{"id":1821,"date":"2014-04-24T10:14:34","date_gmt":"2014-04-24T15:14:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=1821"},"modified":"2020-06-02T11:20:49","modified_gmt":"2020-06-02T16:20:49","slug":"differences-of-body-dimensions-in-female-volleyball-players-cadets-in-relation-to-volleyball-playing-position-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/differences-of-body-dimensions-in-female-volleyball-players-cadets-in-relation-to-volleyball-playing-position-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Differences of body dimensions in female volleyball players (cadets) in relation to volleyball playing position"},"content":{"rendered":"

Submitted by Aleksandra Vujmilovi\u0107 and Tamara Karali\u0107<\/p>\n

ABSTRACT<\/b>
\nThis research presents a test of the hypothesis that there are differences in morphological characteristics, which affect effective realization of the elements of the game, which are influenced by many factors from the area of anthropological status of the volleyball players. The study examines the relations of body-dimensions of cadet female volleyball players and provides the answers to a question of how different are they in that segment, depending on which position in the team they play. The research was conducted on a sample of 55 female volleyball players. The sample was grouped as follows: opposites, middle blockers, outside hitters, setters and liberos. To determine the physical size differences between groups, the authors used the univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), while for the precise determination of the sources of variability between groups the authors used a Post Hoc analysis, Tukey HSD test as a method of multiple comparisons. A model of physical dimensions was used, that contains the five (5) variables: body height (ATV), range of hands (RAR), body weight (ATT), maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM) and maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM). With this model the differences have been found in body height (ATV) p=0.001<\/b>, range of hands (RAR) p=0.003<\/b>, maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM) p=0.000<\/b>, and maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM) p=0.000<\/b>. Based on the results of a post hoc analysis, statistically significant differences have appeared between the group Liberos and other groups of specialists. In scientific research practice there is a lack of research of this kind. In this sense, this research is conceived as a small contribution to the advancement of the profession especially in the domain of training technologies and optimal functioning of female volleyball players in training process, and manner of its planning and programming.
\n<\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/b>
\nVolleyball is a popular recreational or competitive sport enjoyed by many people of all ages and skill levels. However, for the future growth and success of volleyball, it is of primary importance that a large number of young people are attracted to it. The interest in volleyball should be encouraged for several reasons. One of them is the nature of volleyball movements, which bring together a great number of children and young people. Previous researches (Ivani\u0107, 1988; Skender, 2004; Tabakovi\u0107, Skender & Turkovi\u0107, 2006; Hod\u017ei\u0107 & Meki\u0107, 2008; \u0106ele\u0161, 2009; Bajri\u0107, O., \u0160migalovi\u0107, Ba\u0161inac & Bajri\u0107, S., 2012; \u0160migalovi\u0107, Bajri\u0107, O. & Loli\u0107 2012; Ne\u0161i\u0107, Ili\u0107, Majstorovi\u0107, Grbi\u0107 & Osmanka\u010d, 2013) have shown that this sport can solve problems of physical development, of certain forms of behavior, and problems of spiritual and moral values. The next step is selection itself as optimal way of selecting health, constitutional and other characteristics of the young people adapted to the needs of volleyball. Formation of one volleyball player is a long and complex process that implies quantitative and qualitative learning. One of the processes of becoming a volleyball player involves volleyball camps, where a review and training are done of all that a player has learned and mastered by then. In the camp the young volleyball players about finesses of a sport they have up to that point practiced through individual work with coaches (volleyball specialization), they also practice specific volleyball skills and get directions to improve the performance of the general elements of volleyball. Previous practice (\u0110urkovi\u0107, 2009; Karali\u0107, 2010; Karali\u0107, Mareli\u0107 & Vujmilovi\u0107, 2012; Vujmilovi\u0107, 2013) has shown that there are some differences in morphological characteristics and that effective realization of the elements of the game are directly and indirectly affected by many factors from the area of anthropological status of the volleyball players. The subject of this research is the differences in body dimensions of female volleyball players-cadets in relation to the playing position. The task of this research is to explore and determine how much are female volleyball players different in body dimensions, depending on their position in the team, and whether these potential differences are statistically significant. In practice (Viera & Ferguson, 1996; Jovi\u010devi\u0107, 2008; Jankovi\u0107, \u0110urkovi\u0107 & Re\u0161etar, 2009; D\u00e1vila-Romero, Garc\u00eda-Hermoso, & Saavedra, 2012) it is known that the category [1] of volleyball cadets in particular stands out. The sample is interesting because it is about the age and the period in which the universal model of playing passes to specialized model. It then strives to find appropriate functions in relation to the qualities, characteristics and skills especially in female volleyball players, which are undoubtedly closely associated with successful realization of technical and tactical elements of the game of volleyball. In this regard statistically significant differences are expected in body dimensions of female volleyball players compared to the play’s position. Unfortunately, the body of research addressing issues of anthropological status of male and female volleyball players is not deep. Any scientific research always strives to every ”why” getting its ”because”, and starting this research we are determined to find our ”because”.<\/p>\n

