Publication:
女子手球賽攻擊活動因素之分析研究

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2017-02-22T15:21:28Z

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

體育研究所

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Journal Issue

Abstract

本研究之目的在於了解我國女子手球在各項攻擊活動因素之差異及其與比賽結果之間的相關程度,透過現場實地錄影94年全國運動會女子手球賽之十七場比賽,經由紀錄分析各項攻擊活動之次數,以描述性統計分析各項攻擊活動之百分比,並以Pearson積差相關探討各項攻擊活動因素與比賽結果之間的相關程度,以多元逐步迴歸建立女子手球賽各項攻擊活動與比賽結果之迴歸方程式,研究結果發現:

一、本次比賽總攻擊2074次,總射門1421次,射門率68.51%,失誤653次,失誤率31.49%,總得分733分,射門成功率51.58%。

二、進攻型態:攻擊次數分別為慢攻射門1100次(77.41%),快攻射門321次(22.59%);射門成功率方面,快攻成功率為76.64%,慢攻成功率為44.27%。

三、射門位置:攻擊次數依序為:外線射門495次(44.08%)、底線射門308次(27.43%)、右翼射門、左翼射門各112次(9.97%)、七公尺射門96次(8.55%);射門成功率以七公尺射門67.71%為最高,外線射門29.49%最低。

四、射門方式:攻擊次數依序為:跳躍射門649次(63.19%)、飛躍射門209次(20.35%)、跨(墊)步射門81次(7.89%)、倒身射門73次(7.11%)、高吊射門15次(1.46%);射門成功率以高吊射門73.33%為最高,跨(墊)步射門22.22%最低。

五、射門失敗原因依序為:被守門員封擋435次(63.23%)、射出球門外110次(15.99%)、射中球門柱107次(15.55%)、被普通球員封擋36次(5.23%)。

六、進攻失誤:傳接球失誤267次(40.89%)最高,被抄截球154次(23.58%)次之。

七、選定二十二項攻擊活動與得失分之相關,以Pearson積差相關分析結果發現:快攻得分、外線射門得分、左翼射門得分、跳躍射門得分、飛躍射門得分、被守門員封擋、被普通球員封擋、傳接球失誤、被抄截球、延誤比賽均與比賽結果達顯著相關水準(p<.05),其中前五項為正相關,後五項為負相關。

八、在二十二種攻擊活動中,快攻射門得分、跳躍射門得分、倒身射門得分、被普通球員封擋、傳接球失誤、被抄截球及延誤比賽等七種因素變項,能明顯有效的預測與比賽結果得失分差達95.3%。其中快攻得分一項因素具有71.1%的解釋變異量,掌握快攻得分機會即可掌握勝利。


The aim of this study is to reveal the relationship between offence and outcome in handball games. The samples were seventeen female handball games during Taiwan’s National Game in 2005. Each of the games was filmed and all the offence activities were coded into different categories. Percentage of each category of offence was calculated, with Pearson correlation to examine the relationship between offence and winning. Multiple regression analysis was also adopted to explore the best predictor of winning or losing a game among all the offence factors. Results of this study showed that:

First, the sum of total offence in those seventeen games was 2074 times, including 1421 times of goal shooting at a rate of 68.58% and 653 times of missing at a rate of 31.49%. The total shooting scores are 733 out of 1421 at a rate of 51.58%.

Second, organized shooting was 1099 times at a rate of 77.34%, while counter-attack shooting was 322 times at a rate of 22.66%. However, the successful scoring rate for organized shooting was much lower than counter-attack shooting, which was 44.49% and 75.78% respectively.

Third, the locations of shooting include outer goal line (495 times at a rate of 44.08%), baseline (308 times at a rate of 27.43%), rightwing (112 times at a rate of 9.97%), leftwing (112 times at a rate of 9.97%) and 7-meter penalty line (96 times with a rate of 8.55%). Among all, the best successful scoring location is 7-meter penalty line with 67.71% of promising goals; meanwhile, the poorest location is outline (with a successful scoring rate of only 29.49%).

Fourth, shooting styles include jumping (649 times at 63.19%), side-jumping (209 times at 20.35%), stepping (81 times at 7.89%), up-side-down (73 times at 7.11%), and over goalie’s head (15 times at 1.46%). The best scoring style is shooting over goalie’s head with a successful rate of 73.33%, while stepping is the poorest style with a rate of 22.22%.

Fifth, failure to score was due to goalkeeper’s blockage (435 times at 63.23%), out of goal (110 times at 15.99%), on-goal-post (107 times at 15.55%), or blockage by opponent’s teammates (36 times at 5.23%).

Sixth, failure to complete offence was owing to missed passing (267 times at 40.89%) the most, and interception (154 times at 23.58%) as the second.

Seventh, based on the result of Pearson correlation between twenty-two offence factors and the outcome, the study found that scoring by counter-attacks, outline, leftwing, jumping styles reached positive significance (p< .05), so are the rates of goalkeeper’s blockage, opponent teammate blockage, missed passing, interception, and over-time significant negatively in relating to winning (p<. 05).

Finally, seven out of twenty-two offence factors can explain 95.3% variance of discrepancy of scores, including counter attack, jumping style, up-side-down style, opponent teammate blockage, missed passing, interception, and passive play. However, only counter attack explained 71.1% of the variance of winning, meaning to control the chance of counter attack assures 71.1% of victory.

Description

學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立台灣體育學院
系所名稱:體育研究所
學號:19301104
畢業學年度:94年
論文頁數:149頁

Keywords

攻擊活動;射門;得失分差, offence;shooting goal;discrepancy of scores and been scored

Citation