of linemen to starting speed. Most of these studies
have dealt with the three-point stance only. An exception
was Fitch's study (1956), in which he compared the three-
point to the four-point stance. Neither fatigue nor shoe
type were found to have much effect on response time over a
short distance.

It is generally believed that quickness is an impor—
tant characteristic of offensive football linemen. Though a
few studies have indicated that quickness is less important
than other factors, the majority of research available is in

support of quickness being an advantage to linemen.

Cinematography

 

The use of cinematography in analyzing sports activ-
ities has become increasingly popular, with the development
of high-speed cameras. Scott (1973) stated that "the perma-
nent record of a performance provides an ideal way to observe
the performer and is necessary to have an accurate record of
the passing of time." In addition, the precision and accuracy
possible with high-speed photography increases the overall

reliability of a study.

24

There has been only one known cinematographic study
with a high-speed camera relating to football. Henrici
(1967) analyzed the center snap in the punt. He found that
64 frames per second was fast enough for his purpose of
studying the center's body and limb position.

High-speed photography has been used to analyze move-
ment in other sports. For example, Wilson (1972) successfully
timed the track starts of eight subjects with use of a high-
speed camera and collected data from the pictures taken.

Most important, she determined the time differential from a
clock in the View of the camera, which is a more efficient
method of measurement in cinematography than counting frames.

In short, the use of high—speed cameras in analyzing
movements in sports helps to increase the reliability of
studies. Advantages are (1) an accurate recOrd of the passing
of time, (2) more precision and accuracy in detecting actual
movement, and (3) timing lights provide a more accurate

method of measurement.

Summary

The first area of the review of literature pertained
to reaction and movement time. Factors were discussed that
influence the speed of reaction time. The probability of a
fast reaction time is increased when (1) an auditory signal
is given, (2) the intensity of the auditory signal is

decreased to 30 decibels, (3) a repeated signal is given as

25

the stimulus in a second trial, (4) the signal is anticipatory
in nature, (5) there is immediate feedback of results,(6) the
subject concentrates on the signal in contrast to body move-
ment, (7) the stimulus is given from the same side as the
direction of movement, (8) the foreplay period is short, and
(9) the subject has received considerable practice in respond-
ing to the stimulus. Reaction time has no significant rela-
tion to movement time. The probability of a fast movement
time is increased when the stimulus is given from the opposite
side as the direction of movement. Movement time tends to be
more consistent when (1) short rather than long distances are
covered, (2) the subjects move the fastest, (3) the movement
pattern is simple, and (4) the subjects have received consid-
erable practice in responding to the stimulus. Movement time
is not related to progressive movement or the subject's
rhythmic progressions.

The second section of the literature review dealt
with studies pertaining to quickness and stance. Speed of
the lineman and type of stance were important considerations.
Though a few studies existed that questioned the meaningful-
ness of quickness in movement, the majority favored quickness
as being a desirable asset for offensive football linemen.
There has been a lack of research dealing with comparison of
stances to quickness. The few studies available dealt with
the three-point stance only with the exception of Fitch's

study (1956). He compared the three-point to the four-point

26

stance and found no relationship between type of stance used
and movement time. Neither fatigue nor shoe type were found
to have much effect on response time over a short distance.
Cinematography for sports skills was the t0pic of
section three. Because its use in analyzing sports activities
has become most prominent only in the last decade, the number
of studies has been limited and none were located that per-
tained specifically to the problems of this experiment.
However, the advantages of cinematography over other methods
were enumerated; they are (1) an accurate record of the passing
of time, (2) more precision and accuracy in detecting actual
movement, and (3) with the use of timing lights, a more

efficient method of measurement.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH PLAN

The primary purpose of this study was to determine
if offensive football linemen were faster in moving from a
three-point or a four-point stance. Variables of stance,
experience, and direction of movement were compared. Sub-
problems included the influence of experience on the ability
to move from either stance and the influence of the type of
stance used on the direction of movement. The methods used
in the investigation of these problems are described in this

chapter.

Subjects

The subjects included 10 high school varsity offen-
sive linemen 16 or 17 years of age and 10 high school fresh-
man offenSive linemen 13 or 14 years of age. All of the
subjects were white middle-class males, physically conditioned
to play football. All were right side dominant and for the
conditions of this experiment they were dressed in a complete
set of football equipment and wore low-cut football shoes.

The subjects' prior experience with the two types of

stances was an important factor in this investigation. While

27

28

the varsity linemen had two years of experience using both
types of stances, they had considerably more practice time
with the three-point than with the four-point stance. On
the other hand, the group of freshmen had only three hours

of experience, equally divided between both types of stances.

Sample

It was impossible in this experiment to select a
representative sample from the population of all high school
football offensive linemen in the world. Because of the
limiting factors of availability of subjects and cost of
filming, the sample for this study came entirely from Port
Huron Northern High School (enrollment of 2000 students) in
Port Huron, Michigan. The junior candidates for the offen-
sive line of the varsity football team and the candidates
for the offensive line of the freshman football team were
asked if they would be interested in participating in the
experiment. From each group, 10 linemen volunteered to be
subjects.” Therefore, it is clear that the sample was probably
not typical of the whole population of high school offensive
linemen.

The best estimate of variability depends on a large
sample size. In this experiment, with the small sample size,
the statistical significance of the data was restricted. On
the other hand, a carefully tested small sample may permit

the investigator to more precisely control the testing

29

situation and conduct a more thorough assessment and analysis.
Furthermore, since the primary purpose of this study was to
compare the within-group differences between the three-point
and the four-point stances, a large sample size was not as
desirable as it might be in an experiment where the variables
of time were measured and the raw scores were projected to
others in the population without comparison between factors.
Nevertheless, the sample had severe limitations. Generaliza-
tions from this experiment could not be accurately applied to
any other population; that is, all results were restricted to
the specific population under investigation. Two factors
greatly influenced the selection of the sample; namely, the
sample was readily available and the cost of filming in color

limited the number of subjects the investigator could film.

Independent Variables

 

The independent variables of this investigation
included (1) the three-point and four-point stances, (2) the
experienced and inexperienced groups, and (3) movements for-
ward, left and right. For the primary purpose of the study,
the variables of stance were compared under six conditions:

1. Forward movement with the experienced group.

2. Forward movement with the inexperienced'group.

3. Movement to the left with the experienced group.
4. Movement to the left with the inexperienced group.

5. Movement to the right with the experienced group.

3O

6. Movement to the right with the inexperienced group.

The second set of variables involved the influence of
experience on the ability to move from a stance in a given
direction. Levels of experience were studied under the

following conditions:

1. Forward movement from a three-point stance.

2. Forward movement from a four-point stance.

3. Movement to the left from a three-point stance.
4. Movement to the left from a four-point stance.
5. Movement to the right from a three-point stance.

6. Movement to the right from a four-point stance.

The third comparison group to be analyzed was the
direction of movement. Left, right, and forward directions

were compared under the following conditions:

1. Three-point stance with the experienced group.
2. Three-point stance with the inexperienced group.
3. Four-point stance with the experienced group.

4. Four-point stance with the inexperienced group.

Precautions were taken to control stance and distance
factors. Since the subjects differed in length of body and
limbs, it was not possible to place the subjects in identical
stances. However, consistency in weight distribution and
hand and foot placing was stressed in directions to each
subject throughout the practice sessions and the actual test-

ing. With the right-handed three-point stance, there were

31

five guidelines to follow: (1) the tip of the subject's
right foot touched the same horizontal line as the heel of
his left foot, (2) the subject's right hand and head were
equally as far forward, (3) the subjects were not leaning in
any direction, (4) the center of their stances was lined up
with a marker which was directly in front of the subjects'
helmets, and (5) feet were spread shoulder-width apart.
With the four-point stance, there were also five points of
emphasis: (l) the tip of the subject's feet touched the
same horizontal line, (2) the subject's hands and neck were
equally as far forward, (3) the subjects were leaning forward,
(4) the center of their stances was lined up with a marker
which was directly in front of the subjects' helmets, and
(5) feet were spread shoulder-width apart. Although these
factors of stance could not be perfectly controlled, every
effort was made to ensure as much consistency as possible
from one sequence of testing to the next.

The subjects received training in blocking from the
three and four—point stances prior to the day of testing.
Both experienced and inexperienced groups had three hours of

practice in moving from the two stances in three directions.

Research Design

 

A four-factor, three-way nested design was used to
compare the various relationships. Factor A consisted of

the three-point and the four-point stances, factor B consisted

32

of the experienced and the inexperienced groups of subjects;
factor C consisted of forward, left, and right movements; and
factor D consisted of replication of the subjects nested in
factor B. These factors were analyzed in relation to the
dependent variables of reaction time, movement time, and

response time.

Conduct of Treatments

 

The supervisory personnel included Dr. Vern Seefeldt
of Michigan State University and the investigator. Dr. See-
feldt was primarily responsible for the photographic situation,
while the investigator was principally concerned with the
performance of the subjects. He stressed in directions to
each subject consistency in weight distribution and hand and
foot placing. If the subjects failed to meet the specifica-
tions of stance, response to a signal or maximum effort,
they were required to repeat the trial. A few of the subjects
from each group, while waiting to be filmed, were responsible
for assisting with equipment. They helped to move the timing
lights and blocking sled to positions that had been pre-
determined in a pilot study. These subjects also changed
the sequence number as each trial was recorded.

The center and quarterback of the varsity team parti—
cipated in all of the sequences throughout the entire experi-
ment. The center was responsible for hiking a ball to the

quarterback and then moving forward several steps in a

33

customary blocking position. The quarterback called the
starting signals, received the ball, and moved back from the
line of scrimmage into a forward passing position.