METHODS<\/b>
\nThe sample (N= 55) was grouped in the following way: opposites, middle blockers, side hitters, setters and liberos. To determine the body size difference between the groups univariate analysis of variance was used (ANOVA), while for the precise determination of the sources of variability between groups, a Post hoc analysis was used, respectively, and Tukey HSD test as a method for multiple comparisons. A model of body dimension was used which has five (5) variables: body height (ATV), range of hands (RAR), body weight (ATT), the maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM) and maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM). Each test was interpreted in detail, and the subjects were familiar with the method, technique and conditions under which each is performed. It was pointed out what needs to be done, which movements are important, and those that are unnecessary. Method of demonstration was used to help participants gain a general, visual idea of the actions that they need to do. The tests were done by qualified persons and six licensed volleyball coaches at different levels. The selected tests were used in research by the following authors: Mareli\u0107<\/em> & Jankovi\u0107<\/em>, 1997<\/em>; Stojanovi\u0107 & Kosti\u0107, 2002; Jankovi\u0107, V., Jankovi\u0107, G. & \u0110urkovi\u0107, 2003; Jurko, Grgantov & \u010cular, 2008; Mareli\u0107, \u0110urkovi\u0107 & Re\u0161etar, 2008; Re\u0161etar, 2011. A research technique of observing with registration was used for variable of morphological dimension of female volleyball players was. To process the obtained data methods of descriptive statistics and discriminate analysis were used.<\/p>\n

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<\/b>
\nWith the application of the above statistical methods for data processing, the obtained results should provide information about the acceptance or rejection of the assumptions of this study. In this part of the study the basic statistical parameters of five dimensions are interpreted to assess morphological status of cadet female volleyball players. From this a longitudinal dimension of the skeleton and the volume and weight of the body were assessed. Tests that have been applied are defined as follows: a test to assess body height (ATV), a test to assess body weight (ATT), a test to assess range of hands (RAR), the maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM) and maximum reach with 2 hands from a place (MDOH2RM).<\/b> In Table 1 the arithmetic mean value (Mean) and standard deviation (St. Dev.) were interpreted, then the value of symmetry (Skew.) and flatness (Kurt.) dissemination of results, and the coefficient of variation (Var.) to verify homogeneity of results of cadet female volleyball players (n=55) in the morphological space. Accordingly, the arithmetic mean (Mean) for variable body height (ATV) was 176.0 \u00b1 4.90, for a variable range of hands (RAR) it was 176.3 \u00b1 5.88, while for a variable of body weight (ATT) the mean value was 61.2 \u00b1 7.76. The arithmetic mean (Mean) for a variable of maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM) was 227.8 \u00b1 6.59, and for a variable of maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM) it was 225.7 \u00b1 6.68. Table 1. The basic statistical parameters body size of cadet female volleyball players<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/b><\/p>\n

Variable<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

N<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

Mean<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

Min.<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

Max.<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

Var.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Std.<\/b><\/p>\n

Dev.<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

St.<\/b><\/p>\n

Error<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

Skew.<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n

Kurt.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Body height (ATV)<\/b><\/td>\n\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

176.0<\/td>\n165.0<\/td>\n187.0<\/td>\n.027<\/td>\n4.90<\/td>\n0.69<\/td>\n0.28<\/td>\n-0.02<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Range of hand (RAR)<\/b><\/td>\n\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

176.3<\/td>\n165.0<\/td>\n192.0<\/td>\n.033<\/td>\n5.88<\/td>\n0.83<\/td>\n0.18<\/td>\n0.13<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Body weight (ATT)<\/b><\/td>\n\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

61.2<\/td>\n49.0<\/td>\n86.0<\/td>\n.127<\/td>\n7.76<\/td>\n1.10<\/td>\n1.11<\/b><\/b><\/td>\n1.17<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM)<\/b><\/td>\n\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

227.8<\/td>\n217.0<\/td>\n246.0<\/td>\n.028<\/td>\n6.59<\/td>\n0.93<\/td>\n0.71<\/td>\n0.38<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM)<\/b><\/td>\n\n

55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

225.7<\/td>\n214.0<\/td>\n243.0<\/td>\n.029<\/td>\n6.68<\/td>\n0.94<\/td>\n0.58<\/td>\n0.24<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The sample of cadet female volleyball players (N = 55) was selected according to age groups, and is limited to the mean, so that there is no distinctly below average, or above-average values. This finding is confirmed by the coefficient of variation (Var.) that ranged from 0 – 0.2, and it can be claimed that this is a very homogeneous results selected for this study. The values of skewness[2] (Skew.) and kurtosis[3] (Kurt.) distribution of the results for the entire sample female volleyball players (N = 55) were mostly within the normal distribution and ranges from -1 to +1. Figure 1. Graphical representation of the results for the variable distribution of body weight (ATT)<\/i> \"Capture\"<\/a> However the variable body weight (ATT) deviates from the claims of normality of distribution coefficients, as skewness is beyond the scope of normal distribution and shows a small positive asymmetry (1.11). So the curve (Graph 1.) is shifted to lower values and the frequency of better results was higher in female volleyball players with lower (normal) values of body weight. This phenomenon can be explained as follows: the majority of selected sample consists of girl cadet volleyball players with normal body weight, and there are no major discrepancies, but given that small positive asymmetry was found, it is assumed that there were players in the sample with a slightly higher or a slightly lower body weight than the average. This is a very small variation which does not affect further statistical analysis. According to the degree of flatness, namely kurtosis values that can range from 0 to \u00b1 2.75, it is estimated that there is essential homogeneity of results in the area of selected body dimensions, so it can further data processing can be done in discriminative, as well as in comparative analysis.<\/p>\n

