How England Could Have Won a Penalty Shootout
Kinematics of the Lower Limbs in Determining Shot Placement in Penalty Kicks
Joseph Bonavita (22257711), Zayd Mohamed (21966896), Saranya Devalpally (21956641)
BACKGROUND
The penalty kick; a potential game changer in a game of football that incorporates
intense psychological pressure with a demand for perfect execution. The
psychological component can be studied, yet may not be particularly useful to a
goalkeeper in predicting ball placement. The ‘pick a side’ advice for a penalty kick
generally ignores the visual cues provided by the striker. As such, a focus on the
postural cues surrounding the strike of the ball can potentially increase save
probability (Savelsbergh et al., 2002).
In terms of the striker, an adequate compromise between speed and placement
must be reached in order to reduce the visibility of cues in the decision-making
process of the goalkeeper’s diving direction. However, this trade-off emphasises the
use of technique and thus exposes a visual cue that the goalkeeper may utilise to
predict direction and height (Hunter et. Al, 2018) therefore giving them a chance to
save the shot.
This research aims to determine the optimum kinematic conditions for penalty
accuracy, and subsequently the usefulness of this in predicting ball placement, from
the perspective of a goalkeeper, through a camera based biomechanical analysis. To
hypothesise, increasing trunk flexion in combination with increasing supporting-leg
knee flexion will result in higher, top corner shots. Additionally, foot placement is
likely to influence left or right shot location, with right shots exhibiting a lesser
distance from the ball relative to the left. The useability of this information is likely
to be very limited for a goal keeper, due to reaction time limitations upon seeing
the cue.
METHODS
One amateur ‘penalty taker’ participated over one testing session. This session
was conducted at a park with a usable goal frame. A2 rectangular targets were
attached to the four corners of the frame, so the entirety of the targets existed
inside the frame. The ball was placed at the standard 12 yard distance from the
goal. Two Panasonic V-series cameras were utilised, on a 1m high tripod, at the
standard capture rate. One camera was positioned in line with the ball, although
3m away from it to acquire a sagittal view of the non-kicking leg. The second
camera was placed directly front on to the ball and in line with the goal frame, to
acquire frontal footage. This camera’s zoom was adjusted to optimise vision of the
ball/foot dynamic. Post calibration, 10 shots on target were recorded for each
target (totalling 40) and were digitised using Kinovea software.
Figure 1. A sagittal view of the participant which has Figure 2. A frontal view of the participant which has
been digitised using Kinovea been digitised using Kinovea
The School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, Faculty of Science, The University of Western Australia
RESULTS DISCUSSION
From the frontal trials, the angle relative to the vertical differs between left and
Participant is 21 year old, weighs 70kg and is 178 cm tall. Participant engages in right-sided shots. In all trials, the foot was always pointed in the direction that the
recreational football, playing for a local team in a social league and is classed as an participant shoots at. This is consistent with several previous studies [(Li et. Al,
amateur. 2015) and (Lees & Owens, 2011)]. Shooting to the right requires a larger angle of
rotation of the kicking leg. However, there is a specific target and the striker must
In the sagittal view, flexion of non-kicking leg and trunk flexion were measured. In avoid over rotating to keep the shot accurate. Straightening the foot straightens the
all four shots taken, no discernible difference was found in trunk flexion. In pivot point, reducing the angle and over rotation of the body.
addition, no discernible difference was found between the knee flexion of the
supporting leg in the penalties taken in all four corners. Distance between the inside of the supporting foot and centre of ball showed
variation between the four targets. Kinematically examining a shot, shooting the
1 60
ball towards the top of the goal would require a more pronounced side footed
Angle of Flexion (Degrees)
1 40
technique. The supporting leg should not obstruct the kicking leg and thus would be
1 20
1 00
further away from it, relative to bottom placed shots.