Each series of stances and movements by the lineman
was executed according to a procedure that was identical for
all trials. When the subject was in an appropriate position,
the investigator gave a ready signal at which time the
quarterback moved behind the center and called the signal
"set." Upon hearing the "set" command, the lineman moved
into his stance by dropping from a crouched position on his
feet to the three-point stance or by rising from his knees
to the four-point stance. The quarterback used a rhythmic
starting signal. After calling "set," he paused and called
the signal "hut" which was the signal for the center to hike
the ball to him and for the lineman to begin his movement
toward the target.

The target of the lineman's movement was a flat
padded surface on a blocking sled. The linemen used the
face mask of their helmets to hit a clearly marked target
area on the blocking surface. Correct positioning of the
sled and timing lights in relation to the camera, football,
center, and quarterback was necessary in order to gather
the required data. In the test of movement time directly
forward, the blocking sled was placed so that its surface
was 36 inches from the face of the subject, when he was set

in the appropriate blocking stance. For each lineman,

34

stance adjustments were conducted prior to the filmed trial
to ensure consistency of the distance the lineman had to move
to reach the target. Timing lights were placed behind the
subject and the sequence numbers were placed on top of the
timing lights. The camera on its tripod was placed approx-
imately 20 feet away from, and opposite to, the right side

of the subject. The football was placed on the ground
slightly in front and to the left of the lineman. The
quarterback and center were also situated to the left of

the subject (see Figure 3-2).

For the lateral blocking patterns, the sled was
placed to the left or right so that its blocking surface was
exactly 15 feet from the center of the lineman's stance. The
timing lights and sequence numbers were situated between the
camera and the lineman to the left of the line of view. For
both patterns, the camera was located within 25 feet of the
most distant object and at an appropriate angle (determined
in a pilot study) so that the subject and necessary para-
phernalia could be clearly viewed. When the linemen were
required to move to the right, the center and quarterback
were placed to the right of the subject. The ball was placed
in view of the camera on the side of the center and quarter-
back (see Figure 3-3).

The experiment took place on Saturday, September 6,
1975, at Port Huron Northern High School in Port Huron,

Michigan and all of the testing was consummated on that day.

35

Key:

F EDI ’ ' w

. ' S ‘0 lineman — ‘ ﬂ

0 Q center - O

1£2>> <§é> . quarterback - ((255 '
blocking

sled ' m

 

Figure 3-2:
Photographic situation for
recording the reaction and football -

movement times of subjects

when blocking in a forward -

direction. timing lights
' &

sequence numbers E2522

camera — I9

0 ,9
262%

Figure 3-3. I s
Photographic situation for L
recording the reaction and
movement times of subjects
when blocking in a left or
right direction.

Right

36
The testing was done outside on a grass-covered field begin-
ning at 9:00 a.m. and terminating at 4:00 p.m. The schedule

of events is shown in Figure 3—4.

8:30 - 8:45 -- equipment set-up.
8:45 - 9:00 -- subjects warm-up.
9:00 - 9:45 -- inexperienced linemen, forward, 3 & 4 pt.

9:45 - 10:00 -- equipment change.
10:00 - 10:45 -- inexperienced linemen, right, 3 & 4 pt.
10:45 - 11:00 -- equipment change.
11:00 - 11:45 -- inexperienced linemen, left 3 & 4 pt.
11:45 - 12:00 -- equipment change.

12:45 - 1:00 -- subjects warm-up.
1:00 - 1:45 -- experienced linemen, forward, 3 & 4 pt.
1:45 - 2:00 -- equipment change.

2:00 - 2:45 -- experienced linemen, right, 3 & 4 pt.
2:45 - 3:00 -- equipment change.
3:00 - 3:45 -- experienced linemen, left, 3 & 4 pt.

3:45 - 4:00 -- collect equipment.

Figure 3-4. Schedule of events for the photographic record-
ing of the reaction and movement times of foot-
ball linemen.

Dependent Variables

 

Reaction time, movement time, and response time were
the dependent variables of this investigation. Reaction time
was determined from the moment the ball moved to the moment
the lineman moved. Movement time was determined from the time
the lineman moved until he contacted the target on the block-
ing sled. Response time was determined by summing the
reaction time performance. The preference for rhythmic over
non-rhythmic starting signals has been discussed in the review

of literature.

37

Data Collection

 

Instrumentation included a high-speed movie camera
and timing lights. Stringent controls for calibration were
built into the operating mechanisms of both pieces of
ment. Moreover, it was possible to count frames at various
intervals and compare them with movement on the timing lights
to determine if the camera speed was consistent with the
movement of the lights.

It was essential to control factors that influenced
camera performance. First, the camera was positioned so that
its angle and distance from the subject and blocking sled were
identical for both experienced and inexperienced groups in
any particular blocking pattern. Second, the camera speed
was set at 100 frames per second, which was fast enough to
clearly determine when movement of the ball and subject
occurred, and to identify, within one-hundredth of a second,
specific frames of ball movement, subject movement, and con-
tact with the blocking sled. Third, appropriate camera
shutter and aperture setting adjustments were made to opti-
mize prevailing light conditions.

A box of timing lights was placed in view of the
camera, in order to properly measure the lineman's movement
times. With this particular timing device, lights glowed to
indicate numerical order. The box contained four rows of
lights with 10 lights in each row corresponding to 10 digits.

The lights on the top row represented seconds, the second

38

row represented tenths of a second, the third row represented
hundredths of a second, and the fourth row represented thou-
sandths of a second. Since the speed of the camera was set at
100 frames per second, it was possible to read only the top
three rows of the timing lights. Caution was taken in position-
ing the lights to assure that the glare of the sun did not
obscure their visibility. In the event that the lights in some
of the sequences were not visible, the necessary information
could still be calculated by counting the frames per second of
those sequences where the lights were visible and then trans-
ferring that information to the film in which the lights were
not visible. Sequence numbers were located on top of the
timing lights so that the trials could be identified. Each
trial in the experiment had a unique sequence number.

Actual scoring, recording, and collection of the data
was done by viewing the film sequences with a frame-by—frame
projector. Each sequence or trial contained three frames
that were essential to the calculation of reaction and move-
ment times; they were (1) the frame in which the ball first
moved, (2) the frame in which the lineman first moved, and
(3) the frame in which the lineman initially contacted the
blocking sled. When viewing the film, if it was noticed that
a lineman started his charge before the ball moved or if he
was not set in his stance, then the lineman was counted as
illegally in motion and that sequence was eliminated. Only

once was a sequence actually eliminated because a lineman

39

started his charge before the ball moved. On the other hand,
if the lineman moved during the same frame as the ball or if
the ball moved before the lineman moved, then the sequence
was considered a true representation of the lineman's ability.
For each movement pattern and stance, the trial in which the

lineman had the fastest response time was used for scoring.

 

Treatment of Data

The relationships of reaction time, movement time,
and response time to the independent variables were each
studied with a separate analysis of variance (ANOVA). The
F—ratio was the statistic used to determine the significance
of all main and interaction effects. Whenever significant
values were obtained, the Scheffé test was used to locate
the sources of significance. The level of significance for
the analyses of variance was set at .20, while for the Scheffé
test it was set at .25. With this high level of significance,
there was a tendency to minimize the beta level. Thus, a
greater probability existed of detecting significant differ-
ences in time between the various factors when in fact they
may not have existed (type I error). On the other hand, if
a low level of significance and a high beta level had been
used, the probability of failing to detect significant dif—
ferences when in fact they existed would have increased (type
II error). In this study, it was more desirable to commit a

type I error than a type II error. For example, if in reality

40

there was no difference between the three-point and the four-
point stance, the consequences of a type I error would be to
teach a particular stance when there was no difference be-
tween them anyway. But if a type II error was made, the
consequences of failing to detect a real difference between
the stances could result in erroneously teaching the less

effective stance.

Pilot Study

 

A pilot study was conducted about a month before the
actual experiment. A single lineman was filmed in two trials
with each of the six blocking categories. The purpose of the
study was to answer the following four questions: (1) Could
the equipment and subject be situated so that a camera could
record the required information? (2) Could stance factors be
controlled? (3) What was the minimum speed of the camera
necessary to clearly see movement and to read the row of tim-
ing lights that corresponded to one-hundredth of a second?
and (4) Was the speed of the camera consistent in relation to
the timing lights?

The questions posed in the pilot study were answered
affirmatively; therefore, the experiment proceeded as out-
lined in this chapter. It was found that the equipment, sub-
ject, center, and quarterback could all be suitably positioned
in relation to the camera in order to gain the desired data.

The two stances and the various directions of movement could

41

be controlled within the limitations of the study. A camera
speed of 100 frames per second was sufficient to gain the
required data and was also convenient, since movement from
one frame to the next coincided with the movement of one
light on the third row of the timing lights. Finally, by
counting frames and comparing them with movement on the tim-
ing lights, it was determined that camera speed was precisely
consistent. When analyzing the film from the actual experi-
ment, it was possible to use the same procedure at various

intervals to check the consistency of the equipment.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The purpose of this investigation was to determine
the effects of stance, experience, and direction on the
ability of offensive linemen to move from a crouched position
to a given blocking target. The results of tests for signi-
ficant differences within stance, experience, or direction
under various conditions in reaction time, movement time,
and response time will be reported.