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BODY SIZE OF CADETS FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS IN RELATION TO PLAYING POSITION
\n<\/b>With statistic methods that analyzes interdependence all the variables in the model are assessed in the same way, with the aim is to determine a behavior pattern of variables, so to determine which variables are similar to each other, and which are not. In this sub-chapter body dimensions are assessed, and these have five (5) variables: body height (ATV), range of hands (RAR), body weight (ATT), maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM) and maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM). Also, exploring the physical dimensions of the cadet female volleyball players, values of body mass index (BMI) were calculated for the observed sample and it was determined if any differences exist in this domain. The differences in the univariate level between the groups in terms of the playing position <\/b>The results were obtained based on the value of degrees of freedom df1<\/sub>= 4<\/b> and df2<\/sub>= 50<\/b> and the limit value of F-test. Those where (limit) value of F-test is greater or equal to 2.56<\/b>[4] at the significance level of p= 0.05<\/b> were confirmed as s significant.<\/b> Table 2. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) morphological space: Body height (ATV) <\/b><\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source of variability<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

SS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Between groups<\/td>\n\n

553.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

138.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.587<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.001<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Within the groups<\/td>\n\n

1239.06<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24.78<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n\n

1792.84<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

df1= 4; df2=50; f=2.56; p= 0.05<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n

Legend: SS \u2013 Sum of Squares; MS \u2013 Means Squares; df \u2013 Degree of Freedom; F \u2013 F test;<\/i><\/p>\n

P-value \u2013 <\/i>the significance level<\/i>;<\/i><\/p>\n

Table 2, in which body height variable (ATV) was analyzed shows that the value of F-test is 5.587<\/b>, which is higher than the calculated limit. On this basis, it can be concluded that the differences between the groups for body height variable (ATV) exist and are statistically significant. This confirms the value of the P-value that equals to 0.001<\/b>. Table 3. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) morphological space:<\/i> Range of hands (RAR)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source of variability<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

SS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Between groups<\/td>\n\n

586.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

146.64<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.503<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.003<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Within the groups<\/td>\n\n

1628.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

32.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n\n

2214.98<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3, in which the range of hands variable (RAR) was analyzed shows that the value of F-test is 4.503<\/b>, and it is higher than the calculated limit. On this basis, it can be concluded that the differences between the groups for variable range of hands (RAR) exist and are statistically significant. This confirms the value of the P-value that equals to 0.003<\/b>. Table 4. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) morphological space: Body weight (ATT)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source of variability<\/i><\/b><\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

SS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

P-value<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Between groups<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

432.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

108.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.942<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.118<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Within the groups<\/td>\n\n

2783.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

55.67<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n\n

3215.75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 4, in which body weight variable (ATT) was analyzed shows that the value of F-test is 1.942<\/b>, which is lower than the calculated limit. On this basis, it can be concluded that the differences between the groups for variable body weight (ATT) do not exist and are not statistically significant. This confirms the value of the P-value that equals to 0.118.<\/b> Table 5. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) morphological space: Maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source of variability<\/i><\/b><\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

SS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

P-value<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Between groups<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

1433.77<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

358.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.743<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

0.000<\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Within the groups<\/td>\n\n

2314.66<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

46.29<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n\n

3748.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 5, in which maximum reach with one hand from a place variable (MDOH1RM) was analyzed, shows that the value of F-test is 7.743<\/b>, so higher than the calculated limit. On this basis it can be concluded that the differences between the groups in term of maximum reach with one hand from a place variable (MDOH1RM) exist, and that these are statistically significant. This confirms the value of the P-value that equals to 0.000<\/b>. Table 6. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) morphological space: Maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source of variability<\/i><\/b><\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

SS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

df<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MS<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

F<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

P -value<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Between groups<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

1471.81<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

367.95<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.601<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.000<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Within the groups<\/td>\n\n

2420.37<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n\n

3892.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/i><\/i>Table 6, in which maximum reach with two hands from a place variable (MDOH2RM) was analyzed, shows that the value of F-test is 7.601<\/b>, and therefore that it is higher than the calculated limit. On this basis it can be concluded that the differences between the groups for maximum reach with 2 hands from a place variable (MDOH2RM) exist and that they are statistically significant. This confirms the value of the P-value that equals to 0.000.<\/b><\/i> Table 7. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), body mass index for cadets female volleyball players: BMI<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Source of variability<\/i><\/b><\/td>\nSS<\/i><\/b><\/td>\ndf<\/i><\/b><\/td>\nMS<\/i><\/b><\/td>\nF<\/i><\/b><\/td>\nP-value<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Between groups<\/i><\/b><\/td>\n\n

14.61648<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3.654<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.773<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.548<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Within the groups<\/td>\n\n

236.4879<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.730<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total<\/td>\n\n

