| Title |
Judging where a ball will go: the case of curved free kicks in football
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Science of Nature, February 2006
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00114-005-0071-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cathy M. Craig, Eric Berton, Guillaume Rao, Laure Fernandez, Reinoud J. Bootsma |
| Abstract |
This study examined whether adding spin to a ball in the free kick situation in football affects a professional footballer's perception of the ball's future arrival position. Using a virtual reality set-up, participants observed the flight paths of aerodynamically realistic free kicks with (+/-600 rpm) and without sidespin. With the viewpoint being fixed in the centre of the goal, participants had to judge whether the ball would have ended up in the goal or not. Results show that trajectories influenced by the Magnus force caused by sidespin gave rise to a significant shift in the percentage of goal responses. The resulting acceleration that causes the ball to continually change its heading direction as the trajectory unfolds does not seem to be taken into account by the participants when making goal judgments. We conclude that the visual system is not attuned to such accelerated motion, which may explain why goalkeepers appear to misjudge the future arrival point of such curved free kicks. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| France | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 14 | 11% |
| Other | 25 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 30 | 24% |
| Psychology | 26 | 21% |
| Engineering | 15 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2010.
All research outputs
#2,050,031
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from The Science of Nature
#277
of 2,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,253
of 158,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Science of Nature
#3
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 158,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.