A planned progression of tests was utilized to com-
pare the variables of stance, experience, and direction, and
to detect if significant differences existed between them.
The first procedure was to apply analyses of variance (ANOVA)
to determine if significant differences existed within the
general categories of stance, experience, and direction (see
Table l). Wherever significant differences were found within
these variables in reaction time, movement time, and response
time, the investigation proceeded with variance analyses for
interactions between the factors of stance, experience, and
direction. These variables were compared under the follow-
ing conditions: (1) stance and direction (see Table 3);

(2) stance and experience (see Table 5); (3) direction and

experience (see Table 8); and (4) stance, experience, and

42

43

.Hm>wa om. may no unmonuncmnm

an

 

 

Amunaﬂnmnoumc Aspnaﬂhmnoumc Aspeaenmnoumc
«mooo.vu0ﬂumwpmumum «mooo.vuoﬂumwumumlm «mooo.vu0ﬂumﬂumumlm
mam. oom.H Hmw.a vom.H Hoo.H va.H ono.H maﬂe
.osm unmﬁu puma .mxmcﬂ .mxo ucﬁomuw ucﬂomnm oncommmm
isuﬁannmnoumc Asuuannmnoumc imuﬂaﬂnmnoumv
«mooo.vu0HumHumumnm «Hoo.uoﬂumﬂumumlm «moo.uoﬂumwumumlm
omv. mmm.a mmm.H omo.a mmm. hmo.a ohm. mEHB
.esm names puma .mmeH .mxm ucﬂomnv ucﬂomnm ucmﬁm>02
isuﬂaanmooumc Amueﬂﬂnmnoumv Asuﬂaﬁnmnoumc
«hma.uowuwﬂumumlm «moo.uoﬂpmwumumnm mmm.uoﬂumﬂ#m¢msm
mmo. boa. moa. mNH. who. Goa. vac. maﬁa
.Usm unmﬂu puma .mxmsw .mxw ucﬂomle usﬂomlm coﬂuommm
Name .ovnc Hump .omn: Hume .omuc
coﬂuomuﬂo mocmwummxm museum

mocmﬂum> mo condom

 

 

.mﬁwu uncommon pom
.mEHu ucmso>OE .OEHD coavomwu cﬂ soﬂuowuﬂo cam .mocmﬂummxm .mosmum mo
moanmﬁum> cﬂnuﬂz momma ca moocmummmeo How mommamsm moccaum> mo mHmEEsm .H canoe

44

direction (see Table 11). Each condition was tested for sig-
nificance in reaction time, movement time, and response time.
Finally, if these analyses of variance revealed significant
differences between the independent variables in a particular
type of time, then the Scheffé test was applied to determine
the specific conditions of significance.

The Scheffé test was used to analyze comparisons of
pairs of scores between variables within stance, experience,
or direction under a specific condition of one or both of the
other variables (see Table 2). For example, the three-point
stance was compared to the four-point stance under various
conditions of experience and/or direction. Comparisons were
also made between variables of experience, and between vari-
ables of direction. These comparisons within stance, experi-
ence, and direction were made for reaction time, movement
time, and response time. However, in movement and response
times, scores were not included that involved comparisons
between movement in a forward direction and left or right
movement. Testing between these movements involved compar-
ison of movement and response times based on distances between
three and fifteen feet. Thus, these comparisons were elim-

inated.

StanceLpExperience, and Direction (ANOVA)

 

Table 1 shows a summary of the variance analyses

within the variables of stance, experience, and direction

45

 

 

 

 

eHsv NM§¢
“H.m um.m “H um “w “m “vommmm GHME maﬁa soﬂuommn m I m
OHQV “usv
“H.m um.m “H um “e um upommmm Cece mEHu coﬂpomwu A I m
.H.v um.w mmEﬂu oncommmu w
“H.m um.m «H “m “w “m “pommmm came .ucmﬁm>oe .COHuommH m I A
.A.v .m.v um.v “a.m mmEHu mmcommmu a
“m.m um.m “a “m .m “v um “uomwmm cﬂmE .ucmEm>oE .coﬂuommn H I m
.m.H um.m um.H “m.m meHu mucommmu a
“q.H “q.m «H um “a “m “h “nommmm same .ucmEm>OE .coﬂuommu v I m
msoﬂuwosou maﬁa comﬂHMQEou
.mEHu mmcommmn pom .meﬂu usmam>oE .mEﬂu sewuommn GH.Am.m.AV
coauomuﬂe pcm.AH.mv mocmwnmmxm.Ae.mv museum GHSDHB pmmu Wmmmcom
mop suds commamcm on on muommmm cowuomnmucﬂ 6cm chE Ham mo mumEEdm .N manna

46

in reaction time, movement time, and response time. The
information in Table 1 includes comparisons of the group
means for different conditions of stance, experience, and
direction; and the statistical significance of factors within
that particular variable.

Statistical analyses indicated that there were signi-
ficant differences between the means of the three-point and
.the four-point stance in movement and response times. Under
these conditions of time, movement from the three-point
stance was found to be significantly faster than movement
from the four-point stance. In reaction time, however,
there was no significant difference between the two types of
stances.

A comparison of the experienced group to the inex-
perienced group revealed that experienced linemen were
significantly faster than inexperienced linemen in reaction
time, movement time, and response time. The F-statistic
probability of all of these differences was .005 or under.

Data on the comparisons of means within direction,
presented in Table 1, indicated that reaction, movement, and
response times were significantly fastest when the linemen
moved forward, as compared to when they moved to the left or
right. When comparing movements to the left or right, there
was no significant difference in reaction time, whereas move-
ment to the right was significantly faster than movement to

the left in movement and response times.

47

Stance and Direction

The analyses of variance for stance and direction is
presented in Table 3. With the level of significance for the
study set at .20, significant differences between interaction
effects of stance and direction existed in movement time only.
The probability of the F-statistic was greater than .20 for
reaction and response time and therefore differences in these
times between interaction effects of stance and direction

were not significant.

Reaction Time

 

Table 3 shows the mean scores for stance and direction
in reaction time. Note that reaction time is lower from the
three-point than the four—point stance in forward and right
movements, but is higher in movement to the left. From the
three-point stance, the order of movement times from fastest
to slowest was in forward, to the right, and in a left direc-
tion. From the four-point stance, the order of movement
times from fastest to slowest was to the left, forward, and
in the right direction. However, none of these differences
in reaction time were significant since the analysis of
variance for stance and direction revealed an F-statistic

(.224) greater than .20.

Movement Time

 

The results of the Scheffé test for movement time

48

.Hm>ma om. um pcmoHMHcmﬂma

 

eem.nmuﬂﬂﬂnmnouc
Uﬂumﬂumumlm
mmve.uceumﬂumumIm
maoo.uwumswm some
NHEOpmem mo

.omo.nsueaﬂnmhonm
owumﬂumumIm
Hmo.muoﬂumwumumIm
camo.umumswm some
mqupmmHm mo

qN~.usuAHﬂnmnoum
oeumwumumIm
omm.HuoHumHumumIm
moHo.anmsvm some
NnEoommHm mo

 

 

 

 

mmmummp mmmummp mmmumme
ovﬂc OVHC owHG
mam. ems. was. was. mmo. mso. essence
mmm.H Hmm.H mem.a Hem.a mma. omo. cream
os¢.H Hmm.H msm.a onm.a emo. HNH. been
uaﬁomne panomum beacons uaﬂomum uaﬂomue uceomum soapomnﬂo
mocmum museum mocmom
mzHe mmzommmm mzHe ezmzm>oz mzHe onecamm
.mosmum mo mnouomM usHOQIHsOm cam ucﬂomImmuau cmw3umn
cam cﬂnuﬂz ocmEm>oE mo coﬂuomuwo CH mmocmHmMMHe How was soauomnﬁe mo
mnowomM UHmBHOM cam .unmﬂu .ummH cmmsumn pom swnuﬂ3 cocoon ucﬁomlusom
cam usHOQImOHnu on» CH moosmummmao MOM momhamcm cosmeum> mo mnmﬁﬁdm .m magma

49

in stance and direction are shown in Table 4. The informa-
tion in this table includes comparisons (in pairs of scores)
within stance or direction under a specific condition of the
other; and the Scheffé value for stance and direction in
movement time.

The statistical analyses indicated that significant
differences existed in two out of three cases within vari—
ables of stance. Movement from a three-point stance was
significantly faster than from a four-point stance in forward
movement and movement to the left. Movement to the right,
however, resulted in no significant difference between the
three-point and the four-point stance.

A comparison of within—direction means in movement
time revealed that movement to the right was faster than
movement to the left. This relationship was significant
with the four-point stance, but not with the three-point

stance.

Response Time

 

The analysis of variance comparing interaction
effects between stance and direction in response time revealed
that no significant differences existed (see Table 3). The
probability of the F—statistic was .646. However, moderate
differences existed between the means. Movement from the
three-point as Opposed to the four-point stance elicited

faster response times in left, right, and forward movements.

50

Table 4. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means between
the three—point and four—point stance within left, right, and
forward factors of direction and for differences in means
between left and right directions of movement within factors of
stance in movement time.

 

 

M O V E M E N T T I M E

D i r e c t i o n

 

 

Stance Left Right Forward
3 1.270 1.241 .416
4 1.375 1.265 .444
_—___————_——__-_———_—--—___-S—cheffz _______
Comparison & Condition Means Diff. (W) Value Significance
three-point to four- 1.270-1.375 W=.105 .070 l.05>.070**
point stance in left
direction
three-point to four- 1.241-1.265 =.024 .070 .024<.O7O
point stance in right
direction
three-point to four- .416- .444 W=.028 .070 .028<.070

point stance in
forward direction

movement from right to 1.241-1.270 W=.029 .070 .029<.O70
left in three-point

stance

movement from right to 1.265-1.375 T=.110 .070 .llO>.070**
left in four-point

stance

 

**Significant at the .025 level.

51

Also, movement was faster to the right than to the left with
both the three-point and the four-point stance. On the
basis of the ANOVA test, however, it was assumed that neither

stance provided an advantage in the directional maneuvers.

Stance and Experience

 

Table 5 shows a summary of the analyses of variance
for stance and experience in reaction time, movement time,
and response time. The probability of the F-statistics re-
vealed that significant differences existed between the
interaction effects of stance and experience in movement
time (.140) and response time (.059), but not in reaction

time (.859).