251.1044<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

54<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

<\/i> Table 7, in which body mass index variable (BMI) was analyzed, shows that the value of F-test is 0.773<\/b> and that it is lower than the calculated limit. On this basis it can be concluded that the differences between the groups in terms of body mass index variable (BMI) do not exist and that these are not statistically significant. This confirms the value of the P-value that equals to 0.548.<\/b> In the analysis of body size difference between the groups it is necessary, first of all, to talk about specific positions on the court. It has already been mentioned that modern volleyball requires extremely tall players in all positions. This is particularly desirable in the game at the net, and differences found in relation to body height of cadet female volleyball players can partly be explained by taking into account the height of the net as a limiting factor, crucial for success in volleyball. The net height is set, according to the rules of the game, at 224 cm for women. In order to better understand the relation of body height requirements and playing positions, this study can be compared with some earlier research, in terms of the parts that look at analysis of body dimensions. Vukovi\u0107, Krneta, \u0110ur\u0111i\u0107 & Simi\u0107 (2007) have found statistically significant differences in body height between female students who practice volleyball and female students who do not practice volleyball. Jurko, Grgantov & \u010cular (2008) have conducted research on a sample of junior volleyball players by the criteria of different situational success among other things they examined the differences in body height. The results illustrated that the female volleyball players with different situational efficiency also significantly differ in body height. Mareli\u0107, \u0110urkovi\u0107 & Re\u0161etar (2008) with research done on 39 volleyball players, members of Croatian senior and youth teams, found statistically significant differences in the body height variables, in favor of seniors. Figure 2. Relation of mean values of body height (ATV) and range of hand (RAR) in groups (cm)<\/i> \"figure<\/a> From the point of modern volleyball very tall females have objectively more prospective for successful engagement in volleyball, which every year becomes more of a ”privilege” of tall male and female players. Today, the average height of male players (Cadet age) is approaching 200cm (Vukovi\u0107 & Milo\u0161evi\u0107, 1996). In this study, the average value of body height for female cadets is below 180cm. Of course, body height is not the only factor of success in volleyball. In addition to that, a number of different factors should be noted, which contribute to this success. In addition to the longitudinal dimension of the skeleton and body height as its biggest representation in the anthropometric characteristics, it is important to also emphasize body weight, girth measurements and body fat (Vukovi\u0107 et al. 2007). The best example to prove this is a comparison of liberos, middle blockers and opposites. Liberos usually do not participate in the game on the net, so body height is not crucial for this player position. Middle blockers are important in defense and then efficiency depends mostly on their anticipation, ability to react quickly and their maximum reach. Because of this, they are most often tallest players in the team. On the other hand, the middle blockers are not primarily involved in the process of serve receiving because liberos replaces them in back of the court. Finally, in order to complete their specific tasks successfully, opposite must have the ability of generating high power at the moment of attack, which often depends (except body height) on the different morphological characteristics – body weight, girth of different body parts, body fat … etc. By analyzing the basic data obtained testing of the sample, (Figure 2) the relation of body height (ATV) and range of hands (RAR) in groups is generally proportional and there are no major discrepancies. However first to be noticed is the intergroup numerical difference, in which Liberos recorded much lower values of body height (ATV) and range of hand (RAR) in relation to all other groups. The reasons probably lie in the fact that the longitudinal dimension of Liberos is lower, and constitution of players at this position adapted to the requirements of the game for the defense, for which body height and range of hands are not essential. Authors Jankovi\u0107, \u0110urkovi\u0107 & Re\u0161etar (2009) agree with this statement and in their discussion of requirements and selection of such a player the authors emphasize motor predispositions such as exceptional agility and coordination, balance, depth perception and width of the space, fast of reaction time, etc. When it comes to maximum reach with one hand (MDOH1RM) and maximum reach with two hands (MDOH2RM) variables, what dominates is the longitudinal dimension of the skeleton, especially the length of the upper and lower extremities, and the assumption is that the first intergroup, and then the statistical difference appeared in the (passive) of the musculoskeletal system. To perform the maximum reach with one or two hands what is needed above all is flexibility, both in general and specific, so flexibility of upper and lower extremities can be one of the possible reasons for the difference found. Previous research (Iashvili, 1982) shows that active flexibility has a very high correlation (r = 0.81) with the level of performance. Based on that, the occurrence of differences in the domain of body size probably influenced flexibility of the shoulder belt and joints, which participate in the performance of these tasks. What is especially significant for the differences found is the so called static-active flexibility such as the ability to obtain and maintain extended position in a particular joint (or joints) using at the same time only agonists and synergists muscles, while antagonistic muscle groups are stretched (Kurz, 1991). Preconditions for static-active flexibility and good working muscles are elasticity of muscle tissue, elasticity of tendons and ligaments, skin elasticity, and the ability of muscles (the active part of the locomotor system) of contraction and relaxation, to contribute to a greater range of motion. RESULTS OF THE POST HOC ANALYSIS – Tukey HSD test<\/b> <\/b>The analysis was performed only for those variables from the physical dimension where statistically significant differences between the studied groups were found. Post hoc analysis of body dimensions cadets female volleyball players <\/b>From an overview in Table 8 it can be concluded that in Body height <\/i>variables (ATV),<\/i> a statistically significant difference was found between the Side Hitters (174.47<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.00<\/b>). There were statistically significant differences between Setters (175.44<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.00<\/b>). There were statistically significant differences between Opposites (176.09<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.00<\/b>). Also, a statistically significant difference was found between Middle Blockers (178.15<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.00<\/b>). No statistically significant differences were observed between the other groups for this variable (r = 0507<\/b>), at the level of p = 0.05.<\/b> Table 8. Post Hoc analysis – Body height (ATV)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Body height (ATV)<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Tukey HSD metod<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
KATEGORY<\/td>\nN<\/td>\nSubset for alpha = 0.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Liberos<\/td>\n\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

166.00<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Side Hitters<\/td>\n\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

174.47<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Setters<\/td>\n\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

175.44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Opposites<\/td>\n\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

176.09<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Middle Blockers<\/td>\n\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

178.15<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Sig.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

