Comparison of the Technique of the Football Quarterback Pass Between High School and University Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toffan, A, Alexander, MJL, and Peeler, J. Comparison of the technique of the football quarterback pass between high school and university athletes. J Strength Cond Res 32(9): 2474-2497, 2018-The purpose of the study was to compare the most effective joint movements, segment velocities, and body positions to perform the fastest and most accurate pass of high school and university football quarterbacks. Secondary purposes were to develop a quarterback throwing test to assess skill level, to determine which kinematic variables were different between high school and university athletes, and to determine which variables were significant predictors of quarterback throwing test performance. Ten high school and 10 university athletes were filmed for the study, performing 9 passes at a target and 2 passes for maximum distance. Thirty variables were measured using Dartfish Team Pro 4.5.2 video analysis system, and Microsoft Excel was used for statistical analyses. University athletes scored slightly higher than the high school athletes on the throwing test; however, this result was not statistically significant. Correlation analysis and forward stepwise multiple regression analysis were performed on both the high school players and the university players to determine which variables were significant predictors of throwing test score. Ball velocity was determined to have the strongest predictive effect on throwing test score (r = 0.900) for the high school athletes; however, position of the back foot at release was also determined to be important (r = 0.661) for the university group. Several significant differences in throwing technique between groups were noted during the pass; however, body position at release showed the greatest differences between the 2 groups. High school players could benefit from more complete weight transfer and decreased throw time to increase throwing test score. University athletes could benefit from increased throw time and greater range of motion in external shoulder rotation and trunk rotation to increase their throwing test score. Coaches and practitioners will be able to use the findings of this research to help improve these and related throwing variables in their high school and university quarterbacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".