Reaction Time

 

The means of the three-point stance were lower than
the means of the four-point stance with both experienced and
inexperienced groups. Moreover, the means of the experienced
group were lower with both stances than the means of the in—
experienced group. However, the analysis of variance (see
Table 5) for reaction time in comparison of interactions
between stance and experience indicated that none of these

differences were significant at the .20 level.

Movement Time

 

The analysis of variance indicated that significant

52

differences existed in movement time as it was influenced by
stance and experience factors. Application of the Scheffé
test determined which pairs of relationships within factors

of stance and experience were significantly different. A
summary of these tests on the factors of stance and experience
is shown in Table 6.

The results of the Scheffé tests for the influence of
stance on the factors of experience, between groups of line-
men with experience and without, revealed that the experienced
group was significantly faster than the inexperienced group
in all comparisons made between them with both stances. Note
that the differences of the means in movement time were far.
above the minimum value (Scheffé) needed to claim signifi-
cance (see Table 6).

Data on within-stance differences between the three-
point and the four-point with the infernce of experience
are also presented in Table 6. The inexperienced linemen
were significantly faster from the three-point than from the
four-point stance. On the other hand, there were no signifi-
cant differences between means in movement time from the
three-point or the four-point stance with the experienced

group.

Response Time

 

A summary of the mean values obtained in comparison

of stance to experience is shown in Table 5. The analysis

53

.Hm>mH

om. map um “snowmwsmﬂme

 

ammo.nmuﬂaﬂnmnowm
oeumﬂumumIm
mno.vuoﬁumﬁumumIm
mamo.nmumsgm cmmE
HqupmmHm mo

«ova.nmuﬂaﬂomooum
owumwumumIm
omm.~uoeumﬂumumIm
mmao.umumsvm some
Hquommum mo

mmm.nmueaﬂnmnoum
oeumwumumIm
vmmo.uowumﬂumumlm
Hooo.umnmdvm some
HuEOpmmHm mo

 

 

 

mmmummp mmmummp mmmummp
owns owns own:
mvN.H mmH.H mHH.H Nvo.a oma. mHH. o
mao.a mam. hmm. cam. mmo. mno. N
#cHomIv ucﬂomIm ucﬂomIv ucﬁomIm usﬂomIv ucﬂomIm mocmﬂummxm
mo mummy
museum mocmum museum
MZHB mmzommmm MSHB BzmSE/OE mSHB ZOHBUﬁmm
.mocmum mo mnouomm uaﬂomIHsom 0cm
unﬂomImmHou cmm3umn pom cwnuw3 mocmﬁummxm mo mHm>mH cw mmocmHmMMﬂp
How one mocmﬂummxm mo mHm>mH cmmzumo 0cm canvas mocmum ucﬂomIHsom
use unwomImmunu mop 2H mmocmHmMMﬂp How mmmmamcm mocmﬁnm> mo mHmEEsm .m magma

54

Table 6. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means between
experienced (2 years) and inexperienced (0 years) groups within
factors of stance and for differences in means between the
three-point and four-point stance within levels of experience
in movement time.

 

 

M O V E M E N T T I M E
E x p e r i e n c e

 

 

Stance 2 Years 0 Years
3 .910 1.042
4 .937 1.118
Scheffé
Comparison & Condition Means Diff.(W) Value Significance
experienced to inexperi- .910-1.042 W=.l32 .049 .l32>.049*

enced group in three-
point stance

experienced to inexperi- .937-1.118 W=.181 .049 .18l>.049*
enced group in four-
point stance

three-point to four-point .910- .937 W=.O27 .049 .027<.O49
stance with experienced

group

three-point to four-point 1.042—1.118 W=.O76 .049 .076>.049*
stance with inexperienced .

group

 

*Significant at the .025 level.

55

of variance revealed that significant differences existed in
response time at the .20 level. The Scheffé test was then
used to detect the source of differences for specific pairs
of comparisons between the factors within stance and experi-
ence (see Table 7).

The statistical analyses indicated that differences
were evident in the identical comparisons within stance and
experience in response time. A summary of these relation-
ships follow: (1) the response times of the experienced
group were significantly superior to the inexperienced group
from both types of stance; (2) the experienced group did not
differ significantly in response times from the three-point
or the four-point stance; and (3) the inexperienced linemen
were significantly faster from the three-point as opposed to

the four-point stance in response times.

Experience and Direction

 

The variance analyses between the interactions of
experience and direction revealed probability levels of .122,
.520, and .165 for reaction time, movement time, and response
time, respectively. Therefore, based on the .200 level of
significance set for the study, differences existed in
reaction time and response time, but not in movement time.
Table 8 shows a summary of the analyses of variance for the
influence of experience on direction and direction on experi-

ence .

56

Table 7. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means between
experienced (2 years) and inexperienced (0 years) groups within
factors of stance and for differences in means between the

three-point and four-point stance within levels of experience
in response time.

 

 

R E S P O N S E T I M E
E x p e r i e n c e

Stance 2 Years 0 Years

 

 

3 .983 1.158
4 1.019 1.249
Scheffé

Comparison & Condition Means Diff.(W) Value Significance
experienced to inexperi- .983-1.158 W=.175 .039 .l75>.039*
enced in three-point
stance
experienced to inexperi- 1.019-1.249 W=.230 .039 .230>.039*

enced group in four-
poing stance

three-point to four- .983-1.019 W=.036 .039 .036<.039
point stance with
experienced group

three-point to four- 1.158-1.249 W=.091 .039 .091>.039*
point stance with
inexperienced group

 

*Significant at the .025 level.

57

.Hm>ma 0N. mnu um HGMONMquHme

 

 

«mea.u»ueaenmnoum . omm.usbgaenmnoum «mma.u»ueaanmnoum
beameumumIm oeumwumumIm oeumwumumIm
mmm.auoﬂumﬂumumIm Hmmm.uowumﬂumumIm NMN.NuowpmﬂumumIm
Nwao.umumsvm some mmoo.umnmsvm some muoo.umnmsvm some
Nuﬁoommum mo Nuﬁopmmuw mo . NnEOpmmum mo
mmmnmmp mmmummc mmmummo
can: I own: oenc
mam. mmv. mmv. mom. moa. one. oum3uom
va.a mmN.H 5mm.H moa.a mwa. moo. “swam
Hmm.H Hmm.a mov.a GMN.H NNH. mmo. puma
mummy o whom» N mummw o mummw N whom» o mumm» N cowuomuwo
mocmeummxm mocmﬂnmmxm mosmwummxm
MZHB Mmzommmm mZHB BZMSH>OS mZHB ZOHBUNHM

 

 

.mocmﬂummxm mo mam>ma cmmsumn pom canvas

ucmEm>oE mo coauomuwo cw mmocmnmmmwp How cam coﬁuomuﬂp mo muouomu

oum3nom one .uamﬂu .umma cmm3umn pom canvas Amummm N Ho 0 Hmnuﬁmv
mocmwummxm mo mHm>mH cw mmocmummmwp How mmmmamsm moaneum> mo mnmﬁﬁsm .m manna

58

Reaction Time

The analysis of variance indicated that significant
differences existed in reaction time as it was influenced by
direction and experience factors. Application of the Scheffé
test identified the pairs of relationships within factors of
direction and experience that were significantly different.

A summary of these findings is shown in Table 9.

No significant differences existed within directions
of movement with either level of experience. The experienced
group had lower values of reaction time in forward and right
movements compared with movement to the left, but the differ—
ences were not significant. The experienced group was faster
in movement to the right as Opposed to forward movement. The
inexperienced group was fastest in reaction time when moving
forward, slightly slower when moving to the left, and slowest
when moving to the right. However, these differences were
not statistically significant. Thus, the tests indicated
that within each group of experience, direction had no influ-
ence on reaction time.

The influence of direction on experience was also
tested. The experienced group was significantly faster in
reaction time when moving to the right than the inexperienced
group. However, in left and forward movements, there were no
significant differences between the experienced and the

inexperienced groups.

59

Table 9. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means between
experienced (2 years) and inexperienced (0 years) linemen
within left, right, and forward factors of direction and for
differences in means between directions of movement within
levels of experience in reaction time.

 

 

R E A C T I O N T I M E

D i r e c t i o n

 

 

Experience Left Right Forward

2 years .095 .069 .070

0 years .122 .146 .103
Scheffé

Comparison & Condition Means Diff.(W) Value Signif.

experienced to inexperienced .095-.122 W=.027 .049 .027<.O49

group with left movement

experienced to inexperienced .069-.146 W=.077 .049 .077>.049*

group with right movement

experienced to inexperienced .070-.103 W=.033 .049 .O33<.O49

group with forward movement

left to right movement with .095-.069 W=.026 .049 .O26<.049

experienced group

left to right movement with .122-.146 Vé.024 .049 .024<.049

inexperienced group

forward to right movement .070-.069 W=.001 .049 .001<.049

with experienced group

forward to right movement .103-.146 W=.043 .049 .043<.049

with inexperienced group

forward to left movement .070-.095 W=.025 .049 .025<.049

with experienced group

forward to left movement .103-.122 =.Ol9 .049 - .Ol9<.049

with inexperienced group

 

*Significant at the .025 level.

60

Movement Time

 

The probability of the F-statistic for comparisons
between interactions of experience and direction in movement
time was .520 (see Table 8). With the level of significance
set at .20, all differences in movement time for experience
and direction were insignificant. Nevertheless, note that the
eXperienced group was moderately faster than the inexperienced
group for all directional comparisons. Moreover, both groups
had lower mean times when moving to the right as opposed to

moving to the left.

Response Time

 

Table 10 shows a summary of the Scheffé test for the
influences of experience on direction and direction on experi-
ence in response time. Significant differences between fac-
tors of experience and direction existed in response time
and, though these differences were insignificant in movement
time, similarities existed between all comparisons made in
response and movement times.