1.000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.507<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Based on the data in Table 9 it can be concluded that when looking at Range of hands (RAR) <\/i>variable <\/i> statistically significant difference was found between Setters (174.33<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.20<\/b>). There were statistically significant differences between Side Hitters (175.41<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.20<\/b>). There were statistically significant differences between Opposites (176.45<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.20<\/b>). A statistically significant difference was found between Middle Blockers (178.69<\/b>) and Liberos groups (166.20<\/b>). The differences observed between the other groups were not statistically significance for this variable (r = 0.475<\/b>), at the level of p = 0.05. <\/b>Table 9. Post Hoc analysis – Range of hands (RAR)<\/i><\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Range of hands (RAR)<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Tukey HSD metod<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
KATEGORY<\/td>\nN<\/td>\nSubset for alpha = 0.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Liberos<\/td>\n\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

166.20<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Setters<\/td>\n\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

174.33<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Side Hitters<\/td>\n\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

175.41<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Opposites<\/td>\n\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

176.45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Middle Blockers<\/td>\n\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

178.69<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Sig.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

1.000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.475<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

With an overview of Table 10, it can be concluded that Maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM)<\/i> variable shows statistically significant difference between Side Hitters (225.24<\/b>) and Liberos groups (211.40<\/b>). Then, there were statistically significant differences between Setters (228.00<\/b>) and Liberos groups (211.40<\/b>). There were statistically significant differences between Opposites (228.82<\/b>) and Liberos groups (211.40<\/b>). A statistically significant difference was found between Middle Blockers (230.31<\/b>) and Liberos groups (211.40<\/b>). The differences observed between the other groups were not statistically significance for this variable (r = 0.500<\/b>), at the level of p = 0.05<\/b>. Table 10. Post Hoc analysis <\/i>\u2013 Maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM)<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Tukey HSD metod<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
KATEGORY<\/td>\nN<\/td>\nSubset for alpha = 0.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Liberos<\/td>\n\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

211.40<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Side Hitters<\/td>\n\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

225.24<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Setters<\/td>\n\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

228.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Opposites<\/td>\n\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

228.82<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Middle Blockers<\/td>\n\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

230.31<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Sig.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

1.000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.500<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

With an overview of Table 11, it can be concluded that Maximum reach one of the two hands (MDOH2RM) <\/i>variable <\/i>shows statistically significant difference between Side Hitters (222.88<\/b>) and Liberos groups (209.20<\/b>). Statistically significant differences were also found between the Setters (226.00<\/b>) and Liberos groups (209.20<\/b>). There were statistically significant differences between Opposites (226.55<\/b>) and Liberos groups (209.20<\/b>). A statistically significant difference was found between Middle Blockers (228.38<\/b>) and Liberos groups (209.20<\/b>). The differences observed between the other groups were not statistically significance for this variable (r = 0.440<\/b>), at the level of p= 0.05<\/b>. Table 11. Post Hoc analysis \u2013 Maximum reach with two hand from a place (MDOH2RM)<\/i><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Maximum reach with two hand from a place (MDOH2RM)<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Tukey HSD metod<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
KATEGORY<\/td>\n\n

N<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

Subset for alpha = 0.05<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Liberos<\/td>\n\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

209.20<\/b><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Side Hitters<\/td>\n\n

17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

222.88<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Setters<\/td>\n\n

9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

226.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Opposites<\/td>\n\n

11<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

226.55<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Middle Blockers<\/td>\n\n

13<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n\n

228.38<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Sig.<\/td>\n<\/td>\n\n

1.000<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

0.440<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Considering all the facts outlined above as well as the assumptions in the discussion, based on the results of a post hoc analysis, it can be concluded that the statistically significant differences appeared mainly between the Liberos group and other groups of specialists. In models looking at body size there were differences in body height (ATV) and range of hand (RAR), the maximum reach with one hand from a place (MDOH1RM), maximum reach with two hands from a place (MDOH2RM). The reasons for the appearance of the difference between Liberos and players of other groups can be found only in the specialization of their playing positions, which came to the fore in the realization of the tests applied in this study. The study which was conceptualized on a similar idea, was conducted by Trajkovi\u0107, Milanovi\u0107, Spori\u0161 & Radisavljevi\u0107 (2011) with the aim to examine the differences in body composition when young elite volleyball players performing jumps. The players were categorized as middle blockers (n=7), rightside hitters (n=5), outside hitters (n=8), servicers (n=6) and liberos (n=2). Middle blockers and rightside hitters are the highest (201.57 \u00b1 4.92 cm, 203.00 \u00b1 4.41 cm) and heaviest (86.14 \u00b1 6.79 kg, 91.60 \u00b1 6.69 kg) in the selection of players. The lowest values of height and body mass were found in liberos. A statistically significant difference was found between the positions for height and body weight, as well as for maximum reach. CONCLUSIONS<\/b> Based on the obtained results, statistically significant differences in four of the five offered tests were shown. Specific, significant differences for body size by cadet female volleyball players were identified. A more refined analysis showed that these differences appeared between the Liberos and the other specialist groups.<\/p>\n

