Pelvic motions were quantified for the anterior and posterior tilts, left and right pelvic tilts, and right and left pelvic rotations. Trunk motions were computed for the anteroposterior tilt, lateral tilt, and the lateral rotation.
While no significant difference was observed for right pelvic tilt (TRPR to IDM) or the left (IAM to EAM) and right (EAM to IDM) pelvic rotations, the skilled group exhibited a trend of larger mean values.
A variety of kinematic variables were chosen to identify key aspects of performance; maximum absolute ball velocity; shank abduction angle (projected onto the frontal plane), anterioposterior pelvic tilt (projected onto the sagittal plane), thigh abduction angle (projected onto the frontal plane), ankle dorsiflexion (projected onto the sagittal plane), hip flexion (projected onto the sagittal plane), knee flexion of the kicking and supporting leg (projected onto the sagittal plane); transverse pelvic rotation (about the vertical axis) and knee flexion range of motion from initiation of the kick to follow through.
The data in Table 3 represents pelvic rotation and knee flexion range of motion from kick initiation until follow through.
Pelvic rotation was significantly greater from the 45[degrees] and 60[degrees] approach angles compared to the self-selected approach angle (Table 3), which partially supports the second research hypothesis.
The kinematic variables examined included the angle of the femoral sensor (representing flexion-extension of the thigh), lumbosacral sensor (representing pelvic rotation about the frontal plane) and thoracolumbar sensor (representing lumbar spine flexion and extension) at the catch and finish positions and at the maximum angle and position in the stroke.
As with pelvic rotation at the catch a subtle increase in lumbar was observed with time, and at the finish as with posterior pelvic rotation greater extension of the lumbar spine was observed.
The above changes in pelvic rotation were complemented by changes in lumbar rotation (lumbar spine flexion/extension).
Poor lumbo-pelvic rotation was identified as a limitation of technique in novice rowers (McGregor et al., 2004) and poor pelvic rotation may lead to an increased loading at the junction of the lumbar spine and pelvis, with loading of the spine in rowers being an area of concern (Bahr et al., 2004; Morris et al., 2000; Reid and McNair 2000).