A comparison of experience within direction of move-
ment indicated that significant differences existed. In
forward, left, and right movement the experienced linemen
had significantly lower mean response times than the inexperi-
enced linemen.

The findings revealed that comparisons between left

and right movements within levels of experience were

61

Table 10. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means
between experienced (2 years) and inexperienced (0 years)
linemen within left, right, and forward factors of direc-
tion and for differences in means between directions of
movement within levels of experience in response time.

 

 

R E S P O N S E T I M E

D i r e c t i o n

 

 

Experience Left 1 Right Forward

2 Years 1.331 1.238 .435

0 Years 1.531 1.482 .598

Scheffé

Comparison & Condition Means Diff.(W) Value Significance
experienced to inexperi- 1.331-1.531 W=.200 .079 .200>.079*
enced group with left
movement
experienced to inexperi- 1.238-1.482 W=.244 .079 .244>.O79*
enced group with right
movement
experienced to inexperi- .435— .598 W=.l63 .079 .l63>.079*
enced group with forward
movement
right to left movement 1.238-1.331 W=.093 .079 ' .093>.079*

with experienced group

right to left movement 1.482-1.531 W=.049 .079 .049<.079
with inexperienced group

 

*Significant at the .025 level.

62

significantly different for the experienced subjects, but not
for the inexperienced subjects. The experienced group was
significantly faster in moving to the right than to the left,
while there was no significant difference between left or

right movement with the inexperienced group.

Stance, Experience, and Direction

 

The variance analyses within factors of stance, ex—
perience, and direction revealed probability levels of .481,
.300, and .122 for reaction time, movement time, and response
time, respectively. Thus, significant differences existed in
response time, but not in reaction time and movement time.
Table 11 shows a summary of the analyses of variance for
interactions within stance, experience, and direction based

on varying conditions of the other two variables.

Reaction Time

 

Comparisons of interactions betWeen stance, experience,
and direction in reaction time were not significantly differ—
ent as indicated by the analysis of variance (.481). Never-
theless, there was evidence of many important relationships
(see Table 11). For example, note that the experienced group
was moderately faster than the inexperienced group in all
directions from both the three-point and the four-point stance.
With both experienced and inexperienced groups, reaction time

in movement to the left was moderately faster from the

63

 

 

 

Table 11. Summary of variance analyses for interactions
within and between factors of stance (three-point
and four-point), experience (0 years or 2 years),
and direction (left, right, or forward).

Three-Point Four-Point
Stance Stance
Experience Experience F-Statistic
2 0 2 0 Probability
REACTION
TIME
Left .098 .144 .092 .099
Right .052 .128 .086 .163 .481
Forward .069 .077 .070 .129
MOVEMENT
TIME
Left 1.209 1.331 1.262 1.487
Right 1.154 1.328 1.184 1.345 .300
Forward .366 .467 .364 .523
RESPONSE
TIME
Left 1.307 1.475 1.354 1.586
Right 1.206 1.456 1.270 1.508 .122*
Forward .435 .544 .434 .652

 

*Significant at the .20 level.

64

four-point than from the three-point stance. On the other
hand, with both levels of experience, reaction time was
moderately lower from the three-point than the four—point
stance when moving forward or to the right. In comparison
of left to right movement, the inexperienced group from a
four-point stance was faster in moving to the left than
moving to the right. However, the experienced subjects from
both types of stances were faster in movement to the right
as opposed to movement to the left.

Several additional insignificant interactions in
reaction time are worthy of mention. They involve differ-
ences between forward movement and movement to the left or
right under various conditions of stance and experience.

With the experienced linemen in a three-point stance, forward
movement was moderately faster than movement to the left, but
movement to the right was moderately faster than movement in
a forward direction. With the inexperienced linemen in a
three-point stance and the experienced linemen in a four-
point stance, lower values of reaction time existed in for-
ward movement than in left or right movements. Finally, with
the inexperienced subjects in a four-point stance, the order
of reaction times were in left, forward, and right movements,

respectively.

Movement Time
The results of the analysis of variance for stance,

experience, and direction in movement time indicated that any

65

differences between means were not significant (see Table 11).
Results revealed, however, that the experienced linemen were
moderately faster than the inexperienced linemen in all
directions from both the three-point and the four-point stance
in movement time. In five out of six cases under conditions
of experience and direction, movement from the three-point
stance was faster than movement from the four-point stance.

An exception was that the experienced subjects, in a forward
pattern, were faster from a four-point as opposed to a three-
point stance. In addition, both inexperienced and experienced
groups were moderately faster moving to the right than to the

left frOm both types of stances.

Response Time

 

The results of the Scheffé test for interactions
within factors of stance, experience, and direction in re-
sponse time based on conditions of the other two variables
are presented in Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14, respec-
tively. The study of the pertinent interactions of stance,
experience, and direction was limited to 16 pairs of compar-
isons, based on the following conditions: (1) between
factors of experience within specific conditions of stance
and direction; (2) between factors of stance within specific
conditions of experience and direction; and (3) between fac-
tors of direction within specific conditions of experience

and stance.

Table 12.

66

Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means

between experienced (2 years) and inexperienced (0 years)
groups within left, right, and forward directions of move-
ment; and within the three-point or the four-point stance
in response time.

 

 

Three-Point Stance

Direction

Experience Left

Right

Forward

Four-Point Stance
Direction
Right

Left Forward

 

2 1.307
O 1.475

1.206
1.456

.435
.544

1.354
1.586

1.270
1.508

.434
.652

Comparison & Condition

Scheffé

Diff.(W) Value Significance

 

experienced to inexperi—
enced group with left
movement from the three-
point stance

experienced to inexperi—
enced group with right
movement from the three-
point stance

experienced to inexperi-
enced group with forward
movement from the three-
point stance

experienced to inexperi-
enced group with left
movement from the four-
point stance

experienced to inexperi-
enced group with right
movement from the four-
point stance

experienced to inexperi-
enced group with forward
movement from the four-

point stance

1.307-1.475

1.206-1.456

.435- .544

1.354-1.586

1.270-1.508

.434- .652

W=.l68 .115 .168>.115*

«a
II

.250 .115 .250>.115*

W-.109 .115 .109<.115

W=.232 .115 .232>.115*

W=.238 .115 .238>.115*

W=.218 .115 ~.218>.115*

 

*Significant at

the .025 level.

Table 13. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means between
the three-point and the four-point stance within levels of
experience; and within left, right, and forward factors of

direction in response time.

 

 

Three-Point Stance

Four—Point Stance

 

 

Direction Direction
Experience Left Right Forward Left Right Forward
2 1.307 1.206 1.354 1.270 .434
O 1.475 1.456 1.586 1.508 .652
Scheffé
Comparison & Condition Means Diff.(W) Value Significance
three—point to four-point 1.307-1.354 W=.O47 .115 .O47<.115
stance with the experi-
enced group moving to
the left
three-point to four-point 1.206—1.270 W=.064 .115 .064<.115
stance with the experi-
enced group moving to
the right
three-point to four-point .435- W=.001 .115 .001<.115
stance with experienced
group moving forward
three-point to four-point 1.475-1.586 W=.lll .115 .lll<.115
stance with the inexperi-
enced group moving to
the left
three-point to four-point 1.456—1.508 W=.052 .115 .052<.115
stance with inexperienced
group moving to the right
three-point to four-point .544- W=.108 .115 .108<.115

stance with inexperienced
group moving forward

 

*Significant at the .025 level.

68

 

 

 

 

Table 14. Summary of the Scheffé test(s) for differences in means
between left and right directions of movement within levels
of experience; and within factors of stance in response time.

Three-Point Stance Four-Point Stance
Direction Direction
Experience Left Right Forward Left Right Forward
2 1.307 1.206 .435 1.354 1.270 .434
0 1.475 1.456 .544 1.586 1.508 .652
Scheffé

Comparison & Condition Means Diff.(W) Value Significance

right to left movement 1.206—1.307 W=.101 .115 .101<.115

with experienced group

from a three-point

stance

right to left movement 1.270-1.354 W=.084 .115 .084<.115

with experienced group

from a four-point

stance

right to left movement .l.456-l.475 W=.121 .115 .121>.115*

with inexperienced

group from a three-

point stance

right to left movement 1.508-1.586 W=.078 .115 .078<.115

with inexperienced
group from a four-
point stance

 

*Significant at the .025 level.

69

Two out of three comparisons between factors of
experience showed significant differences in response time
(see Table 12). From both the three-point and the four-
point stance, the experienced subjects were significantly
faster on the average than the inexperienced subjects when
moving forward. On the other hand, in movement from the
three—point stance, there was no significant difference in
moving forward between the experienced and the inexperienced
subjects.

Experience and direction were analyzed within factors
of stance (see Table 13). When the three-point stance was
compared to the four-point stance in any direction with either
group of experience, no significant differences were found
between the stances. Though the three-point stance was a
moderately faster starting position than the four-point
stance in five out of six comparisons, these differences were
not statistically significant.

Statistical analyses of factors within direction
indicated that no significant differences existed in response
time (see Table 14). The response times of both groups of
experience from both stances were similar in movement to the
right and movement to the left. Movements in a forward
direction were not compared to left or right movements in

response time.

70

Summary of Results and Discussion

A brief summary of all interactions analyzed in this
study is shown in Table 15. A discussion of these inter-
actions within the factors of stance, experience, and direc-
tion for reaction time, movement time, and response time

will be reported.

Stance

The comparisons were limited to two types of stance.
One stance was a three-point with staggered footing spread
shoulder-width apart and the center of gravity established
over the center of the base. The other stance was a four-
point with even footing spread shoulder-width apart and the
center of gravity toward the front of the base. There were
three hypotheses in this experiment relating to stance; they
were (1) there would be no significant differences in reac-
tion, movement, and response times between the three-point
and the four-point stance in moving in any one direction,
(2) there would be no significant differences with the inex-
perienced group in reaction, movement, and response times
between the three-point and the four-point stance in moving
in any one direction, and (3) movement from the three-point
as opposed to the four-point stance would be significantly
faster with the experienced group in reaction, movement, and

response times moving in any one direction.