APPLICATIONS IN SPORT<\/b>
\nScientific and theoretical significance of this study lies in the fact that there are not many authors that are still exploring volleyball, or studies conducted on a sample of male or female volleyball players in relation to their role in the team, especially at the cadet age. The research presents an exploration of what previous practice has shown, which is that when it comes to female volleyball players, there are certain differences in body size and specific motor abilities that were treated in this study and that efficiency of realization is directly and indirectly affected by factors from space, not only motorics, but also from the overall area of anthropological status of female volleyball players. In terms of practical application of the results, especially in the planning and programming of training, it is important to point out that this research is a contribution to determining the principles of functioning of an integrated system, which consists of female volleyball players, and volleyball activity areas (female volleyball players, coaches and their inter-relationships). This study also provides to apply the principles by which it is possible to define the characteristics of volleyball activities, as a result of structural, morphological, motoric, functional and other analyzes. Finally, the purpose of this research is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the personal characteristics of female volleyball players individually (skills, qualities and characteristics, which allow achieving high volleyball sport results). Based on the results, volleyball coaches can plan and implement effective training of technical and tactical elements. Given that there was not much research conceptualized in this way, the results will be extremely important for future research in the area of physical dimensions, especially for the study of dimensions such as maximum reach with one hand and maximum reach with two hands by male or female volleyball players. The knowledge about structure and level of physical dimensions in (cadets) female volleyball players would allow teachers of physical education a better realization of the program of volleyball in physical education, in terms of a better use of current physical parameters for improvement of motor skills, and easier application of volleyball in recreation and leisure time.<\/p>\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/strong>
\nNone<\/p>\n