80
60 Right sided shot exhibited a larger distance between the ball and foot. This finding
40 does not support the hypothesis. Kinematically, the kicking leg would need to
20
undergo an across the body swing motion. However, the striker must remain stable
0
B otto m Le ft B otto m R i gh t T op L eft T op R i gh t to retain accuracy over the shot. The swing action could potentially shift the body’s
Direction of the shot from the perspective of the goalkeeper centre of mass. Shifting too far from the original axis may cause instability in the
Knee Flexion o f Non- Kicking Leg Trun k Flexion body and result in misbalancing. Keeping the foot wider to the ball reduces the
Figure 3. Flexion of Trunk and Supporting Knee attained from a Sagittal View effect of the shifting centre of mass and keeps stability in the body through the kick.
In the frontal view, angle of the supporting foot relative to the vertical and distance For a extreme left sided shot, the kicking leg keeps a straight path. In order to make
between the inside of the supporting foot and the centre of the ball were this movement as comfortable and natural as possible, a lower moment of inertia in
measured. Left sided shots exhibited a greater angle of the supporting foot than the kicking leg is desired. The equation for moment of inertia states that it is
right-sided shots. There was, however, no discernible distinction between the directly proportional to the perpendicular distance from rotational axis, which is the
angles when examining top and bottom placed shots. distance between ball and foot. Keeping this distance low keeps the moment of
40 inertia low and allows for the kick to be taken in a more natural manner (You, 2011).
The data obtained from the sagittal plane showed little variation between all four
35
35
Angle from vertical (Degrees)
33
30
25
27
targets.
20
15 12 There was no observable pattern in the trunk flexion and knee flexion of the
10
5
supporting leg between the four corners of the goal which does not support the
0 hypothesis and is line with a study that showed little variation of hip flexion
Bottom Right Bottom Left TopRight TopLef t between left and right sided shots (Li et. Al, 2015)
Direction of the shot from the perspective of the
goalkeeper
Figure 4. Angle of supporting foot relative to the vertical CONCLUSION
The first indicator of the direction of the resulting kick is the direction of the
Distance between inside of supporting foot and centre of the ball showed variation supporting leg. The further away the supporting foot is planted from the ball, the
between the four targets of the goal. Overall, top placed shots yielded greater more likely the shot is lofted. The further away the supporting foot is planted from
distances than bottom placed shots. Furthermore, right-sided shots yielded a the ball, the more likely the shot is targeted to the right. Further analysis, such as
greater distance between ball and inside of foot than left sided shots. angle of run up, is required to attain a holistic framework for a goalkeeper in terms
30
26.45
of shot prediction. It is important to note that reaction time is extremely small in a
25
22.84 23.046
penalty shootout situation. A detailed analysis of bodily cues from the striker is not
possible in this time frame. Shot prediction based on bodily cues is likely a skill that
20
17.45
becomes instinctual through a long period of training
Distance (cm)
15
REFERENCES
Hunter, AH, Murphy, SC, Angiletta, MJ, Wilson, RS 2015, ‘Anticipating the Direction of Soccer Penalty Shots Depends on the Speed and Technique of the Kick’,
10
Sports (Basel). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30060599
5 Lees, A, & Owens, L 2011, ‘Early visual cues associated with a directional place kick in soccer in soccer’ Sports Biomechanics. Available from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14763141.2011.569565
0
Li, Y, Alexander, MJL, Glazebrook, CM, Leiter, J 2015, ‘Prediction of Kick Direction from Kinematics during the Soccer Penalty Kick’, International Journal of
B otto m R i gh t B otto m Le ft T op R i gh t T op L eft Kinesiology & Sports Science. Available from:
Direction of the shot from the perspective of the https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318300015_Prediction_of_Kick_Direction_from_Kinematics_during_the_Soccer_Penalty_Kick
goalkeeper
Figure 5. Distance from inside of supporting foot to centre of ball Savelsbergh, G, Williams, A, Van Der Kamp, J, Ward, P 2002, ‘Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers’ Journal of Sports Sciences.
Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11999482
You, R. (2013) The Biomechanics Behind Kicking A Soccer Ball. Available at http://sun4.vaniercollege.qc.ca/~iti/proj/Inertia-Raymond.pdf