71

Table 15. Summary of all main and interaction effects within stance (3,4),
experience (E,I), and direction (L,R,F) in reaction time, move-
ment time, and response time.

 

 

 

Reaction Time Movement Time Response Time
3-4 **3.4 **3.4
3'4: F *3-4, F 3‘4, F
3-4, R *3-4, R 3-4, R
4‘31 L 3‘4, L 3‘4, L
3-4. B 3—4, E 3-4, B
Stance 3-4, I *3-4, I *3-4, I
(***) 4-3: E! L 3‘4, E, L 3‘4, E, L
4-3. I. L 3-4, I, L 3-4, I, L
3-4. E. R 3-4, E, R 3-4, E, R
3-4. I. R 3-4, I, R 3-4, I, R
3-40 E: F 4‘3, E, F 4‘3, E, F
______3'i'_1_v-5 _________ t__3-£'_IL§._____3-ﬂ'_I_L.F_
**E-I **E-I **E-I
E-I, 3 *E-I, 3 *E-I. 3
E—I, 4 *E-I, 4 *E-I, 4
E-I, F E-I, F *E-I, F
*E-I. R E-I, R *E-I, R
Experience E-I, L E-I, L *E-I, L
(***) E-I. 3. F E-I, 3, F *E-I, 3, F
E-I, 3, R E-I, 3, R *E-I. 3. R
E-I, 3, L E-I, 3, L *E-I, 3, L
E-I, 4, F E-I, 4, F *E-I. 4. F
E-I. 4. R E-I, 4, R *E-I, 4, R
E-I, 4, L E-I, 4, L E-I, 4, L
** L
F-gR F-R, 3 **R—L **R-L
R_L F-L, 3 R-L, 3 R—L, 3
R_L' 3 F-R, 4 *R-L 4 R-L, 4
L_R’ 4 L-F. 4 R-L, E *R-L, E
R_L’ E R-F, E R-L, I R-L, I
Direction L—R, I F-L, E R-L, 3, E R-L, 3, E
(***) R_L’ 3' E F-R. I R-L, 3, I R-L, 3, I
R-L, 3, I F'L' I R‘Lv 4. E R-L: 4: E
R_L' 4' E F—R, 3, I R-L, 4, I R-L, 4, I
L-R, 4, I F L' 3' I
R-F, 3, E
F-L, 3, E
F-R, 4, I
L-F, 4, I
F-R, 4, E
F-L, 4, E

 

 

 

*Significant at the .25 level.
**Significant at the .20 level (main effect).
***faster factor listed first for each pair of comparisons.

72

Reaction Time

 

There were no significant differences between the
three-point and the four-point stance in reaction time (see
Table 15). The hypothesis was therefore accepted for the
inexperienced group, but rejected for the experienced group.
Though there were no significant differences, there were
moderate differences in the magnitude of the values between
the two stances. In both forward and right movement, reac-
tion time from a three-point stance was faster than from a
four-point stance with both levels of experience. On the
other hand, in movement to the left, reaction time was faster
from a four-point stance than from a three-point stance with
both levels of experience. Because the subjects were right
side dominant and used a right-handed three-point stance,
these results in comparisons between the three-point and
the four-point stance were anticipated in left and right
movements. Also, because the experienced linemen were trained
extensively in the three-point stance, it had been antici-
pated that reaction time for them in forward movement would
be more favorable from the three-point as opposed to the

four-point stance.

Movement and Resppnse Time

The three-point stance was found to be a significantly
faster starting position than the four-point stance in move-

ment and response time (see Table 15). Thus, the hypothesis

73

that there would be no significant differences between the
stances was rejected. This evidence refutes Fitch's (1956)
finding that the two types of stances equally affected the
maneuvers tested.

The three-point stance resulted in significantly
faster movement than the four-point stance with the inex-
perienced linement in movement and response times. Thus,
the hypothesis that there would be no significant differences
between the stances was rejected. It had been expected that
the inexperienced linemen would be equally as fast from both
types of stance. Apparently they adapted better to the three-
point than the four—point stance. The experienced linemen
were also faster from the three-point as opposed to the four-
point stance, but not significantly so. Thus, the hypothesis
that the experienced linemen would be significantly faster
from the three-point than the four-point stance was rejected.
This moderate difference was less than expected, since the.
experienced linemen had prevous training in the three-point
stance.

It was hyptohesized that there would be no significant
differences between the three-point and the four-point stance
in moving in any one direction. In movement to the right,
this hypothesis was supported. However, the three-point
stance was significantly superior to the four-point stance
in forward and left movement. In these directions, the hypo-

thesis of no differences between stances was rejected.

74

This result also refutes the finding of Kadatz (1965) who
concluded that a starting position with weight ahead of a
line of gravity was conducive to faster movement times than
a starting position with weight even with a line of gravity
in a forward direction. However, this condition was evident
with the inexperienced group only. The experienced linemen,
in a forward direction, were slightly faster from the four-
point than the three-point stance in movement and response
times. Therefore, with the experienced group, the finding
of Kadatz (1965) was supported. The writer speculates that,
on the basis of this evidence, the three-point may possibly
be a less difficult stance to learn than the four-point
stance. In addition, there were no significant differences
between the three-point and the four-point stance within
levels of experience and left or right directions of move-

ment (see Table 15).

Experience

The subjects were equally divided between two levels
of high school experience: (1) freshman linemen with no
previous training and (2) varsity linemen with two years of
training. It was hypothesized that experienced linemen would
have significantly faster reaction, movement, and response
times than inexperienced linemen using either type of stance

in moving forward, left or right.

75

Reaction Time

 

The experienced subjects were faster than the inexperi-
enced subjects under all conditions of stance and direction
(see Table 15). Nevertheless, the hypothesis that experienced
linemen would be significantly faster in reaction time than
inexperienced linemen was supported in only a few comparisons.
The main effect between experienced and inexperienced groups
was significant, as well as the interaction in levels of
experience with movement to the right. However, only moderate
differences were evident in other interactions between levels
of experience in stance and direction. In these cases, the
hypothesis of significant differences between groups was
rejected.

The results of comparison of within-experience fac-
tors in reaction time were supported by Atwell (1948) and
Norrie (1967). Atwell concluded that reaction time involved
a more rapid response in 16- and 17-year age groups than in
14- and lS-year age groups. Norrie's investigation revealed
that intra-individual variability decreased with practice.

In this study, the experienced linemen had much more prac-

tice than the inexperienced linemen with both stances.

Movement and Response Times

 

The main effect of experience resulted in the
experienced subjects being significantly faster than the
inexperienced subjects in both movement and response times

(see Table 15). The experienced linemen were significantly

76

faster than the inexperienced linemen with both the three-
point and the four-point stance in movement and response
times. Other significant differences existed in response
time only. The experienced group was significantly faster
than the inexperienced group under all conditions of stance
and direction in response time with one exception (four-
point stance in a forward direction). In all of these
cases the hypothesis of significant differences between
levels of experience was supported. The writer speculates
that these differences existed because of the greater physi-
cal maturity of the experienced group and their greater
amount of practice as opposed to the inexperienced group.
Also, the experienced group of juniors included subjects
proven in the skills of lineplay. Some of the less skill-
ful members of the inexperienced group may never reach a
level of skill that will permit them to participate as
varsity linemen during their junior year.

There were no significant differences in many inter-
actions between levels of experience. However, moderate
differences in favor of the experienced group were evident
in all of these cases. In movement time, under all other
conditions of stance and direction not previously discussed,
the experienced linemen were moderately faster than the
inexperienced linemen. In response time, with the three-
point stance moving forward, the experienced group was

moderately faster than the inexperienced group. For these

77

comparisons, the hypothesis of significant differences in

levels of experience was rejected.

Direction

The linemen were analyzed moving in three different
directions; they were: (1) forward over a distance of three
feet; (2) to the left over a distance of 15 feet; and (3) to
the right over a distance of 15 feet. It was hypothesized
that reaction times would be significantly faster when moving
forward as opposed to moving to the left or right with both
levels of experience and from either type of stance. It was
also hypothesized that reaction, movement, and response times
would be significantly faster with both groups of experience
when moving to the right as opposed to moving to the left.
Finally, it was hypothesized that reaction, movement, and
response times would be significantly faster when moving to
the right as opposed to moving to the left from the three-
point stance; whereas there would be no significant differ-
ences between left and right movement from the four-point

stance.

Reaction Time

 

The main effect of direction revealed that reaction
time in a forward movement was significantly faster than in
movement to the left or right (see Table 15). This result

supported the writer's research hypothesis. The writer

78

speculated that since forward movement was less complex

than left or right movement, reaction time would be faster.
Quite possibly, in relation to Henry's (1960) theory, the
linemen in forward movement could more easily focus on the
starting signal and be able to concentrate less on necessary
movements of the body than in left or right movement.

Interactions in direction under varying conditions
of stance and experience indicated that no significant
differences existed in reaction time between forward and
left or right movements. In these specific cases, the hypo-
thesis that reaction time in forward movement was signifi-
cantly faster than in left or right movement was rejected.
Only moderate differences existed in the cases when forward
movement was faster than left or right movement in reaction
time.

Slower values of reaction time in the forward pattern
as opposed to the left or right pattern existed under two
conditions. With the experienced group in a three-point
stance, reaction time was faster for right movement than for
forward movement. This probably resulted from the experienced
groups' extensive background with the three-point stance and
their right side dominance. The other exception was that
with the inexperienced group from a four-point stance,
reaction time was faster in left movement than in forward
movement. There is no logical explanation for this occur-
rence. However, none of these differences were statistically

significant.