REFERENCES<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Bajri\u0107, O., \u0160migalovi\u0107, M., Ismet Ba\u0161inac, I. & Bajri\u0107, S. (2012). Globalne kvantitativne promjene bazi\u010dnih i situaciono-motori\u010dkih sposobnosti pod uticajem programa odbojke [Global Quantitative Changes of Basic and Situational-Motor Abilities Under the Influence of Programmed Volleyball Practice]. Sports science and health.<\/i> Vol. 2 Issue 1. 22-29.<\/li>\n
  2. Bala, G. (1986). Logi\u010dke osnove za analizu podataka iz istra\u017eivanja u fizi\u010dkoj kulturi.<\/i> Novi Sad: samostalno izdanje autora.<\/li>\n
  3. \u00d0urkovi\u0107, T. (2009). Razlike me\u0111u skupinama odbojka\u0161a u morfolo\u0161kim, motori\u010dkim i funkcionalnim obilje\u017ejima s obzirom na kvalitetu, ekipni status i uloge u igri. [Differences in morphologic, motoric and functional characteristics between the groups of volleyball players of different quality level, team status and playing role.] Doktorska disertacija<\/i>. Zagreb: Kineziolo\u0161ki fakultet.<\/li>\n
  4. Iashvili, A. (1982). Active and Passive Flexibility in Athletes Specialising in Different Sports. Teoriya i Praktika Fizischeskoi Kultury <\/i>7: 51-52.<\/li>\n
  5. Ivani\u0107, S. (1988). Kriterijumi za procenu fizi\u010dkog razvoja i fizi\u010dkih sposobnosti dece i omladine uzrasta od 7 \u2013 19 godina (normativi) [Criteria for evaluation of physical development and physical abilities of children and adolescents aged 7 – 19 years (norms)]. Belgrade, RS: Gradska samoupravna interesna zajednica fizi\u010dke kulture Beograda.<\/li>\n
  6. Jankovi\u0107, V., \u0110urkovi\u0107, T. & Re\u0161etar, T. (2009). Uvod u specijalizaciju igra\u010dkih uloga u odbojci.<\/i> Priru\u010dnik. Zagreb: Autorska naklada.<\/li>\n
  7. Jankovi\u0107, V., Jankovi\u0107, G. & \u0110urkovi\u0107, T. (2003). Specifi\u010dna fizi\u010dka priprema vrhunskih odbojka\u0161a.<\/i> Zbornik radova. Me\u0111unarodni znanstveno stru\u010dni skup. ”Kondicijska priprema sporta\u0161a’<\/i>‘. 442-450.<\/li>\n
  8. Jurko, D., Grgantov, Z. & \u010cular, D. (2008) Razlike u visini tijela, te visini dohvata za sme\u010d i blok kod vrhunskih juniorskih odbojka\u0161ica razli\u010dite situacijske uspje\u0161nosti.<\/i> U: Male\u0161 B. (Ur.). Zbornik radova me\u0111unarodnog znanstvenog kongresa ”Suvremena kineziologija”<\/i> Mostar. 127-131.<\/li>\n
  9. Karali\u0107, T. (2010). Preciznost kao faktor uspje\u0161nosti u tehni\u010dko-takti\u010dkim strukturama odbojke. Doktorska disertacija<\/i>. Isto\u010dno Sarajevo: FFVIS.<\/li>\n
  10. Karali\u0107, T. Mareli\u0107, N. & Vujmilovi\u0107, A. (2012). Struktura izolovanih faktora preciznosti odbojka\u0161a. SportLogia.<\/i> 8(1), 65\u201373.<\/li>\n
  11. Kurz, T. (1991). Stretching scientifically: guide to flexibility training<\/i>. Independent publisher Group.<\/li>\n
  12. Mareli\u0107, N. & Jankovi\u0107, V. (1997). The development of the specific speed without a ball in volleyball players. Kinesiology.<\/i> 29(1), 52-59. 2.<\/li>\n
  13. Mareli\u0107, N., \u0110urkovi\u0107, T. & Re\u0161etar, T. (2008). Razlike u kondicijskim sposobnostima i morfolo\u0161kim karakteristikama odbojka\u0161ica razli\u010ditog statusa u ekipi. Hrvatski \u0160portskomedicinski Vjesnik.<\/i> 23 (1), 30\u201334.<\/li>\n
  14. Ne\u0161i\u0107, G. Ili\u0107, D. Majstorovi\u0107, N., Grbi\u0107, V. & Osmanka\u010d, N. (2013). Uticaj treninga na op\u0161te i specifi\u010dne motori\u010dke sposobnosti odbojka\u0161ica uzrasta 13-14 godina. SportLogia<\/i>. Vol. 9. Issue 2. 119-127.<\/li>\n
  15. Re\u0161etar, T. (2011). Situacijska efikasnost odbojka\u0161ica razli\u010ditih dobnih skupina. Doktorska disertacija<\/i>. Zagreb : Kineziolo\u0161ki fakultet.<\/li>\n
  16. Sattler T., Sekuli\u0107 D., Hadzic V., Uljevi\u0107 O. & Dervisevi\u0107 E. (2012). Vertical jumping tests in volleyball: Reliability, validity, and playing-position specifics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. <\/i>26(6), 1532-1538.<\/li>\n
  17. Stojanovi\u0107, T. & Kosti\u0107, R. (2002). The effects of the plyometric sport training model on the development of the vertical jump of volleyball players. Facta universitatis, Series: Physical Education.<\/i> 1 (9), 11-25.<\/li>\n
  18. \u0160migalovi\u0107, M. Bajri\u0107, O. & Loli\u0107, D.(2012). Uticaj programa odbojke na bazi\u010dne i situaciono-motori\u010dke sposobnosti u\u010denika uzrasta 13 \u2013 14 godina. [Impact of Programme of Volleyball on Basic and Situational-Motor Abilities Among Students Age of 13 to 14]. Sports science and health. <\/i>Vol 2. Issue 1. 35-41.<\/li>\n
  19. Trajkovi\u0107, N., Milanovi\u0107, Z., Spori\u0161, G. & Radisavljevi\u0107, M. (2011). Pozicijske razlike u tjelesnoj kompoziciji i izvo\u0111enju skokova mladih elitnih odbojka\u0161a. Acta Kinesiologica.<\/i> 5 (1): 62-66.<\/li>\n
  20. Vujmilovi\u0107, A. (2013). Relacije tjelesnih dimenzija i specifi\u010dnih motori\u010dkih sposobnosti odbojka\u0161ica kadetkinja u odnosu na igra\u010dku poziciju. Magistraska teza. <\/i>Banja Luka: Fakultet fizi\u010dkog vaspitanja i sporta.<\/li>\n
  21. Vukovi\u0107, M. & Milo\u0161evi\u0107, N. (1996). Morfolo\u0161ko-motori\u010dke odlike odbojka\u0161a finalista Evropskog \u0161ampionata – Atina ’95.<\/i> Zbornik radova, sveska VIII sa me\u0111unarodnog simpozijuma “Tehnologija radnih procesa u fizi\u010dkoj kulturi”<\/i> i “Sportske aktivnosti dece i omladine”<\/i>, 196-199.<\/li>\n
  22. Vukovi\u0107, M., Krneta, \u017d., \u0110ur\u0111i\u0107, B. & Simi\u0107, D. (2007). Uporedna analiza antropometrijskih i mtori\u010dkih varijabli u\u010denica koje treniraju odbojku i u\u010denica koje ne treniraju odbojku<\/i>. U: Bala, G. (ur.) Zbornik radova sa interdiciplinarne nau\u010dne konferencije sa me\u0111unarodnim u\u010de\u0161\u0107em ”Antropolo\u0161ki status i fizi\u010dka aktivnost dece i omladine”.<\/i> 265-271.<\/li>\n
  23. Hod\u017ei\u0107, M. & Meki\u0107, M. (2008): Uticaj transformacionog programa dodatnih sati tjelesnog odgoja na tjelesni motori\u010dki razvoj djece uzrasta 14 \u2013 16 godina. <\/i>Zbornik radova sa IV Me\u0111unarodne konferencije \u201eMenad\u017ement u sportu\u201d. 421-441. Beograd.<\/li>\n
  24. \u0106ele\u0161, N. (2009). Uticaj programiranog vje\u017ebanja na transformaciju morfolo\u0161kih karakteristika, motori\u010dkih sposobnosti i usvojenosti elemenata tehnike odbojke. Doktorska disertacija<\/i>. Tuzla: Fakultet za tjelesni odgoj i sport.<\/li>\n
  25. Skender, N. (2008): Transformacioni procesi antropolo\u0161kih obilje\u017elja<\/i>. Biha\u0107: Univerzitet u Biha\u0107u, Pedago\u0161ki fakultet.<\/li>\n
  26. Tabakovi\u0107, M., Skender, N. i Turkovi\u0107, S. (2006): Kvantitativne razlike motori\u010dkih sposobnosti u\u010denika ni\u017eih razreda osnovne \u0161kole poslije realizacije odre\u0111enih programa. Homosporticus<\/i>. Godina 9. br 2. 44-50. Sarajevo.<\/li>\n
  27. Viera, B. & Ferguson, B. (1996). Volleyball: Steps to success<\/i>. Human Kinetics. (Champaign, IL).<\/li>\n
  28. Jovi\u010devi\u0107, S. (2008). Teorijska priprema u treningu mladih odbojka\u0161ica. Fizi\u010dka kultura<\/i>. Vol. 62. br. 1-2. 142-158.<\/li>\n
  29. D\u00e1vila-Romero, C. Garc\u00eda-Hermoso, A. & Saavedra, J.M. (2012). Discriminatory power of final game actions volleyball in formative stages. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad F\u00edsica y el Deporte<\/i>. Vol. 12 (48) 745-755.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
    \n
    Footnotes:<\/strong><\/div>\n
    [1] According to the existing propositions of contest and volleyball player age definition, there are four standard categories (age groups): pioneers (players up to 12 years), cadets (players who are 14-16 years old), juniors (players who are 16-18 years old) and seniors (players older than 18). Young volleyball players can compete with older players if they are mentally and physically healthy for the competition and with the consent of a specialist in sports medicine (retrieved: Odbojka\u0161ki savez Srbije. Serbian Volleyball Federation<\/i>. SRB, 2014. www.ossrb.org. <\/i>March 19, 2014.).<\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n
    [2] Skewness \u2013 symmetric.<\/div>\n
    [3] Kurtosis \u2013 flattened.<\/div>\n
    [4] In: Bala, G. (1986). Logi\u010dke osnove za analizu podataka iz istra\u017eivanja u fizi\u010dkoj kulturi<\/i>. [The logical basis for the analysis of data from studies in physical education]. Novi Sad: solo edition of author. Serbia.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Submitted by Aleksandra Vujmilovi\u0107 and Tamara Karali\u0107 ABSTRACT This research […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"Differences of body dimensions in female volleyball players...#volleybal #sports #studies","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,295,292,294],"tags":[484,482,483,481],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-tn","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":6236,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/comparison-of-coinciding-anticipation-timing-and-reaction-time-performances-of-adolescent-female-volleyball-players-in-different-playing-positions\/","url_meta":{"origin":1821,"position":0},"title":"Comparison of Coinciding Anticipation Timing and Reaction Time Performances of Adolescent Female Volleyball Players in Different Playing Positions","date":"January 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:Ahmet Rahmi G\u00fcnay * (1), Halil Ibrahim Ceylan (2), Filiz Fatma \u00c7olako\u011folu (3), \u00d6zcan Sayg\u0131n (4) (1, 2, 4) Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey. (3) Gazi University, Faculty of Sports Sciences, Turkey. Corresponding Author:Halil Ibrahim Ceylan, Research AssistantMugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Sports SciencesKotekli\/Mugla, 48000halil.ibrahimceylan60@gmail.com\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Commentary"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Figure-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":2023,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/normative-profiles-for-serve-speed-for-the-training-of-the-serve-and-reception-in-volleyball\/","url_meta":{"origin":1821,"position":1},"title":"Normative profiles for serve speed for the training of the serve and reception in volleyball","date":"July 23, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by\u00a0Jos\u00e9 Manuel Palao\u00b9 and\u00a0David Valad\u00e9s\u00b2 1 Department of Physical Activity and Sport, Faculty of Sport Science at the University of Murcia, Spain. 2 Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Alcal\u00e1 University, Alcal\u00e1 de Henares. Madrid, Spain. ABSTRACT The objectives of the present study were: a)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/07\/1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":8014,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/evaluating-the-impact-of-concentrated-match-scheduling-in-college-volleyball-during-the-covid-19-pandemic\/","url_meta":{"origin":1821,"position":2},"title":"Evaluating the Impact of Concentrated Match Scheduling in College Volleyball during the COVID-19 Pandemic","date":"October 8, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors:\u00a0 Mark Mitchell, Yoav Wachsman, and Monica Fine Corresponding Author:Mark Mitchell, DBAProfessor of MarketingAssociate Dean, Wall College of BusinessNCAA Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR)Coastal Carolina UniversityP. O. Box 261954Conway, SC\u00a0 29528mmitchel@coastal.edu(843) 349-2392 Mark Mitchell, DBA is Professor of Marketing at Coastal Carolina University in Conway, SC. Yoav Wachsman, PhD is Professor\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":136,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/effects-of-creatine-supplementation\/","url_meta":{"origin":1821,"position":3},"title":"Effects of Creatine Supplementation on Body Composition, Strength, and Power of Female Volleyball Players","date":"February 15, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Jon YeanSub Lim, Ed.D., Department of Health and Physical Education, Northern State University Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of creatine supplementation on body composition, muscular strength, and power during 10 weeks of training in female collegiate volleyball players. Thirty-six athletes (19 -\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Exercise Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2994,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-role-of-the-libero-in-volleyball-as-a-paradoxical-influence-on-the-game-logical-debate-and-the-proposal-for-a-rule-change\/","url_meta":{"origin":1821,"position":4},"title":"The Role of the Libero in Volleyball as a Paradoxical Influence on the Game: Logical Debate and the Proposal for a Rule Change","date":"October 20, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by\u00a0Serge \u00c9LOI (1), Vincent LANGLOIS (1), Kendall JARRETT* (2) (1) Universit\u00e9 Paris-Est Cr\u00e9teil (France) (2) Deakin University (Australia) & University of Canterbury (NZ) *Corresponding author - Kendall JARRETT, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong Victoria ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to bring into focus philosophical and logical\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Table1.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":5121,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/effects-of-sitting-versus-standing-after-an-active-warm-up-on-vertical-jump-performance\/","url_meta":{"origin":1821,"position":5},"title":"Effects of Sitting versus Standing after an Active Warm-Up on Vertical Jump Performance","date":"June 8, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Corresponding and First Author: H. Scott Strohmeyer, Ph.D. Morrow 137 Department of Nutrition and Kinesiology University of Central Missouri Warrensburg, MO 64093 660-543-8191 strohmeyer@ucmo.edu H. Scott Strohmeyer is a Professor in the Department of Nutrition and Kinesiology at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg, MO. Second Author: Jean Eckrich,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Health & Fitness"","img":{"alt_text":"Figure 1 - Flow Chart","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/06\/Figure-1-Flow-Chart.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1821"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7226,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1821\/revisions\/7226"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}