79

There were no significant differences between left
and right movements in reaction time. Thus, the hypothesis
that movement to the right would result in significantly
faster reaction time than movement to the left was rejected.
This hypothesis was also rejected for movements from the
three-point stance. On the other hand, it was hypothesized
that reaction time would not be significantly different with
both groups when moving to the right or left from the four-
point stance. Therefore, the hypothesis was accepted for

the four-point stance.

Movement and Response Times

 

The main effect of direction indicated that in both
movement and response times, movement to the right was signif-
icantly faster than movement to the left. Thus, the hypothe-
sis was supported for the main effect. However, note that
in all interactions, movement to the right was faster than
movement to the left (see Table 15), but there were few
cases of significant differences. Only moderate differences
existed between right and left movements from the three-point
stance, in both movement and response times. Therefore, the
hypothesis that there would be significant differences in
these comparisons was rejected. It was also hypothesized
that there would be no differences in right and left movement
in movement and response times from a four-point stance. In

movement time, the hypothesis was rejected, since movement

80

to the right as opposed to movement to the left was signif-
icantly faster from the four-point stance. On the other

hand, the hypothesis was supported in response time, since
there was no significant difference between right and left
movement from the four-point stance. In addition, in

response time with the experienced group of linemen, right
movement was significantly faster than left movement support-
ing the hypothesis. This was the only case in which the

level of experience had an influence on the difference between
right and left movement.

Other investigators have analyzed differences in time
between left and right movements. Kadatz (1965) found no
significant differences in response time between left and
right movement from various types of three-point stances.

In the majority of the comparisons, Kadatz' results support
the writer's findings. On the other hand, Robinson (1949)
concluded that movement to the right was faster than movement
to the left from a three-point stance. ‘The investigator
found similar results, but they were not statistically sig-
nificant. Yet movement to the right was found to be signif-
icantly faster than movement to the left from the four-point
stance in movement time. Perhaps because of the influence
of the experienced subjects with their extensive training in
the three-point stance, there was increased variability when
moving from the four-point stance within these directions of

movement.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

There is general agreement among investigators that
the ability to move rapidly in many directions is an impor-
tant characteristic of offensive football linemen (Fitch
1956, Fuoss 1964, Jones 1961, Kadatz 1965, Miles 1931, Owens
1956, Reading 1961, Robinson 1961, Thompson 1958, Wilson
1959). The opinion of football coaches suggests that the
ability to move rapidly is facilitated by starting from either
a three-point or a four-point stance. Only one study was
available to the investigator in which a three-point stance
was compared to a four-point stance based on movement time
(Fitch 1956). The writer's investigation proceeded on the
premise that new insights could be gained about a lineman's
ability to move from the two types of stance by analyzing
reaction, movement, and response times; by employing cinema-
tographic techniques for measurement; and by studying the
influence of experience and direction on the stances.i

Specific types of stances and directions of movement
were stipulated for the experiment. Two types of stances
were analyzed: (1) a three-point stance with staggered foot-

ing spread shoulder-width apart and the center of gravity

81

82

established over the center of the base; and (2) a four-point
stance with even footing spread shoulder-width apart and the
center of gravity toward the front of the base. Three direc-
tions of movement were analyzed: (1) forward movement over

a distance of three feet; (2) movement to the left over a
distance of 15 feet; and (3) movement to the right over a
distance of 15 feet.

The subjects included in this investigation were
offensive football linemen from Port Huron Northern High
School in Port Huron, Michigan. Ten varsity linemen 16 or
17 years of age and ten freshman linemen 13 or 14 years of
age volunteered to participate in the experiment. While the
varsity linemen had two years of experience using both types
of stance, they had considerably more practice with the
three-point than the four-point stance. On the other hand,
the group of freshmen had only three hours of experience,
equally divided between both types of stance.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether
there was a time advantage in using a three-point starting
stance as opposed to a four-point stance when moving from a
stationary position to a given blocking target. Subproblems
included the influence of direction and experience on the
ability to move from either type of stance.

Treatments were conducted on the practice field at
Port Huron Northern High School. Each trial or sequence was

initiated by a center and quarterback. The center hiked a

83

ball to the quarterback and moved forward into a customary
blocking position. Concurrently, the quarterback called a
rhythmic starting signal, received the ball, and moved back
to a forward passing position. When given the rhythmic
signal, the lineman moved to his target which consisted of
a flat padded surface on a blocking sled.

Procedures to collect data included use of a high-
speed movie camera and timing lights. Actual scoring and
recording of the data was done by viewing the film sequences
with a frame-by-frame projector. Each sequence contained
three frames that were essential to the calculation of
reaction and movement times; they were: (1) the frame in
which the ball first moved; (2) the frame in which the line-
man first moved; and (3) the frame in which the lineman
initially contacted the surface of the blocking sled. For
each movement pattern and stance, the trial in which the
lineman had the fastest response time was used for scoring.

The results, based on analyses of variance (ANOVA)
and Scheffé tests of one factor of stance, experience, or
direction in comparison to a second factor within that
variable dependent on conditions specific to the other two
variables, were as follows:

1. Between-stance differences in reaction time
under specific conditions of experience and direction:
There were no significant differences between the three-

point and the four-point stance in reaction time with either

84

level of experience in any direction. Thus, the hypothesis
was supported with the inexperienced group of subjects. On
the other hand, the hypothesis that the experienced group
would be significantly faster from the three-point as opposed
to the four-point stance was rejected.

2. Between-stance differences in movement and

 

response times under specific conditions of experience and

 

direction: The main effect indicated that the three-point

 

stance was a significantly faster starting position than the
four-point stance in movement and response time. Thus, the
hypothesis that there would be no significant differences
between the stances was rejected.

It was hypothesized that there would be no signifi-
cant differences between the three-point and the four-point
stance in moving in any one direction. In movement to the
right, this hypothesis was supported. However, the three-
point stance was significantly superior to the four—point
stance in movements forward and to the left. In these direc-
tions, the hypothesis of no differences between the stances
was rejected.

The three-point stance was found to be a significantly
faster starting position than the four-point stance in move-
ment and response times with the inexperienced linemen.

Thus, the hypothesis that the inexperienced linemen would
not be significantly faster from either stance was rejected.

Nevertheless, when analyzing these differences under specific

85

conditions of direction, there were no significant differ-
ences between the three-point and the four-point stance in
forward, left, or right movements with the inexperienced
group. In these cases, the hypothesis was supported.

It was hypothesized that the experienced linemen
would be significantly faster from the three-point as opposed
to the four-point stance. Since the experienced group was
not significantly faster from either stance in any direction,
this hypothesis was rejected for movement and response times.

3. Between-levels of experience differences in

 

reaction time under specific conditions of stance and direc-

 

Eion: The experienced subjects were faster than the
inexperienced subjects under all conditions of stance and
direction. Nevertheless, the hypothesis that experienced
linemen would be significantly faster in reaction time than
inexperienced linemen was supported in only a few comparisons.
The main effect between experienced and inexperienced groups
was significant, as well as the interaction in levels of
experience with movement to the right. However, only moder-
ate differences were evident in other interactions between
levels of experience in stance and direction. In these
cases, the hypothesis of significant differences between
groups was rejected.

4. Between-levels of experience differences in
movement and response times under specific conditions of

stance and direction: The experienced linemen were faster

 

86

than the inexperienced linemen under all conditions of
stance and direction in both movement and response times.
Many comparisons were significant. The experienced linemen
were significantly faster than the inexperienced linemen
with movement from both the three-point and the four-point
stances in movement and response times. Other significant
differences existed in response time only. The experienced
group was significantly faster than the inexperienced group
under all conditions of stance and direction in response
time with one exception (the four-point stance in a left
direction). In all of these comparisons between levels of
experience the hypothesis of significant differences was
supported.

The hypothesis of significant differences between
levels of experience was rejected with some comparisons. In
movement time, under conditions of direction, and stance and
direction, there were no significant differences between the
experienced linemen and the inexperienced linemen. In
response time, with the four-point stance in left movement,
there was also no significant difference between the two
levels of experience.

5. Between-directions of movement differences in
reaction time under specific conditions of stance and experi-
gngg: The main effect of direction revealed that reaction
time in a forward movement was significantly faster than in

movement to the left or right. This result supported the

 

87

writer's hypothesis. However, interactions in direction
under specific conditions of stance and experience indicated
that no significant differences existed in reaction time
between forward and left or right movements. In these com-
parisons, the hypothesis that reaction time would be sig-
nificantly faster in a forward direction than in a left or
right direction was rejected.

There were no significant differences between left
and right movements in reaction time under any condition of
stance and experience. The hypothesis that there would be
significant differences in favor of movement to the right
from the three-point stance was rejected; whereas the hypo-
thesis was accepted that there would be no significant
differences between right and left movements from a four-
point stance.

6. Between-directions of movement differences in

 

movement and response times under specific conditions of

 

stance and experience: The main effect of direction indi-

 

cated that in both movement and response times, movement to
the right was significantly faster than movement to the left.
This result supported the main hypothesis. Movement to the
right as compared to movement to the left was significantly
faster from the four-point stance in movement time. The
hypothesis that there would be no significant differences
between left and right movements from the four-point stance

was rejected in this comparison. However, there were no

88

significant differences between right and left movement from
the four-point stance in response time and thus the hypothesis
was accepted in this comparison.

The experienced group was significantly faster in
movement to the right as opposed to movement to the left in
response time, while the inexperienced group was not signif—
icantly different in either direction. The hypothesis that
both groups of experience would be significantly faster when
moving to the right than to the left was therefore supported
with the experienced group, but rejected with the inexperienced
group in response time. On the other hand, there were no
significant differences with both groups of experience in move—
ment time between right and left movements. Thus, the hypo-
thesis that movement to the right would be significantly
faster than movement to the left was rejected.

There were no significant differences between movement
to the right and movement to the left in other conditions of
stance and experience. With the three-point stance in move-
ment and response times, there were no significant differences
between right and left movement. In all comparisons in move-
ment and response times between right and left movement that
involved conditions of stance and experience, no significant
differences were noted. Therefore, for all cases of no sig-
nificant differences between right and left movements, the
hypothesis was rejected in the comparisons with the three-
point stance, but accepted in the comparisons with the four-

point stance.

 

89

Conclusions

 

Several conclusions were made based on the results of

this investigation. They include the following:

1.

There were no significant differences between the
three-point and the four-point stance in reaction
time with either the experienced or the inexperienced
group in either the forward, left, or right direction.

The inexperienced linemen were significantly faster
from the three-point as opposed to the four—point
stance with the main effect of direction in movement
and response times; whereas the experienced linemen
were not significantly different from either stance
with the main effect of direction in movement and
response times. ‘

The three-point as opposed to the four-point stance
was a significantly faster starting position in move-
ment time for movements to the right and forward;
whereas there were no significant differences in re-
sponse time between the stances for right and forward
movement.

There were no significant differences between the
three-point and the four-point stance with experienced
and inexperienced groups with movement to the left in
either movement or response time.

The main effect between levels of experience in reac-
tion, movement, and response times indicated that the
experienced linemen were significantly faster than
the inexperienced linemen.

The experienced group was significantly faster than
the inexperienced group in response time under all
conditions of stance and direction with one exception
(the four—point stance in a left direction).

There were no significant differences between the
experienced group and the inexperienced group in
reaction and movement time in any interaction between
the levels of experience when factors of stance and
direction were included in the condition of the
comparison.

The main effect between directions of movement in
reaction time revealed that forward movement was
significantly faster than left or right movement.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

90

There were no significant differences between forward
and left or right movement in reaction time in any
interaction between the directions of movement when
factors of stance and/or experience were included in
the condition of the comparison.

The main effect between right and left movements in
movement and response times indicated that movement
to the right was significantly faster than movement
to the left; whereas in reaction time, there was no
significant difference between movement to the right
or left.

Movement to the right was significantly faster than
movement to the left from a four-point stance in
movement time; whereas there was no significant
difference between the directions of left and right
in reaction and response times from the four-point
stance.

There were no significant differences between right
and left movement from the three-point stance in
reaction, movement, or response time.

There were no significant differences between right
and left movement with the inexperienced group in
both movement and response times with the main effect
of stance; whereas the experienced group was signif-
icantly faster in moving to the right than left in
response time, but not significantly different in
either direction in movement time.

There were no significant differences between right
and left movements in reaction, movement, or response
time in any interaction between the directions of
movement when factors of stance and experience were
included in the condition of the comparison.

Recommendations

 

It is recommended that:

This study be continued with the analysis of differ-
ent types of three-point and four-point stances;
while the stances used in this study were selected’
for their common use, there are many variations of
the three-point and four-point stance that involve
different weight distributions and different placings
of the hands and feet.

91

This study be continued with the analysis of offen-
sive linemen differentiated on the basis of size.

It is quite possible that smaller linemen would differ
from large linemen in their preference and effective-
ness in type of stance.

This study be continued by comparing offensive line-
men with experience in both the three-point and the
four-point stance in order to detect if equal amounts
of exposure to both stances would influence their
ability to move from them.

This study be continued with the analysis of differ-
ences between the three-point and the four-point
stance in relation to the pattern of the center of
gravity as the linemen move from either stance to

a blocking target.

 

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Atwell, W. O. and Eibel, E. R. "Reaction time of male high
school students in 14-17 year age groups." Research
Quarterly 19:22-29, 1948.

 

Bauer, H. "Effect of high-top and low-cut football shoes on
speed and agility." Athletic Journal 50:74-5+,
January 1970.

 

Burpee, R. H. and Stroll, W. "Measuring reaction time of
athletes," Research Quarterly 7:110-118, March 1936.

 

Chernikoff, R. and Taylor, F. V. "Reaction time to kines-
theitc stimulation resulting from sudden arm displace-
ment," Journal of Experimental Psychology 43:1-8, 1952.

 

Colgate, T.Pu "Reaction and response times of individuals
reacting to auditory, visual, and tactile stimuli,"
Research Quarterly 39:783-84, October 1968.

 

Eibel, E. R.; Wilson, D.; and French, C. "Measuring speed
and force of charge of football players," Research
Quarterly 23:295-300, October 1952.

 

Fitch, Robert E. "A study of lineman stances and body
alignments and their relation to starting speed in
football," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana
University, 1956.

Fuoss, Donald E. Championship Football Drills for Teaching
Offensive and Defensive Fundamentals and Techniques.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

 

 

Grose, J. E. "Relationship of the pattern of movements,
including rhythm and terminal success," Research
Quarterly 40:55-61, March 1969.

 

Henrici, Ronald Clarence. "A cinematographical analysis of
the center snap in the punt formation," unpublished
master's thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1967.

Henry, F. M. "Independence of reaction and movement times
and equivalence of sensory motivators of faster re-
sponses," Research Quarterly 23:43-53, 1952.

 

92

93

Henry, F. M. "Influence of motor and sensory sets on reaction
latency and speed of discrete movements," Research
Quarterly 31:459-68, October 1960.

 

Jones, Gomer. Offensive and Defensive Line Play. Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1961.

 

Jordan, T. C. "Characteristics of visual and proprioceptive
response times in the learning of a motor skill,"
Quarterly Journal of ExPerimental Psychology 24:536-43,
November 1972.

Kadatz, Dennis M. "The relationship of weight distribution
and charging time for football linemen," master of
arts thesis, University of Alberta, 1965.

Keller, Louis F. "The relation of quickness of bodily move-
ment to success in athletics," Research Quarterly
13:146-155, 1942.

Kohfeld, D. L. "Effects of the intensity of auditory and
visual ready signals on simple reaction time," Journal
of Experimental Psychology 82:88-95, October 1969.

 

. "Simple reaction time as a function of stimulus
intensity in decibels of light and sound," Journal of
Experimental Psychology 88:251-7, May 1971.

 

Krahenbuhl, G. S. "Speed of movement with varying footwear
conditions on synthetic turf and natural grass; tennis
or soccer style shoes, football cleats," Research
Quarterly 45:28-33, 1974.

 

Kuttan, A. "A second—order model for movement time," Percep-
tual Motor Skills 28:879-82, June 1969.

 

Lotter, W. S. "Interrelationships among reaction times and
speeds of movement in different limbs," Research
Quarterly 1:47-55, May 1960.

 

Manolis, C. G. "Relation of charging time to blocking per-
formance in football," Research Quarterly 26:170-8,
1955.

Miles, W. R. "Studies in physical education II: Individual
and group reaction time in football charging," APEA
Research Quarterly 2:5-13, 1931.

 

. "Studies in physical exertion III: Effect of
signal variation in football charging," APEA Research
Quarterly 2:14-31, 1931.

 

 

94

Norrie, M. L. "Effect of practice on true score and intra-
individual variability for reaction and movement times
for simple and complex movements," Research Quarterly
38:457-67, October 1967.

 

. "Effects of movement complexity on choice reaction
and movement times," Research Quarterly 45:154-61, May
1974.

 

Owens, Jack Allen. "Effect of variations in hand and foot
spacing on movement time and on force of charge,"
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, 1956.

Patrick, J. "Teach them to fire-out faster," Athletic Journal
40:40+, 1959.

 

Reading, Lynn J. "The effect of fatigue, as induced by the
Harvard Step Test, on the speed of the offensive
charge in football," master of science thesis, Washing-
ton State University, 1961.

Remington, R. J. "Analysis of sequential effects in choice
reaction times," Journal of Experimental Psychology
82:250—7, November 1969.

 

Robinson, Franklin H. "A Comparison of starting times from
three different backfield stances,“ unpublished master's
thesis, Springfield College, 1949.

Rosenfield,Richard J. "Measuring reaction time and force
exerted by football players," unpublished master's
thesis, The University of Kansas, 1951.

Rowen, V. "Selecting your personnel on the basis of quick-
ness," Athletic Journal 46:14, 1966.

 

 

Schmidt, R. A. "Consistency of response components as a
function of selected motor variables," Research Quar-
terly 40: 561- 6, October 1969.

 

Scott, M. Gladys. Research Methods. "Instrumentation:
Software," Washington, D.C., 1973, pp. 89-112.

 

Simon, J. R. "Effect of ear stimulated on reaction time and
movement time," Journal of Experimental Psychology
78:344-6, October 1968.

Slater-Hammel, A. T. "Comparisons of reaction-time measures
to a visual stimulus and arm movement," Research
Quarterly 26:470-79, 1955.

 

95

Slater-Hammel, A. T. "Reliability, accuracy, and refractor-
iness of a transit reaction," Research Quarterly

 

Smith, L. E. "Reaction time and movement time in four large
muscle movements," Research Quarterly 32:88-92, March
1961.

 

Snodgrass, J. G. "Foreperiod effects in simple reaction
time: anticipation or expectancy?" Journal of Exper~
imental Psychology 79:1-19, March 1969.

 

Thompson, C. W. and others. "Football starting signals and
movement times of high school and college football
players," Research Quarterly 29:222-30, 1958.

 

Utter, William Dean. "Effect of selected preparatory and
response signal durations on reaction time in a simple
reaction time task," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1974.

Wilson, D. J. "Quickness of reaction and movement related
to rhythmicity or nonrhythmicity of signal presenta-
tion," Research Quarterly 30:101-09, 1959.

Wilson, Judith. "A cinematographical analysis of selected
sprint starts in track for women," unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1972.

 

MICH AN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

IIIIII III IIIIIIIIII

3 1293 3062 0508